Pink (Ocean) Shrimp (Pandalus jordaniopc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/project_pages/Rapid Assessments...The...
Transcript of Pink (Ocean) Shrimp (Pandalus jordaniopc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/project_pages/Rapid Assessments...The...
1
Pink (Ocean) Shrimp (Pandalus jordani)
Certification Units Covered Under this Species:
• OtterTrawl,NorthernCalifornia
• OtterTrawl,SouthernCalifornia
Summary
TheWestCoastpinkshrimpstockextendsfromsoutheastAlaskatoCalifornia.ThePacificFisheryManagementCouncil(PFMC)preparedadraftmanagementplanforCalifornia,Oregon,andWashingtonoceanshrimpin1981,althoughitwasneverformallyadopted;in2004,managementauthorityovertheCaliforniafisherywasgrantedtotheFishandGameCommission.Itissuggestedthatpinkshrimppopulationsarelargelyinfluencedbyenvironmentalconditionsandlesssobyfishingpressure.Bycatchhasbeendrasticallyreducedinthefisherysincethemandatoryimplementationofbycatchreducingdevices.Asof2007,theOregonPink(Ocean)ShrimpTrawlFisheryhasbeencertifiedsustainablebytheMarineStewardshipCouncil(MSC).
Strengths:
• Bycatchreducingdevices(BRDs)havedrasticallyreducediscards
• Observercoverage
• PartoftheIndividualFishingQuota(IFQ)programalongwithWestCoastGroundfish
Weaknesses:
• Populationabundanceishighlyvariableseasonally,difficulttoestimatestockbiomass
• NoformalFMPorstockassessments
2
History of the Fishery in California
Biology of the Species
[FromDFG“StatusoftheFisheryReport”2006,unlesscitedotherwise]:
PinkshrimparefoundinwatersfromUnalaskaintheAleutianIslandstoSanDiego,California,atdepthsfrom150to1200feet(45to366meters).OffthecoastofCalifornia,thisspeciesisgenerallyfoundfromdepthsof240to750feet(73to229meters).Spawningmayoccurthroughouttherange,butcommercialquantitiesarelimitedtotheareabetweenQueenCharlotteSound,BritishColumbiaandPointArguello,California.Highconcentrationsofoceanshrimptypicallyoccurinwell-definedareasfromyeartoyear,mostcommonlyreferredtoasbeds.Pinkshrimpbedsaregenerallycharacterizedbygreenmudormuddy-sandbottoms.ItisassumedthattherearenogeneticallydistinctsubpopulationsofoceanshrimpoffthecoastofwesternNorthAmerica.
Pinkshrimpareprotandrichermaphrodites,functioningasmalesduringthefirstyearandahalfoftheirlife,thenpassingthroughatransitionalphasetobecomefemales.MatingtakesplaceduringSeptemberandOctober.ThepeakhatchingperiodoccursduringlateMarchandearlyApril.Pinkshrimpgothroughalarvalperiodwhichlasts2to3months.Thedevelopingjuvenileshrimpoccupysuccessivelydeeperdepthsastheygrow,andoftenbegintoshowupincommercialcatchesbylatesummer.Growthratesvaryaccordingtoregion,sex,age,andyearclass(Dahlstrom1970).Annualrecruitmentsuccesshasbeenlinkedtothestrengthandtimingof“springtransitions”(Hannah1993;1999).Anearly,strongtransitionisthoughttobenecessarytoproducealargeyearclass.
Pinkshrimpundergodielverticalmigrationbyinhabitingdeeperwatersnearthebottomduringthedayandascendinginthewatercolumnduringthenighttofeed.Stomachcontentsofshrimptakenatnightconsistofprimarilysmallerplanktonicanimals,suchaseuphausiidsandcopepods.Pinkshrimphavebeenreportedaspreyformanyfishspecies,includingPacifichake,Merluccius productus;arrowtoothflounder,Atheresthes stomias;sablefish,Anoplopoma fimbria;petralesole,Eopsetta jordani;spinydogfish,Squalus acanthias;andseveralspeciesofrockfishandskates.
Commercial Fishery
TheCaliforniapinkshrimpfisherywasconsistentlymoreproductiveinthelate1980sandearly1990scomparedtoanyotherperiodinthe55yearsofthefishery(Figure1,Table1;DFG2007).Pinkshrimpex-vesselladingsvalueshaverangedfromanaverageofapproximately$4.4millioninthe90’s,asignificantdecreasetoanaverageof$951,000from2000-06,andthemostrecentvalueisrepresentedinTable1(DFG2007;DFWCommercialLandingsData2007-11).
