Abalone Recovery and Management Plan Workshop: Summary

March 15, 2002
Oakland, CA

Attachment A: Attendence List for ARMP Workshop Attachment B: Overview for ARMP Workshop Requires Adobe Reader, File Size 131 KB

Members of the Abalone Recovery and Management Plan (ARMP) Advisory Panel and the Recreational Abalone Advisory Committee (RAAC) met on March 15, 2002, to provide input to the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) on northern California abalone management. The objectives of the workshop were to:

• Evaluate and comment on the proposed management approach; and
• Evaluate and comment on alternative management strategies and refinements and make additional suggestions.

The ARMP Advisory Panel is composed of individuals representing commercial and sport abalone fishermen, environmental organizations, aquaculturists, scientists, and others. The panel was established by DFG to obtain input and advice from a broad range of interests on efforts to develop the ARMP. The RAAC is an on-going Committee advising the DFG on issues associated with the recreational abalone fishery. A list of all the attendees can be found in Attachment A. Copies of presentation slides and other materials distributed at the meeting may be obtained by contacting Diana Watters, at (650) 631-2535, or dwatters@dfg.ca.gov.

Welcome and Opening Remarks

Pete Haaker, senior marine biologist, DFG, welcomed everyone to the workshop. He noted that the department was holding the workshop to solicit comments and suggestions from various perspectives, including biologists, non-governmental organizations, and recreational divers. He explained that the workshop included both the ARMP Advisory Panel and the RAAC in order to broaden the range of expertise and comments.

Introductions and Agenda Review

Paul De Morgan, RESOLVE, introduced himself and explained that as facilitator of the workshop he would 1) ensure that DFG had an opportunity to present the proposed management approach and the rationale behind it and 2) ensure that everyone had an opportunity to comment on the proposed approach and rationale.

After members of the ARMP Advisory Panel, RAAC, DFG staff, and audience introduced themselves Mr. De Morgan reviewed the agenda and other materials presented to the workshop participants. He outlined the ground rules for the workshop and asked the ARMP Advisory Panel and RAAC members to focus their comments on the management aspects of the proposed plan.

Update on Progress since First ARMP Workshop and Overview of Workshop Purpose

Before providing the update, Mr. Haaker offered the apologies of Patty Wolf, marine region manager, DFG, and Fred Wendell, acting northern marine manager, DFG, who were unable to attend the workshop but have been very involved in developing the ARMP.

Mr. Haaker reported that DFG has been seeking funding for the abalone data library, but no funding has been secured yet. He said that in response to comments on the importance of marine protected areas (MPAs) he and Dr. Laura Rogers-Bennett, associate marine biologist, DFG, had evaluated all of the proposed MPA sites for their potential benefit to abalone. He noted that a consideration was that sites for concentration of abalones must be able to be protected or located in remote locations. He said that many of the proposed sites are in the vicinity of major population centers and probably would not be useful in abalone work. He also reported that department staff had provided southern California abalone tagging and cruise data to the scientific subcommittee.

To help illustrate the connectivity of recovery and management, Mr. Haaker presented a general model for the ARMP.

Konstantin Karpov, senior marine biologist, DFG, explained that DFG is developing a management plan that is precautionary in a data-poor environment and uses an empirically derived total allowable catch (TAC). He said that the starting point for the proposed plan is the recent Fish and Game Commission action. He commented that DFG considers the plan a living document, allowing for refinements as more data become available and the science progresses. Mr. Karpov said that the proposed plan includes criteria that will "trigger" management actions based on the conditions of the abalone stocks and environment. He explained that in plan development, DFG is considering local area closures to protect the resource from localized depletions. He said DFG also is considering closing and opening fisheries as area-wide recovery dictates, thus linking proposed management to the recovery portion of the ARMP. In closing Mr. Karpov commented that the DFG staff was open to comments and critical thinking on the proposed management approach.

Status of Stocks and Management Considerations

Jerry Kashiwada, marine biologist, DFG, presented an overview of the status of abalone stocks and management considerations. He presented historical data on the serial depletion and overall decline of red abalone in central and southern California. He listed the fishery dependent and fishery independent assessment sites for northern California, commenting that the limited number of sites contributes to the data-poor scenario. He outlined the data on the northern red abalone fishery that indicate current trends of concentrated fishery effort and increased take, few young abalone, declines of deep-water stocks, and serial depletion in high-use areas. Mr. Kashiwada said that earlier this year, the Fish and Game Commission considered these trends and lowered the daily bag and possession limit from four abalone to three and the annual limit from one hundred abalone to twenty-four. He commented that the new limits result in a projected annual take of 430,000 abalone.

