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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


2.2.3: Info

ETP species 2.3.1: Status


2.3.3: Info

Habitats 2.4.1: Status


2.4.3: Info

Ecosystem 2.5.1: Status


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

pink (ocean) shrimp (pandalus jordaniopc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/project_pages/rapid assessments...the...

Documents