Acombinationoffactorsmayexplainthedeclineinlandingssincethe90’s,suchasaweakmarketattributedtocompetitionfromotherwarmandcoldwatershrimpfisheries,competitionfromaquacultureproductionofwarmwaterspeciesworldwide,thefederalgroundfishvesselbuybackprogramin2003,andenvironmentalconditionsnegativelyaffectingrecruitment(Roberts2005;MSC2007;NMFS2007;DFG2007).Pinkshrimpareveryshort-livedspecies,recruittothefisheryatageoneandcontributetothefisheryforjust3years(Dahlstrom1973;HannahandJones1991).Recruitmentfromyeartoyearcangreatlyaffectthecatch,andhas
3
beennegativelycorrelatedwithENSO,strongupwellingeventsandsealevelheightcausingexcessiveoffshoretransportoflarvae(Hannah2010).ThemostrecentincreaseinlandingsmaybeduetoparticularlysuccessfulrecruitmentyearsduetofavorableoceanconditionspairedwithopportunitytofishunderthenewfederalIFQprogram(PeteKalvass,pers.comm.).OtherinvertebratespeciessuchasDungenesscrabalsosawincreasesinrecruitmentforthesametimeperiod.
Thenumberofactivevesselsinthenorthernregionhassteadilydecreasedeachyearfrom2002through2006(Table2;DFG2007).Between2007-12,thenumberofpermitssoldhasleveledoutatbetween32-34permitsforthenortherntrawl,and15-21forthesouthern(decliningtrendforsouthernregion(DFW,CaliforniaCommercialLicensingreports2007-12).
Historically,themajorityofpinkshrimpfishingoffthewestcoastoftheUnitedStatesoccurredinfederalwaters(DFW2007).Since2007,essentiallyallofthepinkshrimplandingshavebeenintheEurekaareaoffthecoastofNorthernCalifornia(DFWCommercialLandingsReports2007-11).Althoughinrecentyearsthesouthernbedshavebeenproductive,theydonotappeartohavebeenfished(PeteKalvasspers.comm.;DFW,CommercialLandingsReports2007-11).Itisunclearastowhythismaybe,butitmaybeduetolowvalueofthefisheryitselfand/ortheinabilitytolandpinkshrimpatsouthernportsduetothelackofbuyers(PeteKalvass,pers.comm.).Therearenoenhancementsonthewestcoasttothepinkshrimpstock.ODFWestimatesthenumberofvesselsandamountofcatchcaughtinfederalwatersoffCaliforniaandlandedinOregonports,fromlogbooks.InrecentyearsthiscatchandeffortwasconsiderablylargerthanCalifornialandings.In2011,theestimatedcatchoriginatinginfederalwatersoffCaliforniawas10.3millionpoundsfrom20vesselsandin2012itwas9.5millionpoundsfrom31vessels.Thiscatchcategorywasunder3.0millionpoundsfrom2008through2010(BobHannah,pers.comm.).CDFWdoesnotcurrentlyhaveanestimateoftheamountofshrimpcaughtoffOregonandlandedinCaliforniaports.
Figure 1.Pacificpinkshrimpcommerciallandingsfrom1975to2012basedoncommerciallandingreceipts.
4
Table 1.Pacificpinkshrimpcommerciallandingsandex-vesselvaluefortheyears2007-2012(DFWCommercialLandingsReports2007-11;*Unpublished,preliminaryestimate,pers.comm.PeteKalvass,DFW)
Table 2.Pacificpinkshrimppermitssoldandactivefortheyears2001-2006(FromDFG“InformationConcerningthePinkShrimpTrawlFisheryoffNorthernCalifornia,”2007).
Recreational Fishery
Thereisnorecreationalfisheryforpinkshrimp.
MSC Principle 1: Resource Sustainability
*Sustainability of Target Stock
TheageclassstructureofthepinkshrimphasnotbeenassessedinCaliforniasincethe1990s,thoughinOregoncatchistypicallydominatedbyage-1shrimp(ODFW,2012)whileinsomeyearsage-2candominateiftherewasaparticularlystrongrecruitment.Growthratesvaryaccordingtoregion,sex,age,andyearclass(Dahlstrom1970),howeverthereisclearpattern
*ForCalifornia’sSustainableSeafoodProgram,thiscategorymustscorean80orhigherduringanMSCassessment.
5
ofseasonalgrowthdespitethevariationsmentionedwithveryrapidgrowthduringspringandsummerandslowergrowthduringwinter(Frimdogetal.2009).
Historically,populationestimatesofshrimpbedsweredonebyDFWseasurveys(1959-1969)thenmathematicalpopulationmodels(1969-1975),howeveritsusewasdiscontinuedduetovariablerecruitment,growthandnaturalmortalityratesassociatedwithpinkshrimp(DFG2006).InCalifornia,nofurtherattemptstoestimatethepopulationhavebeenmade.Statusdeterminationsofhighturnoverspeciesarerarelypossibleduetotheconstraintsofmosttraditionalstockassessmentmodels.Manyofthesespeciesappeartobesustainablymanagedwithregulatoryactions(FieldandFrancis2006).Californiaimplementsregulationssuchasseasonalclosures,maximumcountperpound,etc.tomanagethepinkshrimppopulation(DFG2006,2007).
