ARMP Advisory Panel Workshop Summary: November 16, 2001

Department of Fish and Game Offices
4665 Lampson, Suite C
Los Alamitos, CA 90720

Attachment A: Overview for ARMP Workshop Attachment B: Attendence List for ARMP Workshop

The following is a summary of the Abalone Recovery and Management Plan (ARMP) Advisory Panel workshop, held in Los Alamitos on November 16, 2001. The ARMP Advisory Panel is composed of members and alternates representing commercial and sport abalone fishermen, environmental organizations, aquaculturists, and scientists. The Department of Fish and Game (Department) established this panel to obtain input and advice from a broad interest and experience base. The purpose of this workshop was to receive input on southern California abalone recovery.

Prior to the workshop, ARMP panelists and alternates received a workshop overview which included a review of potential recovery measures to be considered, and specific focus questions for the panel to answer. This overview may be found in Attachment A. The list of attendees may be found in Attachment B. The objectives for this workshop were to: 1) review and comment on interim and long-term recovery goals and criteria; and 2) evaluate suggested means of recovery and suggest alternative or additional approaches not considered. The workshop was led by Mr. Paul De Morgan, of RESOLVE, a neutral facilitation organization based in Portland Oregon.

Welcome, Opening Comments, Introductions, Agenda Review

Ms. Patty Wolf, Marine Region Manager, and Mr. Pete Haaker, Senior Marine Biologist, welcomed the panel and thanked them for their efforts to aide the Department in the development of the ARMP.

The facilitator, Mr. Paul De Morgan, led the introductions of Department staff and panel members present. He then reviewed the proposed workshop objectives, and agenda. Ms. Diana Watters, Associate Marine Biologist, briefly reviewed logistical items for the workshop.

Overview of Advisory Panel Purpose

Mr. Pete Haaker presented an overview of the panel's purpose. He explained that the panel's input, comments, ideas, and suggestions would be used to assist the Department in the development of the ARMP. This workshop provided the Department with the opportunity to hear from the panelists regarding the Department's preliminary approach to the recovery portion of the ARMP.

Mr. Haaker presented a brief history of the abalone fisheries in California. He noted that five of the seven endemic species were important in the fishery, with all species occurring in the south, and two occurring in the north part of California. He reviewed the current moratorium for commercial and recreational abalone fishing south of San Francisco, and the recreational fishery which operates north of San Francisco.

Mr. Haaker explained that the Department felt that recovery of southern abalones, while related, is different in scope and nature from management of the northern recreational fishery. As such, the Department is addressing these two subjects separately in the ARMP. He reiterated that the focus of this workshop would be issues associated with recovery of southern California abalone stocks. Management of the northern California recreational fishery would be the focus of the next workshop planned for Spring 2002.

He explained that members of the public attending the meeting would have an opportunity to comment on workshop topics during a working lunch. He introduced Department abalone team members who would be presenting information to the panel.

It was explained that most of the work to be completed for the day would take place during the panel discussion after the Department presentations. The panel was asked to: 1) address the conceptual framework for recovery; 2) evaluate the Department's approach to development of the ARMP; 3) address the focus questions about interim and long-term recovery goals, criteria, and activities; 4) suggest alternative approaches which have not been addressed. He added a final note of appreciation for the panel members' time and concern.

Presentation: Review of Fish and Game Code and Biology of Abalone

Mr. Konstantin Karpov, Senior Marine Biologist, reviewed the legal framework guiding abalone management and the ARMP. Federal laws which have implications for abalone management and which supercede State law include the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. These two Federal laws affect sea otter and white abalone management. Mr. Karpov next explained the California law, under Fish and Game Code sections 5521, 5521.5, 5520, and 5522, which pertain to abalone and the ARMP. Section 5521 addresses the moratorium on the recreational and commercial take of abalone south of San Francisco; section 5521.5 addresses the closure of the commercial fishery for abalone north of San Francisco; section 5520 explains the Legislature's intent with regard to abalone management; and section 5522 addresses the ARMP's content and due date (on or before January 1, 2003), as well as provisions for reopening abalone fisheries (the Department may apply to reopen the abalone fishery on or before January 1, 2008).

