About this document
This is a prototype of an automatic report that documents how the user specified the operating model and their various justifications.
Introduction
Describe the history and current status of the fishery, including fleets, sectors, vessel types and practices/gear by vessel type, landing ports, economics/markets, whether targeted/bycatch, other stocks caught in the fishery. (from Dewees (2004) paper included in “Supporting docs” folder) “California has had a large and valuable kelp harvesting industry since the early twentieth century. In the early years, kelp was utilized for producing ingredients for explosives, but later became a useful component of many industrial products. By the 1950s the kelp industry and fishermen interested in kelp bed fishes and abalone were concerned about the potentially harmful effects of sea urchin grazing on kelp. Sea urchin eradication programs were implemented using calcium oxide and physical destruction and some kelp beds were restored (North 1965). In 1968, the National Marine Fisheries Service examined the feasibility of developing a sea urchin fishery. After intense efforts by Susumu Kato of NMFS and others to develop processing capability, coupled with a stronger Japanese yen, the fishery began in earnest in 1973 with landings were approximately 1,600 t (Kato and Schroeter 1985). During these years the details of marketing in Japan, air shipping and processing were worked out. 5 The fishery grew steadily to over 11,200 t by 1981, but dipped to under 7,000 t during the intense El Niño of the early 1980s (Kalvass and Rogers-Bennett 2001). Practically all landings were in southern California because the processing and air shipment capability was centered there. By 1985, the combination of a relatively stronger yen, increased market demand and decreases in available supplies from the Japanese fishery, it became economically feasible to harvest, process and ship the northern California sea urchins. By 1988, landings of from virgin fishing grounds soared to 13,605 t pushing the statewide landings to 23,600 t (Figure 2).” The red sea urchin is targeted primarily by divers - a highly selective fishery.
Describe the stock’s ecosystem functions, dependencies, and habitat types. (from paper: https://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/cr/1985/8550.pdf) “Red sea urchins are found on the west coast of North America as far south as the tip of Baja California, although their abundance declines south of lat. 27”N (Malagrino Lumare, 1972). They range northward to Sitka and Kodiak, Alaska, and along the Asiatic coast as far south as the southern tip of Hokkaido Island, Japan (McCauley and Carey, 1967). Off the California coast, dense concentrations occur patchily throughout the state. Notable exceptions are those areas off central California where sea otters, Enhydra lurris, a major predator of sea urchins, are abundant (McLean, 1962; E. E. Ebert, 1968; Lowry and Pearse, 1973)"
- Provide all relevant reference materials, such as assessments, research, and other analysis.
- Dewees paper in “Supporting docs” folder
- Paper: http://seafood.ocean.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/MBA_SeafoodWatch_USPacificUrchinReport.pdf
- Paper: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/project_pages/CA_Fisheries/SDWA_Final_Report_NoAppendices.pdf
- Paper: https://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/cr/1985/8550.pdf
- Paper: http://www.sfu.ca/biology/wildberg/smithbd/vb%20apps/Smith_et_al_(Size_Frequency_Analysis).pdf
- Paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2269573.pdf?casa_token=5huLagMndLEAAAAA:Qv3bPATGvnY8YCMeRwC-5slliwNn-yU9B5D_CuM6V1Uc4YjV8FTiN07eRHa6gwgSYEseAE4H9ZIj-DID14NUMih0rBvLmkDuN5oBH4-mS5dK3IvzSLg
Paper: http://aquaticcommons.org/9820/1/mfr5921.pdf
Fishery Characteristics
Longevity
Answered
|
Very short-lived (5 < maximum age < 7)
|
Short-lived (7 < maximum age < 10)
|
Moderate life span (10 < maximum age < 20)
|
Moderately long-lived (20 < maximum age < 40)
|
Long-lived (40 < maximum age < 80)
|
Very long-lived (80 < maximum age < 160)
|
Stock depletion
Answered
|
Crashed (D < 0.05)
|
Very depleted (0.05 < D < 0.1)
|
Depleted (0.1 < D < 0.15)
|
Moderately depleted (0.15 < D < 0.3)
|
Healthy (0.3 < D < 0.5)
|
Underexploited (0.5 < D)
|
Resilence
Answered
|
Not resilient (steepness < 0.3)
|
Low resilience (0.3 < steepness < 0.5)
|
Moderate resilence (0.5 < steepness < 0.7)
|
Resilient (0.7 < steepness < 0.9)
|
Very Resilient (0.9 < steepness)
|
Justification
|
No information was found on steepness.