Environmentalfactorshavebeenshowntoexplainmostofthevariationinthepinkshrimppopulation(Hannah1993;1995;1999;2010;2011).InOregon,environmentallybasedmodelshavebeenshowntobethemostaccurateforpredictingandexplainingthevariationinpinkshrimprecruitment.ThesemodelssuggestthatthereisnotaconsistentimpactofthepinkshrimpfisheryonstockabundanceinOregon.Although,overfishingmaybepossibleifintensivefishingoccursonafailedyearclass(Frimodigetal.2009).
NostockassessmenthasbeencompletedfortheentirewestcoastandfishingpatternsandpressuremaychangeasaresultofthenewgroundfishIFQprogram.ManyfishingpermitsforpinkshrimpinCaliforniahaveremainedlatent(DFW2007;PeteKalvasspers.comm.).InOregon,therewasaresurgenceofthepinkshrimpfisheryunderIFQwherelatenteffortwasredirectedtothefisheryleadingtohigherpinkshrimpfishingeffortlargelyduetohighshrimpabundanceandhigherpriceperpound(ODFW2012).ThiscouldcontinueinthefutureandthebehaviorofthepinkshrimpfisheryundertheIFQprogramneedstobeunderstood.
Evaluation against MSC Component 1.1: Sustainability of Target Stock
Harvest Strategy (Management)
ThepinkshrimpfisheryoffthewestcoastoftheUnitedStatesisprincipallystate-managed,althoughsomefederalregulationsapply.Historicallytherewerefederalregulationsincludingdailyandmonthlytriplimitsforincidentalcatchesoffederallymanagedgroundfishspecies.NowpinkshrimparepartofafederalWestCoastGroundfishTrawlIndividualFishingQuota(IFQ)
MSC Performance Indicators Rating Justification
1.1.1 Stock Status No stock assessments have been conducted for CA, but have been in OR; stocks are influenced more by environmental conditions than by fishery; seasonal landings are highly variable
1.1.2 Reference Points Implicit reference points; same measures as OR and WA – may need more data specific to CA; Changes may occur with new IFQ program
1.1.3 Stock rebuilding Unable to assess
6
program.ThischangedtheregulationsfrombimonthlytriplimitstoindividualquotasharesandstillincludesavesselmonitoringsystemandarearestrictionsprotectinggroundfishEssentialFishHabitat(EFH)(CodeofFederalRegulationsTitle50).
ThePacificFisheryManagementCouncil(PFMC)createdadraftFisheriesManagementPlan(FMP)in1981(Abramsonetal.1981).Theplanremainsadraft,howeverthethreewestcoaststates–California,Oregon,andWashington–agreedonseveralmanagementmeasuresandworktogetherwithPFMCthroughaMemorandaofUnderstandingand/orreciprocalrulemakingtomanagethewestcoastfishery(DFW2007).
In2004,theCaliforniaStateLegislatureapprovedSenateBill1459,addingFishandGameCode(FGC)§8841tostatute,grantingtheFishandGameCommission(Commission)managementauthorityoverCalifornia’scommercialbottomtrawlfisheriesandamendingFGC§8842,whichpertainstomanagementofthepinkshrimptrawlfishery.In2001,theregulatoryareaswereeliminatedandthefisherywasdividedintonorthernandsouthernmanagementregions,requiringaseparatepermitItofishineachregion(CaliforniaCodeofRegulations(CCR)Title14§120).ThenorthernregionextendsfromtheCalifornia-OregonbordertoPointConceptionandisalimitedentryfishery.ThesouthernregionextendsfromPointConceptiontotheCalifornia-Mexicoborderanditisanopenaccessfishery.TrawlingisnotpermittedinCaliforniaStatewatersatthistimeandthepinkshrimpfisheryoperatesinfederalwatersonly.
ThestockinCaliforniaisprimarilymanagedthroughthefollowingregulations:
• Closureofvariousstateandfederalwaterstotrawling
• Useofbycatchreductiondevices(BRDs)
• ClosedseasonfromNovember1throughMarch31toprotectegg-bearingfemales
• Maximumcount-per-poundof160topreventoverfishingjuvenileshrimp
• Minimummeshsizeof13/8inchestoallowescapementofjuvenileshrimp
• Stateandfederalincidentalcatchlimitstominimizemortalityofnon-targetspecies
OregonandWashingtonemploysimilarregulationsforBRDs,size,andcountsimilartorecommendationsmadeinthePFMCdraftFMP.Inaddition,thenewfederalwestcoasttrawlIFQprogram(implementedin2012)monitorsallcatchofspeciesthoughonboardobservers,includingpinkshrimp.Currently,Californiadoesnotconductastockassessmentofpinkshrimp,butOregondoes.Modelingeffortshaveincreasedourabilitytoforecaststockabundance(Hannah2010).Pinkshrimprecruitment,andthereforepopulations,arethoughttobemoreaffectedbyenvironmentalfactorslikeENSO,upwellingeventsandsealevelheightthanfishingeffort(Hannah2010).However,thiscouldchangeiffishingeffortwerehighduringabadrecruitmentyear.OregonsawanincreaseinfishingeffortinthepinkshrimpfisherywiththeimplementationofthenewIFQprogram.ItisunknownwhetherthisincreasewillcontinueorifitwasseeninotherPacificstates.
