Draft ARMP Town Hall Meeting: Summary

September 14, 2002
University of California, Buchanan Hall
Santa Barbara, CA

Return to Abalone Resources Page

The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) held a town hall meeting in Santa Barbara on September 14, 2002, to receive informal public comments on the draft Abalone Recovery and Management Plan (ARMP). The objectives of the town hall meeting were to:

• Explain key features of the draft ARMP
• Obtain public comments and suggestions on the draft ARMP

Welcome and Opening Remarks

Fred Wendell, Nearshore Ecosystem Coordinator, DFG, thanked those in attendance for their interest and for taking valuable time to help the DFG with the process of developing the draft ARMP. He explained that the DFG would give presentations on the key components of the draft ARMP, and then comments would be received. Comments will be considered in the process of revising the draft. He went on to explain that for the current informal comment process, each comment will not be responded to directly, but will be summarized and included in the draft ARMP. Mr. Wendell encouraged the audience to focus comments on how to improve the draft ARMP.

DFG staff present were introduced. Members of the audience introduced themselves. Mr. Wendell directed the audience's attention to a handout of the Fish and Game Code sections that guide the content of the ARMP. He reviewed the public input process to date, and then explained that once the draft ARMP is submitted to the Fish and Game Commission, a formal public comment period will begin. He explained that formal public comments will be responded to.

Abalone Biology and Status of the Stocks

Jerry Kashiwada, marine biologist, DFG, presented the biology and status of the stocks components of the draft ARMP. He began by explaining factors which affect the status of stocks, focusing on age and growth, reproduction, disease, predation, and environmental conditions. Mr. Kashiwada explained that one important component of reproduction that affects abalone includes the minimum viable population (MVP) level, which is the minimum abundance at which populations can sustain themselves. Studies have shown that when abalone are spaced more than two yards apart, only 50% of abalone eggs are fertilized. Abalone larvae do not disperse far, thus population recovery is slow. Research has indicated that the MVP is 2,000 abalone/hectare (2.5 acres). An important factor of abalone reproduction is that it is sporadic. In1989 and 1990 there was a successful recruitment of young abalone, but none since then.

Mr. Kashiwada discussed abalone age and growth, which might be affected by environmental conditions. It takes about seven years for abalone in southern California to reach legal size and about 13 years in northern California, a result of different environmental conditions and food availability.

Mr. Kashiwada reviewed disease concerns for abalone particularly withering syndrome in southern California. He stated that although the bacteria that causes the disease has been found in a few individuals in northern California, no abalone in the region have been found showing signs of the disease. Research indicates that colder water temperatures on the north coast prevent the occurrence of the disease there.

It was explained that while humans and sea otters are major predators of abalones, sea otters will preclude a fishery within its range.

Mr. Kashiwada next addressed the status of abalone stocks. He explained that generally the stocks in southern California are in poor condition. White abalone is listed as an endangered species, black abalone is a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act, and pink and green abalones are potential future candidates for listing. Red abalone populations are mostly limited to San Miguel Island. He noted the concerns about the northern California red abalone resource and fishery including concentration of fishery effort, irregular recruitment of young abalone, deep water stock decline, and serial (local) depletion (fishermen having to travel farther from access points to get abalone) in high use areas. He added that although there are many legal-sized abalone present today, the lack of recruitment of young abalone means that the large abalone present now will need to last for at least the next 10 years.

Clarifying questions and answers followed.

Recovery Plan

Mr. Pete Haaker, Senior Biologist, DFG, presented key features of the recovery portion of the draft ARMP. He explained that the recovery part of the ARMP applies to white, black, red, green, and pink abalone in southern California and red abalone at San Mateo Point and the Farallon Islands. Mr. Haaker stated that the draft plan proposes a seven-year timeline to implement interim recovery goals: prevent extinction, rebuild populations to self-sustaining levels, and rebuild populations to fishery levels. The long-term goal of the plan is to reach levels where a fishery would be considered.

Mr. Haaker described a conceptual model from the ARMP that illustrates recovery of stocks from current levels. Southern California red abalone is currently at sustainable levels at one island, but pink, green, white, and black abalones are below minimum viable population levels. Proposed target minimum viable population levels are 2,000 abalone per hectare (2.6 acres), and fishery consideration would occur at 6,600 abalone per hectare. These levels are adaptable and could be changed when recovery occurs.

Mr. Haaker described three criteria to use in assessing the status of stocks. Criterion 1 would be a broad size range at many sites, which indicates growth and good reproduction. Data for this criterion would be collected from swim surveys. Once Criterion 1 was met, then density surveys could be used to evaluate Criterion 2, which would be 2,000 abalone per hectare, the minimum viable population level. Criterion 3 would be density of 6,600 abalone per hectare, the level at which a fishery could be considered. The criteria would apply to each individual species, at all index sites for criteria 1 and 2, and at 75% of the sites for criterion 3.