In response to questions, DFG staff made the following comments:

• Estimates of poaching are developed primarily from information collected at enforcement checkpoints, such as the number of people stopped who do not have an abalone report card or who have more than the bag limit. "Black market" poaching is much more difficult to estimate.
• About one to two percent of fishermen caught their annual limit of 100 abalone under the old regulations. The average annual catch was eighteen abalone. In 2001 there were approximately 40,000 fishermen.
• DFG estimates bar-cut mortality at two to three percent, which is lower than in the past due to current gear regulations and education efforts.

A member commented that despite all the effort going toward abalone, the scenario is still data poor. Dr. Rogers-Bennett noted that the department is just beginning to receive data from increased research efforts supported by funds from the abalone stamp.

Proposed Management Approach

Peter Kalvass, associate marine biologist, DFG, and Jennifer O'Leary, marine biologist, DFG, presented an overview of the proposed management approach. Mr. Kalvass explained that the proposed plan is based on an empirically determined total allowable catch (TAC) of 430,000 abalone. He said that under the proposed plan total catch would be measured annually, post-season, and DFG would conduct a review every other year to determine if the TAC is being met with existing regulations, to determine if alterations of the TAC are warranted based on the established criteria, and to evaluate the sustainability of local areas.

Mr. Kalvass outlined the proposed criteria-recruitment, density, occurrence of adverse effects, and serial depletion-and explained how each was developed. He noted, however, that since completing the document submitted to the panel ("Overview of Abalone Recovery and Management Plan Workshop on Management") DFG had reconsidered the adverse effects criteria. He said the staff decided to propose the disease criteria but not the other adverse effects criteria, believing that not enough is known about El Niño, poaching, and sea otters to make strict criteria on them. He noted that the disease criteria distinguishes between a minor event (5-20% of stocks affected) and a major event (more than 20% of stocks affected).

Ms. O'Leary explained how the criteria work within the decision tables. She reviewed the fishery-wide TAC decision table, outlining the combinations of criteria (recruitment, density, and adverse events) that would dictate increasing the TAC, maintaining the TAC, decreasing the TAC, closing the fishery, or reopening the fishery. She noted that the maximum TAC would be set at 25 percent above the base TAC of 430,000 abalone per year. She offered an example of a situation in which the criteria would require reducing the TAC.

Ms. O'Leary also reviewed the localized area closure decision table. She outlined the combinations of criteria (density, serial depletion, and adverse events) that would trigger a survey to determine if density in the area is approaching minimal viable population, closure of an area, or reopening of a closed area. She noted that if an area were closed, the overall TAC would be reduced proportionately to prevent increased take in the remaining open areas. Ms. O'Leary also explained that a localized area that met the criteria for reopening would not be reopened if the entire fishery were closed (i.e., these criteria would not apply to localized areas in the southern fishery until the entire fishery met the criteria to reopen a fishery).

Ms. O'Leary listed the tools currently available to DFG to manage the fishery: gear restrictions, size limits, area closures, seasonal closures, daily limits, and annual limits. She commented that these tools may be refined or others may be added in the future and noted that daily and annual limits are the primary tools currently being used to adjust the TAC.

In response to questions, DFG staff made the following comments:

• It takes from five to ten years for an abalone to grow from emergent size to harvestable size; however, growth rates vary greatly in response to food source and some abalone may take several more years to grow from emergent to harvestable size.
• The fishery dependent surveys are designed around access sites, with high use sites serving as index sites. There are no strict criteria for defining the boundaries of the sites, though the fishery dependent surveys generally extend as far as the fishermen go. DFG would prefer to have a different, random frame if it were possible. Monitoring a consistent area is likely more important than where the boundaries of sites lie.
• The biennial review of the TAC will coincide with the two-year cycle of the Fish and Game Commission's regular sport fishery review. Total catch will be monitored annually, and it would be possible to make adjustments within the two-year period if the situation warranted it.
• Estimates of the extent of withering syndrome at San Miguel Island in 1993 are based on data from DFG cruises, which indicated that up to five percent of abalone examined at some individual sites were affected by the disease.

A panel member noted that for the serial depletion criteria, a "significant" increase in distance from access point or "significant" decline in catch per unit effort (CPUE) means a statistically significant increase or decline, which may be large or small in magnitude and may or may not be biologically significant.