7
Evaluation against MSC Component 1.2: Harvest Strategy (Management)Northern California fishery
Evaluation against MSC Component 1.2: Harvest Strategy (Management)Southern California fishery
MSC Principle 2: Environment
Retained Species
MSC Performance Indicators Rating Justification
1.2.1 Harvest Strategy Restricted access fishery, Included in West Coast Groundfish IFQ program -‐ may be new changes in fishery; harvest rules not responsive to changes in the stock; need to better understand the Memorandum of Understanding between states
1.2.2 Harvest Control Rules and Tools
Managed via minimum mesh size, size limits, catch limits, seasonal closures; no evaluation of methods; Shared management with OR and WA; no CA-‐specific data
1.2.3 Information/Monitoring Currently using OR-‐specific data, unclear whether information can be extrapolated to CA
1.2.4 Assessment of Stock Status
MSC Performance Indicators Rating Justification
1.2.1 Harvest Strategy Open access; harvest rules not responsive to changes in the stock; need to better understand the Memorandum of Understanding between states
1.2.2 Harvest Control Rules and Tools
Managed via minimum mesh size, size limits, catch limits, seasonal closures; no evaluation of methods; Shared management with OR and WA; no evaluation of methods, no data collection in CA
1.2.3 Information/Monitoring Currently using OR-‐specific data, unclear whether information can be extrapolated to CA
1.2.4 Assessment of Stock Status
8
Accordingtoobserverdatafrom2008-2011,thereisnoretainedcatchintheCaliforniapinkshrimptrawlfishery,althoughitisunclearhowrepresentativethesevaluesarefortheentireCaliforniafishery,orifchangeswilloccurwiththeIFQprogram(NWFSC2011).Since2004,theWestCoastGroundfishObserverProgram(WCGOP)hasobservedCaliforniaNorthernPinkShrimpTrawlVessels,withrelativelystablecoverageofaround6%coastwide,andapproximately13%forCaliforniaalonein2011(averagefromWA,OR,andCA)(NWFSC2012).In2007,theWCGOPcombinedCaliforniaandOregonpinkshrimpfisheriesintoonesamplingpopulationfortheperiodMar-June2007.DuetoregulationdifferencesbetweenOregonandCalifornia,thepinkshrimptrawlfisherieswereagainsplitintotwosamplingpopulationsbystatefortheperiodJuly-December2007.Since2008,OregonpinkshrimpandCaliforniapinkshrimplicenseshavebeenobservedastwoseparatefisheries(NWFSC2011;Bellmanetal.2010).
Evaluation against MSC Component 2.1: Retained Species
Bycatch Species
PercentofbycatchthatisdiscardedrelativetototallandingsintheCaliforniapinkshrimpfisheryhasbeenlessthan6%from2008-2011,mostlyconsistingofothershrimpspecies,Pacifichake,squidandsmelt,withminoramountsofrebuildingspecies(Table3;NWFSC2012).BycatchisminimalfortheUSwestcoastpinkshrimpfisherycomparedtoothershrimptrawlindustriesworldwidesincetheimplementationofmandatorybycatchreducingdevices(BRDs),includingtheNordmøregrate(rigid-grateexcluder),asoft-panelexcluder,andfisheyeexcluder(Frimodigetal.2009).
Evaluation against MSC Component 2.2: Bycatch Species
MSC Performance Indicators Rating Justification
2.1.1 Outcome All non-‐target catch was discarded on observer covered vessels from 2008-‐2011
2.1.2 Management Area and seasonal closures; mandatory bycatch reducing devices (BRDs)
2.1.3 Information Observer data from the West Coast Groundfish Observer program, landings receipts
MSC Performance Indicators Rating Justification
2.2.1 Outcome Bycatch is <6% of total catch
2.2.2 Management BRDs are mandatory and drastically reduce bycatch rates
2.2.3 Information Observer data from the West Coast Groundfish Observer program, landings receipts
9
Table 3.WestCoastGroundfishObserverdataonbycatchfromtrawlvesselstargetingCaliforniapinkshrimpfrom2008to2011(NWFSC2011).