Presentation: Biology of Abalone

Ms. Jennifer O'Leary, Marine Biologist, reviewed the biological aspects of abalone that present challenges to recovery. Abalone are long-lived (30 years or longer), slow-growing (10 to 14 years for red abalone to reach the minimum sport legal size), and have highly variable recruitment (successful reproductive years). Ms. O'Leary explained the AAllee effect@, a minimum density below which abalone cannot reproduce successfully. The Allee effect contributes to the vulnerability of abalone stocks to collapse at low densities. The limited distance that abalone larvae are able to disperse limits their ability to re-colonize depleted areas. Ms. O'Leary pointed out that abalone fisheries cannot coexist with sea otter populations. Sea otters consume 25% of their body weight per day, and abalone is one of the primary food items. Withering syndrome was a contributor to the decline of abalone populations in southern California, and must be considered in recovering populations.

Presentation: Interim and Long-term Recovery Goals and Criteria

Mr. Pete Kalvass, Associate Marine Biologist, presented a conceptual framework for recovery, based on a model created by Restrepo et al. (1998). The model provides a potential means for measuring recovery, interim and long-term recovery goals, recovery evaluation criteria, and time lines for recovery, all of which are required for the ARMP. The presented model was developed to measure the rebuilding of fin-fish fisheries as part of the National Standard Guidelines in the Federal Magnuson-Stevenson Fisheries Act. The model uses biomass at maximum sustainable yield as a measure of recovery. The boundaries between over fished, recovering, and sustainable status are based on proportions of the biomass level at maximum sustained yield.

The proposed long-term goal of the ARMP is to rebuild depleted stocks in southern California to a maximum sustainable level with robust size distribution in former abalone beds. The proposed interim recovery goals include: 1) prevent extinction; 2) re-establish sustainable abundances with robust size distributions at former abalone beds; 3) attain biomass levels with sufficient surplus stock to warrant consideration of re-establishing a fishery. Mr. Kalvass explained how red abalone densities on the north coast, where red abalone are relatively abundant, could be used to set a biomass at maximum sustainable yield for the recovery model. This could serve as a proxy for the abundance criteria for recovery of southern California abalone stocks.

Presentation: Recovery Activities

Mr. Ian Taniguchi, Associate Marine Biologist, discussed the pros and cons of various recovery techniques, as well as their implementation. Recovering depleted stocks can be achieved using a range of activities to prevent extinction, assist in the recovery process, and increase recovery goals. Recovery techniques being considered include: translocation of adult stock from one area to another, aggregation of adult abalone within an area, larval out planting, captive breeding programs, and establishing marine protected areas. The recovery program will require an assessment strategy to evaluate the effectiveness of each stage of recovery on a species by species basis. Assessments will be integrated into statewide research protocols that are currently being developed by the Department with collaboration from other state and federal agency researchers. The necessity for recovery actions will be reevaluated as abalone populations recover to self-sustainability.

Public Comment during Lunch

During the lunch break, members of the audience were given the opportunity to provide input. Mr. John Richards, with the University of California's Sea Grant Extension Program, made a general announcement explaining his involvement with Sea Grant and potential sources of information and funding available through Sea Grant.

Advisory Panel Discussion of Interim and Long-term Recovery Goals and Criteria

Comments made by the Panel members are summarized here. The comments are in response to focus questions presented to the Panel by the Department's Abalone Team, which is responsible for developing the Abalone Recovery and Management Plan.

Q: Are the interim and long-term goals valid?