Mr. Haaker explained that the draft plan is adaptive, that index locations could me modified due to habitat loss, sea otter expansion, or environmental change. He noted that if recovery areas declined by 50% for a particular abalone species, then there would not be a fishery for that species, because of reduced biological capacity.

Mr. Haaker described activities that the plan uses for recovery. Aggregation, or moving abalone closer together, could help with reproduction, but has potential problems with handling and poaching and the source of individuals. Translocation, or moving abalone to other areas to re-establish them is another activity described in the plan, with similar potential problems to aggregation. Culture, or breeding abalone in captivity is another possible activity described in the plan; its drawbacks include cost, and past outplanting activity has been problematic. Mr. Haaker explained that future activities would depend on what happens in the interim period. He cautioned that the recovery period is likely to be a long one.

Clarifying questions and answers followed.

Management - Interim and Long-term Approach

Ms. Jennifer O'Leary, marine biologist, DFG, described key features of the management portion of the ARMP. She explained that the proposed plan consists of interim and long-term parts. The interim part is precautionary and short-term (2003 - 2009), and is based on current limited data and management. The proposed long-term plan could be less precautionary because it will be based on more data and allow more precise management of the fishery. She reviewed the proposed conceptual model for interim management. 6,600 abalone per hectare would be considered a sustainable fishery level, and a level at which a closed fishery would be considered for re-opening. 3,000 abalone per hectare would be the level at which fishery closure would be proposed by the Department. Again, 2,000 abalone per hectare is the minimum viable population level.

Ms. O'Leary described the draft plan's interim management components, which include an annual total allowable catch (TAC), criteria for measuring stock conditions, and two decision tables using criteria to guide changes. She described three proposed criteria in the plan for stock conditions: 1) recruitment (high abundance of sub-legal, emergent abalone); 2) density (6,600 abalone per hectare at all depths and 3,300 abalone per hectare for deep depths, and 2,000 abalone per hectare minimum viable population); and 3) catch-per-unit effort (CPUE) and serial (local) depletion (decrease in CPUE, significant increase in the distance traveled from an access point). Recruitment and density criteria would be used to adjust the TAC up or down, while CPUE, serial depletion, and density criteria would be used to consider area closures and re-openings. Ms. O'Leary explained some of the limitations of the proposed interim management plan, including the limited amount of data available for decision making, and that the TAC applies to the entire fishery range.

The key elements of the proposed long-term management plan were described and include: zonal management, abalone tags, and increased fishery independent data collection. The proposed target for the long-term management plan's implementation is 2009. The proposed plan calls for a planning process for re-opening fisheries when 75% of the recovery index sites meet the 6,600 abalone per hectare criteria.

A short question period followed.

Public Comments

Mr. Steve Rebuck commented that the patch dynamics of abalone should be considered, because even though habitat may look good for abalone, they may be absent. He stated that suitable habitat doesn't necessarily mean that abalone will be there. He suggested that DFG use commercial divers to help locate abalone. Mr. Rebuck questioned what had happened to the 45,000 to 50,000 abalone being taken at the time of the fishery closure, and stated that they were continuing to grow and reproduce. He stated that he thought that there was some stability in the fishery at the time of closure. He stated that survey work was needed at the Farallon Islands and mainland. He suggested that otter areas should be considered for fisheries and that the plan needed to be strengthened with regard to otters. Mr. Rebuck stated that a commercial fishery should be considered at the Farallon Islands. He also stated that there are a lot of abalone at Van Damme. He stated that some of the plan's goals were unrealistic, that we can't return to prehistoric levels. Mr. Rebuck suggested quotas and slot fisheries would be effective management tools. He agreed with Don Thompson that the DFG has not delivered what it promised. Mr. Rebuck submitted a plan for ITQs in southern California. He stated that 50% of red abalone landings were made by 10 divers, and that the transferability of permits is a good idea. Mr. Rebuck stated that he would like to see electronic devices used to track fishermen. He stated that in 1991 he submitted a plan for using tags at the request of Earl Ebert, and was pleased to see that tags were in the plan. With regards to stock assessment, Mr. Rebuck commented that the DFG's 1997 cruise report stated that commercial sized abalone were 1.2% of the population, and that he thinks that there are 4,000,000 abalone available to harvest south of San Francisco.