*Endangered, Threatened, & Protected Species
Therehavebeennosignificantinteractionsidentifiedbetweenthepinkshrimpfisheryandthreatenedorendangeredmarinespeciesofbirds,mammals,orfishinCalifornia(Roberts2005;MSC2007).ThepinkshrimpfisheryisclassifiedasaMarineMammalProtectionActcategoryIIIfisherywithnoobservedordocumentedtakeofmarinemammals(FederalRegister:Vol.72,No.124).OtherbiologicallysensitivespeciesinnearpinkshrimptrawlinggroundsinCaliforniaincludecanaryrockfish,bocaccio,widowrockfish,andyelloweyerockfish(NMFS2005;MSC2007).ThebycatchoftheserockfishspecieshasbeenminimizedduetoBRDs(Hannahetal.1996;ODFW2006;HannahandJones2007;MSC2007).RecentlythelistingofPacificeulachonhasresultedinthefirstandonlyinteractionofthepinkshrimptrawlfisherywithETP.
Evaluation against MSC Component 2.3: ETP Species
*ForCalifornia’sSustainableSeafoodProgram,thiscategorymustscorean80orhigherduringanMSCassessment.
MSC Performance Indicators Rating Justification
2.3.1 Outcome ETP species impacts are low
2.3.2 Management BRDs; Magnuson-‐Stevens Act, CEQA, Migratory Bird Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, etc.
2.3.3 Information Observer data from the West Coast Groundfish Observer program, landings receipts, logbooks
10
Habitats
Pinkshrimpbedsaregenerallycharacterizedbygreenmudormuddy-sandbottoms(Frimodigetal.2009).Althoughsoftbottomseafloorhabitatsonthecontinentalshelfwherepinkshrimpfishingoccursareconsideredtohavealowsensitivitytotrawlgear,theirrecoverytimesfromgearimpactsmaybelongercomparedtoothersubstratetypes.Severalstudiesexamininggeareffectsonsoftbottomindicatethatmudsubstratesaremorestableandhavelongerrecoverytimesthansandsubstrates(NRC2002;Hannahetal.2010).Ameanrecoverytimefortrawlgearimpactsinpinkshrimpfishinggroundsisestimatedtobelessthanoneyearintheabsenceofbottomtrawlfishing(NMFS2005).
TrawlingisprohibitedinallstatewatersinadditiontoEssentialFishHabitatConservationAreas.TheclosureofthepinkshrimptrawlingfisheryfromNovemberthroughMarchallowssomerecoverytimetopinkshrimpbedsbenthichabitats.
Evaluation against MSC Component 2.4: Habitats
Ecosystem
AnecosystemapproachtofisheriesmanagementintheCaliforniaCurrentmusttakeintoconsiderationtheconstantlychangingclimate-drivenphysicalandbiologicalinteractionsintheecosystem,thetrophicrelationshipsbetweenfishedandunfishedelementsofthefoodweb,theadaptationpotentialoflifehistorydiversity,andtheroleofhumansaspredatorsandcompetitors(DFW2007).
Intensivetrawlinghasbeenshowntohaveeffectsonsometypesofseafloorhabitats(NRC2002).SomeresearchofshrimptrawlingeffectsonoceanfloorshasbeendoneoffthecoastofOregonbyHannahetal.in2010infourmud-habitatareaswithdifferenttypesoftrawlinghistory.Overall,theyfoundmeasureabledecreasesinmacroinvertebratedensityanddiversityinheavilytrawledgrounds.ItisassumedthattherewouldbesimilareffectsoftrawlingoffthecoastofCalifornia.
InCaliforniapinkshrimptrawlgroundsthereisthepotentialforcoralhabitatstobeaffected.Trawlingmaycausesubstantialdamagetocoralhabitats(AusterandLangton1999;Koslowetal.2001;Fossåetal.2002;Robertsetal.2006)andcoralhabitatsmayoccurinStatetrawlinggrounds.However,trawlinginCaliforniastatewatersiscurrentlyprohibited.Thestructureandhabitattypeoffederalpinkshrimptrawlinggroundshasnotbeenmapped.