Refinements of the Proposed Plan and Alternative Management Strategies

Dr. Rogers-Bennett presented some of the DFG staff's ideas of refinements and alternatives to improve the plan as new information becomes available. She noted that these refinements and alternatives will not be included in the first ARMP. Dr. Rogers-Bennett focused on five areas:

• New criteria - Aggregation criteria or criteria on the effects of El Niño, poaching, and sea otters may be incorporated in management decision making.
• Marine protected areas - MPAs may be established in shallow habitat to provide insurance against stock collapse.
• Alternative management strategies - Rather than a TAC-based strategy, the plan could use an area-based management strategy, which would adjust the amount of habitat reserved from fishing according to criteria.
• Alternative approaches for setting TACs - The proposed plan uses previous fishing levels to set the TAC. Alternatively, if data were available to support the methods, the TAC could be set based on a surplus production model or in response to the environment.
• Additional quantitative methods - Refining estimates of population parameters (growth, mortality, and reproduction) or modeling proposed management strategies could help to evaluate management options.

In response to questions, Mr. Karpov clarified that the TAC in the proposed plan does not assume any closed areas; if any areas are closed, as MPAs or for other reasons, the TAC would be lowered proportionately.

A member commented that the effects of MPAs may be counterintuitive. She gave the example that if an MPA included urchins, an increase in their population could reduce the amount of kelp in the area, which in turn could hurt the abalone population. Another member commented that DFG staff should ensure that MPAs are beneficial for abalone. Dr. Rogers-Bennett noted that biologists do not understand all the intricacies of species interactions. DFG explained that Mr. Haaker serves as a link between the ARMP and the MLPA processes, providing information on the potential effects of proposed MPAs on abalone. A member pointed out that unless an MPA is closed to all fishing it is difficult to prevent poaching.

Discussion of Overall Plan

Focus Questions:

• What is your general reaction to the proposed management approach?
• Will it result in a sustainable fishery?

Several members commented that generally the proposed approach is good, given the data limitations.

A member expressed concern about basing decisions on data averaged across all sites and asked whether this was the best approach given the difficulty of predicting recruitment. Another member responded that treating the fishery as one unit may be the best approach since so little is known about the interconnections among sites from a population standpoint.

Several members commented on the need for DFG to prepare a research plan that states priorities and timeframes for filling various data gaps. One member noted that clear priorities and rationale would be helpful in seeking funding from outside sources and or competing for limited state research funding. Comments on specific areas of research included the following:

• DFG needs to determine the extent of abalone habitat (and the extent of accessible abalone habitat) in order to estimate the size of the fishery reliably.
• DFG needs to outline what additional information it will gather and use to assess and prevent serial depletion. Site-specific data are important as different sites will need to be managed differently. Site specific reporting on the abalone report cards is a good start.
• The data need to cover the entire area. In particular, research should determine both where the juveniles are and what is happening in the grazer areas where the larger abalone reside.
• Data on connectivity of sites are important but extremely difficult to obtain given current technology. The use of non-genetic tracers as a way to identify larval sources was suggested.
• Data on settlement of postlarvae would be very useful as they provide an indication of the future population. Settlement collectors would be preferable to Abalone Recruitment Modules (ARMs) if an effective collector could be developed for abalone.
• DFG should work to determine what impacts (e.g., fishing, El Niño, sea otters) have the greatest effect on abalone.

A member commented that when DFG's approach is to err toward conservation in a data poor scenario, the department may implement closures that fishermen believe are not justified. He said that adequate research and funding may alleviate some of this negative reaction.

Additional comments included the following:

• The plan should include a law enforcement component.
• The plan should include quantitative criteria to allow the public to evaluate whether DFG is achieving its goals.
• The areas most heavily fished are those that are most accessible, not necessarily those that are most productive.

Public Comment

E. A. Flynn
Mr. Flynn requested that the RAAC consider opening San Mateo County to recreational abalone fishing. He commented that opening San Mateo County would reduce fishing pressure on other counties and would also show how five years of closure had helped the abalone recover. He reported that he had observed an eighteen-fold increase in abalone in one area.

Paul Weakland
Mr. Weakland expressed concern about the lack of abalone data and the resulting choice by DFG to err on the side of conservation. He commented that all disease events should be considered major rather than using the proposed two-tier classification. He suggested that DFG increase the minimum size requirement for harvestable abalone in order to increase abalone populations. He commented that 52 of the 104 existing MPAs are closed to abalone fishing and questioned why more MPAs are being identified when it is unknown whether the existing ones have benefited abalone. He also requested that DFG report the margin of error on its surveys.

Harold M. Hoogasian
Mr. Hoogasian stated that raising the minimum size requirement is the easiest way to increase the abalone population. He commented that the department's estimates of poaching are a gross underestimate and that commercial poachers are causing a lot of damage. He said that the abalone stamps are too inexpensive and suggested that fishermen would be willing to pay more if they knew the money were going toward research. He also suggested that fishermen would be willing to give DFG a tissue sample from the abalone they catch so that DFG could do a genetic population sample.