|
Historical effort pattern
Answered
|
Stable
|
Two-phase
|
Boom-bust
|
Gradual increases
|
Stable, recent increases
|
Stable, recent declines
|
Justification
|
No information was found on changes in historical fishing effort.
|
Inter-annual variability in historical effort
Answered
|
Not variable (less than 20% inter-annual change (IAC))
|
Variable (maximum IAC between 20% to 50%)
|
Highly variable (maximum IAC between 50% and 100%)
|
Justification
|
No information was found
|
Historical fishing efficiency changes
Answered
|
Declining by 2-3% pa (halves every 25-35 years)
|
Declining by 1-2% pa (halves every 35-70 years)
|
Stable -1% to 1% pa (may halve/double every 70 years)
|
Increasing by 1-2% pa (doubles every 35-70 years)
|
Increasing by 2-3% pa (doubles every 25-35 years)
|
Justification
|
No information was found
|
Future fishing efficiency changes
Answered
|
Declining by 2-3% pa (halves every 25-35 years)
|
Declining by 1-2% pa (halves every 35-70 years)
|
Stable -1% to 1% pa (may halve/double every 70 years)
|
Increasing by 1-2% pa (doubles every 35-70 years)
|
Increasing by 2-3% pa (doubles every 25-35 years)
|
Justification
|
No information was found
|
Length at maturity
Answered
|
Very small (0.4 < LM < 0.5)
|
Small (0.5 < LM < 0.6)
|
Moderate (0.6 < LM < 0.7)
|
Moderate to large (0.7 < LM < 0.8)
|
Large (0.8 < LM < 0.9)
|
Selectivity of small fish
Answered
|
Very small (0.1 < S < 0.2)
|
Small (0.2 < S < 0.4)
|
Half asymptotic length (0.4 < S < 0.6)
|
Large (0.6 < S < 0.8)
|
Very large (0.8 < S < 0.9)
|
Justification
|
I could not estimate the selectivity of small fish for this species as I did not find information about length at 50% selectivity.
|
Selectivity of large fish
Answered
|
Asymptotic selectivity (SL = 1)
|
Declining selectivity with length (0.75 < SL < 1)
|
Dome-shaped selectivity (0.25 < SL < 0.75)
|
Strong dome-shaped selectivity (SL < 0.25)
|
Justification
|
No information was found
|
Discard rate
Answered
|
Low (DR < 1%)
|
Low - moderate (1% < DR < 10%)
|
Moderate (10% < DR < 30%)
|
Moderate - high (30% < DR < 50%)
|
High (50% < DR < 70%)
|
Justification
|
Since this species is targeted by divers, it is expected that there are no discards.
|
Post-release mortality rate
Answered
|
Low (PRM < 5%)
|
Low - moderate (5% < PRM < 25%)
|
Moderate (25% < PRM < 50%)
|
Moderate - high (50% < PRM < 75%)
|
High (75% < PRM < 95%)
|
Almost all die (95% < PRM < 100%)
|
Justification
|
No discards - sea urchins are mainly targeted by divers.
|
Recruitment variability
Answered
|
Very low (less than 10% inter-annual changes (IAC))
|
Low (max IAC of between 20% and 60%)
|
Moderate (max IAC of between 60% and 120%)
|
High (max IAC of between 120% and 180%)
|
Very high (max IAC greater than 180%)
|
Justification
|
No information was found
|
Size of an existing MPA
Answered
|
None
|
Small (A < 5%)
|
Small-moderate (5% < A < 10%)
|
Moderate (10% < A < 20%)
|
Large (20% < A < 30%)
|
Very large (30% < A < 40%)
|
Huge (40% < A < 50%)
|
Justification
|
(from: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/2017/120_7isor.pdf) “Three reports written for the California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (Ecotrust 2008, 2010, and 2011) estimates that MPA reduction of total commercial sea urchin fishing grounds by percent of area, by port, to be the following: South Coast, 2.0-19.3 percent for six ports; North Central Coast, 8.4- 29.9 percent for four ports; and North Coast 8.2 percent for two ports. Recent military closures at San Clemente and San Nicolas islands further compressed the fishing ground by acting as reserves much of the year. As a result, the production and roe quality from many reefs have dropped substantially from the excessive harvest pressure.”