Currentstateandfederalpinkshrimpmanagementmeasureswerenotimplementedto
MSC Performance Indicators Rating Justification
2.4.1 Outcome Muddy bottoms have low sensitivity to trawl gear
2.4.2 Management Area closures (no trawling in state waters, EFH areas)
2.4.3 Information Observer data; logbooks; OR research available – may need more CA-‐specific research in the future
11
specificallyaddressecosystemmanagement(DFW2007).Thecurrentmanagementmeasuresinplacemaycollectivelyfosterasustainablefisheryandindirectlypromoteahealthyecosystembyreducingpotentialfisheryimpactsonthesystem.Thesemeasuresinclude:
• Limitedentrypinkshrimppermittingsystemtocontrolfishingcapacity
• Reductionoffleetcapacityduetovesselbuybackprograms
• Logbookprogramtomonitorcatchlocation,effort,andgearinformation
• Maximumcountperpoundoflandedcatchtoavoidoverfishingjuvenileshrimp
• Closedfishingseasontoprotectegg-bearingfemales
• Minimummesh-sizerequiredtoallowforescapementofjuvenileshrimp
• Bycatchreductiondevicerequiredonthenettominimizegroundfishbycatch
• Arearestrictions(EssentialFishHabitat,MarinePreserves,MPAs)
• Federalat-seaobservercoveragemandatedbylaw
• Stateandfederalincidentaltriplimitstominimizemortalityofnon-targetspecies
PFMChaswrittenadraftFisheryEcosystemPlan(FEP)fortheUSportionoftheCaliforniaCurrentEcosystem.ThegoalofaFEPistoenhancetheCouncil’sspeciesspecificmanagementprogramswithmoreecosystemscience,broaderecosystemconsiderationsandmanagementpoliciesthatcoordinateCouncilmanagementacrossFMPsandtheCaliforniaCurrentEcosystem.ThisplanissettobeadoptedasfinalduringApril6-11,2013.Atthisstagehowever,moreinformationisneededtounderstandhoworifthecurrentmanagementmeasuresprotecttheecosystemstructureandfunction.
Evaluation against MSC Component 2.5: Ecosystem
MSC Principle 3: Management System
Governance and Policy
TheCaliforniapinkshrimpfisheryoperateswithinfederalandstatewatersoffofCaliforniaon
MSC Performance Indicators Rating Justification
2.5.1 Outcome Management measures may indirectly reduce ecosystem impacts, though no quantitative measures are in place to assess
2.5.2 Management Gear and area restrictions; MPAs; The PFMC recently drafted the Fishery Ecosystem Plan
2.5.3 Information More information is necessary
12
thewestcoastoftheUS.ApermitisrequiredtolandpinkshrimpinCalifornia,whichcanbeobtainedfromDFWunderspecifiedconditions.InStatewatersthefisheryisregulatedbytheCommissionandregulationsareimplementedandthefisheryismanagedbyDFW.Californiaworkstomanagewiththeotherwestcoaststates,Washington,andOregonaswellasthePFMCthroughMemorandumsofUnderstanding(MOU)andotheragreements.Inaddition,thepinkshrimptrawlfisheryisnowpartoftheWestCoastGroundfishTrawlIFQprogram.
Evaluation against MSC Component 3.1: Governance and Policy
Fishery Specific Management System
CurrentlythefisheryhasadraftFMPfrom1981developedbythePFMC.However,thethreewestcoaststates,California,Oregon,andWashingtonutilizerecommendationsfromthedraftFMPandworktogetherthroughMOUstoimplementsimilarregulationsacrossstateborders.TrawlinginCaliforniaStatewatersisclosed.
EnforcementoffishingregulationsisconductedinstatewatersbyCDFW’sLawEnforcementDivisionandinfederalwatersbyNOAA’sOfficeofLawEnforcement.Additionallytoolssuchasportsampling,logbooks,andobservercoverageareusedtomonitorcatchandensurevesselshavethecorrectpermitsforthecatchtheyarelanding.Violatorsareprosecutedunderthelaw.Thereisnoevidenceofsystemicnon-compliance.
MSC Performance Indicators Rating Justification
3.1.1 Legal and/or Customary Framework
FGC and DFW manage the fishery within an effective framework for delivering sustainable fisheries
3.1.2 Consultation, Roles and responsibilities
Roles and responsibilities are clearly laid out; FGC meetings are open to the public and to public comments
3.1.3 Long-‐term Objectives Magnuson-‐Stevens Act, Marine Life Management Act
3.1.4 Incentives for Sustainable Fishing
Magnuson-‐Stevens Act, Marine Life Management Act
13
Evaluation against MSC Component 3.2: Fishery Specific Management System
California Specific Requirements
TheCaliforniavoluntarysustainableseafoodprogramrequiresfisheriesseekingcertificationtomeetCaliforniaspecificstandardsinadditiontothestandardsandrequirementsoftheMarineStewardshipCouncil(MSC)sustainablefisheriescertificationprogram.Theseinclude:
1.Higherscores(80insteadof60)fortwoperformanceindicators(PI)oftheMSCprogram:“StockStatus”(PI1.1.1)and“By-catchofEndangered,Threatened,orProtected(ETP)Species”(PI2.3.1).ThesetwoPIsarehighlightedinthereport.
2.Additionalindependentscientificreview:TheOPCScienceAdvisoryTeamwillbeengagedinthecertificationprocessthroughearlyconsultationinreviewingminimumeligibilitycriteria,andreviewoftheMSC-requiredpre-assessmentsandfullassessments.ThereviewswillbeconductedinadditiontoMSC’speerreview,thusbringingadditionalcredibility,transparency,andindependencetoCalifornia’scertificationprocess.