1. Several Panel members expressed concern about the long-term goal of reopening an abalone fishery in southern California because the stocks are currently so depleted. It was recommended that this goal not be part of the plan. Rather, the immediate goal should be to recover these stocks and design a specific step-by-step plan for doing so. Such a plan should include research methods to assess the success or failure and cost-effectiveness of the methodologies employed.
2. The Panel was concerned about reopening a limited fishery once the population reached the minimum B_msy, suggested by the Restrepo et al. (1998) model. This concern was linked to the applicability of the Restrepo model to invertebrate populations.
3. It is likely that sea otters will expand their range, and this should be considered for recovery of southern abalone stocks. The U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has not implemented the capture and relocation provisions of the 1987 Sea Otter Translocation Plan since early 1993, thus allowing natural expansion of the otter population into southern California. The USFWS is currently evaluating whether failure criteria in the Translocation Plan have been met. If deemed a failure, there are no legal mechanisms for limiting sea otter range expansion. Therefore, if the long-term goal is to recover southern California abalone stocks to the point that a fishery can be reopened, that goal may be unattainable because of sea otter recolonization in southern California. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should work together as partners on this situation.
4. It was suggested that recovering a population to prevent extinction is a different goal than recovering a fishery. These two goals have different approaches which should be specified. The interim and long term goals for the two kinds of recovery must be clearly defined and measurable.
5. The recovery plan needs to be able to address the habitat quality at different locations for different species.
6. The plan should be able to address the problem of incidental take if a fishery is reopened for fewer than all the species of abalones.
7. Some Panel members thought the interim goal of preventing extinction is redundant.

Q: Are there additional interim and long-term goals that should be considered?

1. Re-ordering the interim and long-term goals was suggested. Some members felt management steps should come earlier in the process of recovery. There was some interest in the reopening of a fishery at the minimum biomass levels, but it was pointed out that this would extend the period for achieving maximum biomass levels.
2. Add more interim goals to deal with various aspects of recovery; some of the long-term goals should be interim goals.
3. Organize goals into stages of recovery (I, II, III, etc.) with specific triggers to signal transition into next stage.

Q: Are the long-term goals appropriate for all five species?

1. There should be realistic specific goals for each species. One panel member suggested linking red abalone recovery goals to specific areas such as San Miguel Island.
2. Do not consider reopening fisheries for black and green abalone. These species are found in very shallow, restricted habitats and are too available to divers. Even limited take could have serious negative effects on populations.

Q: Do you agree with the criteria as described?

1. The Panel felt that the recovery criteria presented did not adequately address Section 5522.6c, which pertains to the importance of areas proposed for reopening and the potential impact to the recovery of adjacent areas. Some Panel members pointed out that some areas where abalones were found are no longer suitable for populations because of habitat loss and ecological changes.
2. Triggers: Several Panel members disliked the use of B_msy (or maximum sustained yield (MSY)) because they felt more data is needed to form the basis of a model. Some felt that 30% of B_msy is not a conservative threshold for a slow growing animal. These comments relate to the idea that the Restrepo model was inappropriate for application to invertebrates.

Q: Do you have any additional suggested criteria for recovery?

1. If B_msy is used as a recovery criteria, there should be a clear measure for setting it (the perception was that the Department does not have a clear measure). The use of optimum yield (OY) in place of MSY was suggested.
2. Develop specific research protocols for stock assessment.
3. Incorporate university research and cooperative research efforts with abalone fishers.
4. Establish a method to assess the effectiveness of these criteria as they are implemented..
5. Age and growth data should be collected as it may be useful for making predictions about the future settlement and recruitment.
6. Look to work done in Australia to use as a model for research and management. For example, Alistair Hobday's work.
7. Begin gathering data immediately at San Miguel Island so that this data will be available for future assessments.
8. Hold off on setting a maximum threshold for establishment of a fishery. In the interim, all work should be directed towards rebuilding stocks.
9. Choose marine protected area (MPA) sites for abalone as soon as possible. Choose sites that can be protected by wildlife protection (WLP).
10. Incorporate these MPA sites into the current MLPA and MERWG processes as soon as possible.
11. The recovery plan presented lacks the flexibility to manage for differences in habitat quality among different populations, or for incidental take if a fishery is reopened in southern California for some species.