|
Spatial mixing (movement) in/out of existing MPA
Answered
|
Very low (P < 1%)
|
Low (1% < P < 5%)
|
Moderate (5% < P < 10%)
|
High (10% < P < 20%)
|
Fully mixed
|
Size of a future potential MPA
Answered
|
None
|
Small (A < 5%)
|
Small-moderate (5% < A < 10%)
|
Moderate (10% < A < 20%)
|
Large (20% < A < 30%)
|
Very large (30% < A < 40%)
|
Huge (40% < A < 50%)
|
Justification
|
No justification was found
|
Spatial mixing (movement) in/out of future potential MPA
Answered
|
Very low (P < 1%)
|
Low (1% < P < 5%)
|
Moderate (5% < P < 10%)
|
High (10% < P < 20%)
|
Fully mixed
|
Justification
|
No justification was provided
|
Initial stock depletion
Answered
|
Very low (0.1 < D1 < 0.15)
|
Low (0.15 < D1 < 0.3)
|
Moderate (0.3 < D < 0.5)
|
High (0.5 < D1)
|
Asymptotic unfished levels (D1 = 1)
|
Justification
|
No assessment model was found for this species.
|
Management Characteristics
Types of fishery management that are possible
Answered
|
TAC (Total Allowable Catch): a catch limit
|
TAE (Total Allowable Effort): an effort limit
|
Size limit
|
Time-area closures (a marine reserve)
|
Justification
|
1. Describe what, if any, current management measures are used to constrain catch/effort. (from: http://seafood.ocean.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/MBA_SeafoodWatch_USPacificUrchinReport.pdf) “No formal fishery management plan is in place for the California fishery. Management strategies include a minimum harvest size and a restricted season. Fishing effort has been controlled through limits on the number of permits (there is an ongoing effort to reduce permit numbers, e.g., (Tiemann 2017), and the length of the fishing season, but there are no explicit measures in place to control fishing mortality. There is a current effort to decrease the number of permits as a precautionary measure to reduce the latent harvesting capacity represented in inactive permits (CSUC 2015). There are also no-take reserves in place that protect part of the reproductive stock. Management strategy and implementation in the fishery is scored as”moderately effective" because it includes measures that are expected to control fishing intensity, but effectiveness is unknown.“
2. Describe historical management measures, if any. See Figure 3 in Dewees paper in”Supporting docs" folder.
3. Describe main strengths and weaknesses of current monitoring and enforcement capacity. No information was found
4. Describe and reference any legal/policy requirements for management, monitoring and enforcement. (http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/2017/120_7isor.pdf) “Section 9054 of the Fish and Game Code authorizes the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to set the conditions for issuing commercial sea urchin diving permits to prevent overutilization of the sea urchin resource and to ensure that the fishery is efficient and economic on both a state-wide basis and in specific geographic areas.”
|
TAC offset: consistent overages/underages
Answered
|
Large underages (40% - 70% of recommended)
|
Underages (70% - 90% of recommended)
|
Slight underages (90% - 100% of recommended)
|
Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended)
|
Slight overages (100% - 110% of recommended)
|
Overages (110% - 150% of recommended)
|
Large overages (150% - 200% of recommended)
|
Justification
|
No TAC implemented.
|
TAC implementation variability
Answered
|
Constant (V < 1%)
|
Not variable (1% < V < 5%)
|
Low variability (5% < V < 10%)
|
Variable (10% < V < 20%)
|
Highly variable (20% < V < 40%)
|
Justification
|
No justification was provided
|
TAE offset: consistent overages/underages
Answered
|
Large underages (40% - 70% of recommended)
|
Underages (70% - 90% of recommended)
|
Slight underages (90% - 100% of recommended)
|
Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended)
|
Slight overages (100% - 110% of recommended)
|
Overages (110% - 150% of recommended)
|
Large overages (150% - 200% of recommended)
|
Justification
|
No TAE implemented.