3.Additionaltraceabilitycomponents:TheCaliforniaprogramwilldevelopauniquebarcodeforCaliforniacertifiedsustainablefish.Thisbarcodecanbeeitherscannedbyasmart-phoneorlinkedtoawebsitethatwillrevealadditionalinformationaboutthefishery,andinformationabouttoxicitywhenavailable.
Recommendations
OPCmaywanttoconsiderworkingwithOregon(whosepinkshrimpfisheryisalreadycertified)andWashingtonaswellasMSCtocertifythefisheryfortheentirewestcoast.Thismayresultinreducedcostsforcertificationandrecertificationinthefutureforallthreestates.IfCaliforniapursuescertification,Oregonwillserveasanexcellentexample.TherehasbeenaverysuccessfulandtrustingpartnershipbetweenthepinkshrimpfishingfleetandtheState.This
MSC Performance Indicators Rating Justification
3.2.1 Fishery Specific Objectives Some objectives outlined in 1981 FMP
3.2.2 Decision-‐making Processes
MOUs between states, but no clear explicit process
3.2.3 Compliance & Enforcement
An enforcement system exists and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.
3.2.4 Research Plan Oregon has a research plan but not specifically for CA; CA may need to establish more biological monitoring
3.2.5 Management Performance Evaluation
Regulations are relatively static, though bycatch reduction devices have been evaluated; no formal review of management system in CA
14
hasresultedinarecertificationofthefisheryearlierthisyearonmoreresearchingonthepinkshrimpfishery.
TheimplementationoftheIFQprogram,ofwhichpinkshrimpisapartmaychangethewaythatthefisheryisfishedandtheimpacts.Californiashouldconsiderthesechanges.InthefirstyearoftheIFQprograminOregontheysawamarkedincreaseinpinkshrimplandingsoverpreviousyears.ItispossiblethattheIFQprogrammayresultinlatentpermitsinCaliforniaenteringthefleetagainwhentheconditionsareright.
Inaddition,ODFW2012pinkshrimpnewslettermentionsthatMSCcertificationmayrequireaTargetandLimitreferencepointsysteminthefuture.BasingasystemlikethisonformalstockassessmentandmonitoringcouldbequitecostlyforCDFWtoimplement(Kalvass,pers.comm.).
References
Abramson,N.,Geibel,J.Golden,J.,Northup,T.,Silverthorne,W.,Lukas,J.,andHeimann,R.(1981).FisheryManagementPlanforthePinkShrimpFisheryoffWashington,OregonandCalifornia.PacificFisheryManagementCouncil,Portland,OR.,April1981
Auster,P.J.,andR.W.Langton.1999.Theeffectsoffishingonfishhabitat.AmericanFisheriesSocietySymposium22:150-187.
Bellman,M.,E.Heery,J.Janot,J.Majewski.2010DataReportandSummaryAnalysesoftheCaliforniaandOregonPinkShrimpTrawlFishery.NOAA.http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observer/shrimp_trawl.cfm
Dahlstrom,W.A.1970.Synopsisofbiologicaldataontheoceanshrimp.CDFG,MenloPark,CA,57(4).
Dahlstrom,W.A.1973.StatusoftheCaliforniaoceanshrimpresourceanditsmanagement.Mar.Fish.Rev.35:55–59
CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife.2007-2012.CaliforniaCommercialLandingsReports.http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/landings11.asp
CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife.CaliforniaCommercialLicensingReports.http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/statistics/
Fosså,J.H.,P.B.Mortensen,andD.M.Furevik.2002.Thedeep-watercoralLopheliapertusainNorwegianwaters:distributionandfisheryimpacts.Hydrobiologia471:1-12.
Frimodig,A.,M.Horeczko,T.Mason,B.Owens,M.Prall,andS.Wertz.2007.InformationregardingthepinkshrimptrawlfisheryoffnorthernCalifornia.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,MarineRegion,StateFisheriesEvaluationProject.25p.
Frimodig,A.J.,M.C.Horeczko,M.W.Prall,T.M.Mason,B.C.Owens,andS.P.Wertz.2009.ReviewoftheCaliforniatrawlfisheryforPacificOceanshrimp,Pandalusjordani,from1992-2007.MarineFisheriesReview.71(2):1-14.
Hannah,R.W.1993.Theinfluenceofenvironmentalvariationandspawningstocklevelsonrecruitmentofoceanshrimp(Pandalusjordani).CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquatic
15
Sciences50(3):612-622.
Hannah,R.W.(1995).Variationingeographicstockarea,catchability,andnaturalmortalityofoceanshrimp(Pandalusjordani):somenewevidenceforatrophicinteractionwithPacifichake(Merlucciusproductus).Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci.52:1018-1029.
Hannah,R.W.(1999).Anewmethodforindexingspawningstockandrecruitmentinoceanshrimp,Pandalusjordani,andpreliminaryevidenceforastock-recruitmentrelationship.Fish.Bull.97:482-494.