Advisory Panel Discussion of Recovery Activities

1. Several Panel members stressed the critical need for assessment and filling data gaps. More research is needed in areas as genetics for stock identification, density determination, effectiveness of abalone recruitment modules (ARMs), etc.
2. The members were concerned about using fishery dependant data in developing assumptions to be used in management plans.
3. Larval out planting and aggregation methods are uncertain in their ability to enhance natural stocks.. Thus, more traditional monitoring of abalone populations is crucial. Aggregation experiments and ARMS have been unsuccessful so far. The actual cause of mortality is unknown. Experiments are needed to determine the validity of these recovery activities.
4. Focus on designing experiments appropriate to recovery activities.

Q: Evaluate suggested means of recovery and suggest alternative or additional approaches not considered?

1. Establish a data monitoring program and research methodology to determine the level of recovery for populations.
2. Conduct experiments to test the effectiveness of recovery treatments. Could use a BACI (before-after-control-impact) approach with a sufficient number of replicates (e.g. 6 per site).
3. Establish MPAs (for control sites) on Santa Cruz, Santa Catalina, and Santa Barbara Islands. Protect sites with effective enforcement. Recovery techniques must be linked to MPAs to protect stocks.
4. Panel members suggested a compilation of existing data and literature be assembled. Funding could be sought from private and public grant agencies. Sea Grant Rapid Response funding was suggested.
5. A recruitment model would be helpful to evaluate which sites to enhance, but there is an absence of the data to generate such a model.
6. Baseline population genetic data is needed but difficult to obtain. Could look at recruitment and test for genetic homogeneity.
7. A Panelist advocated aggregation over translocation because the areas chosen should have similar habitat and population structure. There was also concern about the spread of disease and parasites during these operations.
8. Consider habitat grooming to aid larval out planting. Such techniques as using coralline covered rocks in out planting operations should be investigated as a technique for enhancement..
9. Consider not applying enhancement techniques in certain areas; and there should be criteria about when to cease enhancement techniques, i.e., when population recovery is evident.
10. Consider ocean current patterns when doing translocation studies to identify potential source and sink populations.

Additional focus questions posed to the Panel based on the morning discussion

Q: Does the model (Restrepo et al. 1998) make sense? Are there alternative models?

1. Several Panel members thought the Restrepo model was inappropriate for invertebrates and that it is not sufficiently conservative.
2. In place of a Restrepo model, develop a model that includes individual growth rates, fecundity, size data, an estimate of mortality, and genetic connectivity between populations/stocks.
3. A Skillam model was suggested as an alternative to Restrepo.
4. A population model, rather than a fishery model was suggested.

Q: Are northern California stock densities appropriate for southern California recovery criteria?

1. Density at San Miguel Island was suggested by one panel member to be a more realistic proxy for southern California recovery criteria.

Panel requested clarification and /or definition of the following terms/ideas:

1. Robust size distribution.
2. Self-reproducing population.
3. How surplus stock will be measured.
4. Definition of former abalone bed.

Next Steps

Mr. Paul De Morgan led a discussion of the next steps for the panel and the Department to take or consider taking:

1. Explore funding opportunities (e.g., Sea Grant, NFWF) for development of an Abalone-Data Library - Pete Haaker, Lead; Kate Wing, advice.
   • Consider getting support of full Panel behind the funding requests - would require drafting a proposal and sending out to the Panel members for endorsement.
2. Establish a science subcommittee - Pete K., Lead; Ron Burton, Tom Ebert, Steve Schroeter.
   • Obtain and examine raw existing data.
   • Further develop ideas for alternative models.
3. Draft and distribute for comment a summary of the proceedings to all Panel members.
4. Schedule the March meeting.
5. Consider adding a half-day of meeting in March to discuss recovery related issues.
6. Consider convening conference calls to discuss issues (e.g., new models) prior to the next meeting.
7. DFG will consider potential MPAs and share their views on the most valuable marine areas for abalone recovery with the Panel members.