Questionnaire Report for Red sea urchin

(MERA version 4.1.6)

Abdul Ben-Hasan ()

2019-05-12


1 About this document

This is a prototype of an automatic report that documents how the user specified the operating model and their various justifications.


2 Introduction

  1. 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.

  2. 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)"

  3. Provide all relevant reference materials, such as assessments, research, and other analysis.
  4. Dewees paper in “Supporting docs” folder
  5. Paper: http://seafood.ocean.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/MBA_SeafoodWatch_USPacificUrchinReport.pdf
  6. Paper: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/project_pages/CA_Fisheries/SDWA_Final_Report_NoAppendices.pdf
  7. Paper: https://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/cr/1985/8550.pdf
  8. Paper: http://www.sfu.ca/biology/wildberg/smithbd/vb%20apps/Smith_et_al_(Size_Frequency_Analysis).pdf
  9. Paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2269573.pdf?casa_token=5huLagMndLEAAAAA:Qv3bPATGvnY8YCMeRwC-5slliwNn-yU9B5D_CuM6V1Uc4YjV8FTiN07eRHa6gwgSYEseAE4H9ZIj-DID14NUMih0rBvLmkDuN5oBH4-mS5dK3IvzSLg
  10. Paper: http://aquaticcommons.org/9820/1/mfr5921.pdf


3 Fishery Characteristics

3.1 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)
Justification
Longevity is hard to determine for this species. Natural mortality fluctuates from 0.064 to 0.8 (see paper: http://www.sfu.ca/biology/wildberg/smithbd/vb%20apps/Smith_et_al_(Size_Frequency_Analysis).pdf). However, a study suggests that this species is long-lived and slow growing, based on modeling its growth (takes 7 years to enter the fishery).

3.2 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)
Justification
No information was found on stock depletion. But assessment reports suggest that this stock is of moderate concern based on no signs of overfishing and no quantitative assessment (http://seafood.ocean.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/MBA_SeafoodWatch_USPacificUrchinReport.pdf). Older reports show a stable cpue (http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/project_pages/CA_Fisheries/SDWA_Final_Report_NoAppendices.pdf).

3.3 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.

3.4 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.

3.5 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

3.6 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

3.7 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

3.8 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)
Justification
I could not estimate a reasonable LM. The size at maturity is 50 mm (https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ecs2.1829); while the asymptotic length reflects the jaw size (Jinf = 21.1 mm). (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=60214&inline).

3.9 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.

3.10 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

3.11 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.

3.12 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.

3.13 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

3.14 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.”

3.15 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
Justification
This species is sedentary. (https://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/cr/1985/8550.pdf)

3.16 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

3.17 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

3.18 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.


4 Management Characteristics

4.1 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.”


4.2 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.


4.3 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


4.4 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.


4.5 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


4.6 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.


4.7 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


5 Data Characteristics

5.1 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)


5.2 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.


5.3 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.


5.4 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.


6 Version Notes

The package is subject to ongoing testing. If you find a bug or a problem please send a report to so that it can be fixed!





shiny-2019-05-12-11:44:37

Open Source, GPL-2 2019