Hannah,R.W.(2010).Useofapre-recruitabundanceindextoimproveforecastsofoceanshrimp(Pandalusjordani)recruitmentfromenvironmentalmodels.Calif.Coop.OceanicFish.Invest.Rep,51,119-127.
Hannah,R.W.andS.A.Jones.1991.Fisheryinducedchangesinthepopulationstructureofpinkshrimp(Pandalusjordani).Fish.Bull.U.S.89:41–51
Hannah,R.W.,S.A.Jones,andV.J.Hoover.1996.Evaluationoffishexcludertechnologytoreducefinfishbycatchintheoceanshrimptrawlfishery.OregonDepartmentofFishandWildlife,Newport,Oregon.InformationReport96-4.
Hannah,R.W.,Jones,S.A.,Miller,W.,andKnight,J.S.2010.Effectsoftrawlingforoceanshrimp(Pandalusjordani)onmacroinvertebrateabundanceanddiversityatfoursitesnearNehalemBank,Oregon.Fish.Bull.108:30–38.
Hannah,R.W.(2011).Variationinthedistributionofoceanshrimp(Pandalusjordani)recruits:linkswithcoastalupwellingandclimatechange.Fish.Oceanogr.20(4):305–313.
Hannah,R.W.andA.J.Frimodig.2006.PinkShrimp.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,MarineRegion,StatusoftheFisheries.https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=34412&inline=true
Hannah,R.W.andS.A.Jones.2007.Effectivenessofbycatchreductiondevices(BRDs)intheoceanshrimp(Pandalusjordani)trawlfishery.FisheriesResearch85:217-225.
Koslow,J.A.,K.Gowlett-Holmes,J.K.Lowry,T.O’Hara,G.C.B.Poore,andA.Williams.2001.SeamountbenthicmacrofaunaoffsouthernTasmania:communitystructureandimpactsoftrawling.MarineEcologyProgressSeries213:111-125.
MarineStewardshipCouncil.2007.TheOregonpink(ocean)shrimptrawlfishery.http://www.msc.org/assets/docs/Oregon_pink_shrimp/Final_Report_Oct_2007.pdf.FinalReportVersion3.137p.
NationalMarineFisheriesService(NMFS).2005.FinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement:Pacificcoastgroundfishfisherymanagementplan,essentialfishhabitatdesignationandminimizationofadverseimpacts.NationalMarineFisheriesService,Seattle,Washington.
NorthwestFisheriesScienceCenter.2011.Datafrompinkshrimpsector.Availableat:http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observer/sector_products.cfm
NorthwestFisheriesScienceCenter.2012.ObserverCoverageRates.Availableat:http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observer/xls/WCGOP_Coverage_YearsObserved02-11_Final_v2.xlsx
16
NationalResearchCouncil(NRC).2002.Effectsoftrawlinganddredgingonseafloorhabitat.NationalAcademyPress,Washington,D.C.
ODFW.2006.AnnualPinkShrimpReview.OregonDepartmentofFishandWildlife,Newport,Oregon.
Roberts,S.2005.SeafoodWatchSeafoodReport:Wild-caughtColdwaterShrimp.MontereyBayAquarium.
Roberts,J.M.,A.J.Wheeler,andA.Freiwald.2006.Reefsofthedeep:thebiologyandgeologyofcold-watercoralecosystems.Science312:543-547.
17
Appendix A
MSC Assessment Tree Pink Shrimp Otter trawl
Principle Component Performance Indicator Northern Southern
Principle 1: Health of Fish Stock
Outcome
1.1.1: Stock status
1.1.2: Reference points
1.1.3: Stock rebuilding Did not assess Did not assess
Harvest Strategy (Management)
1.2.1: Harvest strategy
1.2.2: Harvest control rules
1.2.3: Info/ monitoring
1.2.4: Stock assessment
Principle 2: Impact on Ecosystem
Retained species
2.1.1: Status
2.1.2: Mgmt strategy
2.1.3: Information
By-catch species 2.2.1: Status
2.2.2: Mgmt strategy
2.2.3: Info
ETP species 2.3.1: Status
2.3.2: Mgmt strategy
2.3.3: Info
Habitats 2.4.1: Status
2.4.2: Mgmt strategy
2.4.3: Info
Ecosystem 2.5.1: Status
2.5.2: Mgmt strategy
2.5.3: Info
Principle 3: Management System
Governance & Policy
3.1.1: Legal framework
3.1.2: Consultation, roles, and responsibilities
3.1.3: Long term objectives
3.1.4: Incentives for sustainable fishing
Fishery Specific Mgmt System
3.2.1: Fishery specific objectives
3.2.2: Decision making process
3.2.3: Compliance & enforcement
3.2.4: Research plan
3.2.5: Management performance evaluation