Mr. Mark Becker disagreed with the DFG's statement that it takes from 10 to 14 years for abalone to reach legal size. He stated that Johnson's Lee data is wrong, and needs to be re-addressed. He stated that the decline data was wrong and that the die-off at Palos Verdes needs to be re-addressed. He commented that data from block 690 need to be verified, and suggested that fish tickets be linked to fuel receipts to prove that block 690 produced the abalone that were shown from there. Mr. Becker expressed concern about the movement of abalone, the effects of copper piping on them, and rickettsia. He stated that the DFG needs more stringent controls over spread of disease. He commented that the science that was presented was poor, and that the plan is skewed. He stated that the plan needs new science collected with the cooperation of fishermen, and that studies need to be developed now.

Mr. Paul Weakland commented that he did not receive the postcard announcing the town hall meeting until late, and that the meeting was scheduled on the same day as an urchin meeting. He also commented that many people don't have Adobe Acrobat which is needed to view the ARMP on the internet. He commented that the 6,600 abalone per hectare number is too precautionary and not realistic. He stated that the minimum viable population level figure should be reduced to 1,200 abalone per hectare, and that all of the numbers should be reduced. He stated that divers are stewards of the resource, and that withering syndrome is poisoning the roots of the abalone resource. He stated that disease is being ignored. Mr. Weakland stated that the DFG is lying about sabellid worms and withering syndrome. He commented that the seven-year time line needs to be retroactive to the closing of the fishery. Mr. Weakland commented that he is offended that the ARMP is dedicated to Mia Tegner, and that that dedication should be removed.

Mr. Jim Marshall commented that pre-emergent abalone should be looked at for recruitment.

Mr. Jim Finch questioned what was meant by deep water and commented that free diving is becoming popular in southern California, so the DFG should consider that 25 feet is not that deep. He stated that poaching in northern California is a big problem. Mr. Finch commented that he believes in outplanting and thinks it works. He stated that divers saw results of outplanted abalone that became harvestable, but were discouraged when those abalone were wiped out by recreational fishermen. He stated that adequate penalties were needed to discourage poaching. Mr. Finch stated that tags were a good idea, and that education was needed. He suggested that fishermen not be allowed to take abalone without adequate education on handling them. He stated that the sport abalone size should be increased. He also stated that he starts to see abalone at 7 inches to 7.25 inches, and that a 7-inch size limit is a crime.

Mr. Mike Shane questioned the 6,600 abalone per hectare density, asking if that number was achievable in southern California. He asked that the plan be adaptable if that number was not possible for southern California. Mr. Shane also questioned the use of transplantation because there have been no genetics studies. He suggested that the plan contain a plan to do genetics work before translocating to avoid problems. He questioned whether there were plans to generate money from outside of the DFG. Mr. Shane commented that he didn't want to see the DFG five years down the road saying that we didn't have the money, and to make sure that the plan contains all potential sources of funding.

Mr. David Kushner commented that although fishermen say that biologists don't know how to find abalone, he believes that they do. He commented that an apprentice program is needed to train future people to identify and find abalone, because fishermen and biologists are a dying group of people. Mr. Kushner commented that the plan needs to clarify that threaded and pinto abalone are the same. He stated that we don't know what is going on with threaded abalone, that they have re-appeared, and that should be addressed. He stated that northern California populations should be looked at separately from southern California populations. He commented that there is no evidence that withering syndrome has affected red and pink abalone, and that that statement should be removed. Mr. Kushner commented that protection education needs to be emphasized more. He stated that the plan needs to document attempts at translocation and aggregation to look at successes and failures, in particular failures, since these are often not published.

Mr. Don Thompson complimented the plan's use of contingency tables in making decisions. He expressed concern about lack of data from only three sites. He commented that a biomass estimate is needed for abalone, and questioned why the DFG had not extrapolated the data index sites to biomass estimates. He stated that he wanted the DFG to stop grouping data over a long period. Mr. Thompson stated that a status report is needed to document recovery of abalone since the fishery closure. He commented that subjective statements should be removed from the ARMP and asked for more quantitative, statistical information. He stated that all of the information from the former plan, including public comments be included. Mr. Thompson stated that the DFG ceased progress, and rescinded on promises made on a management plan for a fishery. He stated that in 1997 John Duffy stated that it was time to consider a possible re-opening of fisheries in southern California. He recalled a Fish and Game Commission meeting at which it was stated that the DFG was on its way to getting biomass estimates for abalone, and the DFG still doesn't have them. Mr. Thompson commented that he was angry about how the DFG is handling the delivery of the management plan, because DFG has not delivered what it said it would do.

Mr. Bob Duncan expressed concern about poaching and questioned how the DFG planned to protect areas where 6,000 abalone per hectare exist. He emphasized that enforcement needed to be better addressed. He stated that the plan needed to include a study of how threaded abalone have returned, and the ability for abalone to bounce back on their own.

Summary and Adjournment

Following a break, DFG staff presented a summary of the oral comments received that day to the audience. Mr. Fred Wendell again thanked those present for attending the meeting and providing valuable input. The meeting was adjourned.