|
TAE implementation variability
Answered
|
Constant (V < 1%)
|
Not variable (1% < V < 5%)
|
Low variability (5% < V < 10%)
|
Variable (10% < V < 20%)
|
Highly variable (20% < V < 40%)
|
Justification
|
No justification was provided
|
Size limit offset: consistent overages/underages
Answered
|
Much smaller (40% - 70% of recommended)
|
Smaller (70% - 90% of recommended)
|
Slightly smaller (90% - 100% of recommended)
|
Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended)
|
Slightly larger (100% - 110% of recommended)
|
Larger (110% - 150% of recommended)
|
Much larger (150% - 200% of recommended)
|
Justification
|
I don’t expect that there is a lot of smaller size limit offsets. Gutierrez et al (2017) notes that “Size limits (i.e., 82.5 mm) were set at a level that allowed several years of spawning before harvest and appears to have helped prevent fishery collapse (Hilborn et al. 2007).” No maximum size limits implemented on this fishery.
|
Size limit implementation variability
Answered
|
Constant (V < 1%)
|
Not variable (1% < V < 5%)
|
Low variability (5% < V < 10%)
|
Variable (10% < V < 20%)
|
Highly variable (20% < V < 40%)
|
Justification
|
No information was found
|
Data Characteristics
Available data types
Answered
|
Historical annual catches (from unfished)
|
Recent annual catches (at least 5 recent years)
|
Historical relative abundance index (from unfished)
|
Recent relative abundance index (at least 5 recent years)
|
Fishing effort
|
Size composition (length samples)
|
Age composition (age samples)
|
Growth (growth parameters)
|
Absolute biomass survey
|
Justification
|
1. Provide the time series (specify years, if possible) that exist for catch, effort, and CPUE/abundance indices. Figure 8 in (http://seafood.ocean.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/MBA_SeafoodWatch_USPacificUrchinReport.pdf) shows the catch time-series; Figure II-A-5 in (http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/project_pages/CA_Fisheries/SDWA_Final_Report_NoAppendices.pdf) shows cpue. Table 1 shows effort time series (http://aquaticcommons.org/9820/1/mfr5921.pdf)
2. Describe how these data collected (e.g., log books, dealer reporting, observers). Landing receipts and logbooks. (See “status2003redsu” paper in “Supporting docs” folder)
3. Describe what types of sampling programs and methodologies exist for data collection, including the time-series of available sampling data and quality. (from report: http://seafood.ocean.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/MBA_SeafoodWatch_USPacificUrchinReport.pdf) “No formal stock assessments exist for this fishery. Management has generally relied on long-term fishery dependent data (landings and CPUE) in decision-making. Other relevant fishery-independent data on stock health exist (e.g., PISCO data, CDFW surveys of abalone index sites), but there is no formal process of using them for management. The industry has also funded some abundance monitoring and basic urchin biology research, such as recruitment and settlement studies (particularly in southern California). However, there is also no formal process for incorporating these into management. CDFW is also currently working with NGOs in developing a Data-Limited Methods Toolkit approach to formally incorporate available data into the management of the fishery (pers. comm., P. Kalvass, D. Stein 2017). Scientific research and monitoring is scored as”moderately effective" because some data on stock health are collected and analyzed, but may not be very effectively incorporated into management."
4. Describe all sources of uncertainty in the status, biology, life history and data sources of the fishery. Include links to documentation, reports. Uncertainties: Stock size, status, length at maturity, longevity, fishing mortality, data is largely fishery dependent, which could be biased. (http://seafood.ocean.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/MBA_SeafoodWatch_USPacificUrchinReport.pdf)
|
Catch reporting bias
Answered
|
Strong under-reporting (30% - 50%)
|
Under-reporting (10% - 30%)
|
Slight under-reporting (less than 10%)
|
Reported accurately (+/- 5%)
|
Slight over-reporting (less than 10%)
|
Justification
|
No information was found.
|
Hyperstability in indices
Answered
|
Strong hyperdepletion (2 < Beta < 3)
|
Hyperdepletion (1.25 < Beta < 2)
|
Proportional (0.8 < Beta < 1.25)
|
Hyperstability (0.5 < Beta < 0.8)
|
Strong hyperstability (0.33 < Beta < 0.5)
|
Justification
|
No information was found.
|
Available data types
Answered
|
Perfect
|
Good (accurate and precise)
|
Data moderate (some what inaccurate and imprecise)
|
Data poor (inaccurate and imprecise)
|
Justification
|
Based on the references listed throughout this questionnaire.
|
Version Notes
The package is subject to ongoing testing. If you find a bug or a problem please send a report to t.carruthers@oceans.ubc.ca so that it can be fixed!
shiny-2019-05-12-11:44:37
Open Source, GPL-2 2019