Discussion on the Proposed Criteria

Focus Questions:

• Will the criteria assist the department in determining fishery adjustments?
• What is the best proxy for good recruitment: emergent or invasive densities, or a combination of both?
• Is it reasonable to use average densities from emergent surveys at three index sites as the sustainable population density target in northern California?
• What measurable criteria could be used for El Niño events and poaching?
• Should sea otter expansion trigger localized or total closure?
• Are the definitions of minor and major disease events logical?
• Are there additional criteria that the department should consider?

A member suggested that the DFG staff draw on the formal body of literature on decision making matrices to help develop the plan. She commented that the literature could offer methods of incorporating uncertainty into decision making and methods to take advantage of expert opinions as well as quantitative information.

Members discussed the advantages and limitations of survey methods. Several expressed concern about the impact of invasive surveys on the reef habitat, and some noted that invasive surveys are time consuming and labor intensive. One member commented that due to the long time it takes for abalone to grow from emergent size to harvestable size, DFG can use emergent survey data to evaluate the fishery and effect management changes, making the invasive surveys unnecessary. Another member noted that emergent surveys do not adequately capture the 'hidden' part of the population which could lead to over or under estimations of stock trajectories. As such, some members recommended, the DFG should continue to utilize the invasive surveys as they provide valuable information about the young of the year. One member suggested that DFG should think "outside the box" in developing new means of gathering data on the young of the year. Specific suggestions offered by members included creating artificial habitat, using Lucite tubes to view the abalone, and using data from settlement collectors to focus the invasive surveys.

A member commented that collecting young of the year for analysis is important. He suggested that chemical analyses of the shells might indicate locations where they were spawned. He said that archiving tissue samples might also be useful, noting that the samples should be from both large and small abalone.

A member commented that three index sites are too few for management decisions. He suggested that data from the three sites could be used as a trigger for more extensive data gathering efforts. He also commented that Van Damme is an anomaly and should not be used as an index site. Another member agreed that three sites is too few for management decisions, observing that an unusual event at one of the sites would have a large influence on the overall data if there were only three sites total. A member commented that the very best sites should not be chosen as index sites as they are not representative of the whole fishery. Another member suggested analyzing how well the long term sites tracked with each other and with the area-wide surveys.

A member expressed a concern about the limited number of sampling areas outside of northern California. She commented that some people might argue based on the criteria that some areas closed under the moratorium should be opened. She and others commented that in particular, DFG should clarify how the plan applies to San Mateo County and whether it could be reopened under the criteria.

A member observed that the proposed criteria consider population size but not population trends. She suggested that developing an index of abundance over time would be useful. Another member suggested sampling more sites to build a genetics library that would help with developing a population structure and help with enforcement efforts. A third member suggested doing a delta plot and time series analysis to help determine how typical various sites are and whether different sites fluctuate similarly. He commented that if staff and funding constraints limit research efforts, DFG should opt for developing time series data over expanding the number of sites sampled. He also suggested sampling yearly to develop the time series, though another member commented that sampling every other year may be adequate.

A member requested that DFG provide a better explanation of how recruitment will be measured and how it will factor into decision making.

Members discussed adverse events and whether DFG should develop criteria based on them. One member suggested that DFG should distinguish between reversible adverse events, such as El Niño, and non-reversible events, such as the establishment of sea otters.

• Disease - A member suggested that areas affected by disease should be open to fishing as lowering the population density may decrease or slow the spread of the disease. Another member, however, expressed concern that fishing might harvest out disease resistant animals. A member asked whether Crescent City would be closed under the proposed disease criteria. DFG staff noted that the criterion requires the abalone to show symptoms of the disease, so Crescent City would not be closed. Mr. Haaker added that Dr. Carolyn Friedman (a shellfish pathologist) has advised DFG that the proposed disease criteria are too simplistic and the criteria may need to be expanded.
• Poaching - Some members expressed concern about using criteria based on poaching estimates, given the difficulty of developing accurate and reliable estimates. One member commented that the effects of poaching are already incorporated implicitly in other criteria.
• El Niño - A member observed that the proposed plan focused on the potential negative effects of El Niño. He commented that El Niño may also have positive effects, noting that the period of strong recruitment at Van Damme was during El Niño. He said that using El Niño criteria as a trigger for closer research on its effects may be appropriate.
• Sea otters - One member commented that there is nothing management can do about otters; they will deplete an area of abalone on their own. Another member commented that it is difficult to determine what constitutes establishment of an otter population. Noting that otters' presence would be detected by a change in abalone densities, he commented that otter establishment should not be a criterion, but rather criteria should focus on what is happening in the fishery. Some members suggested that areas in central California where otters are established and the abalone are surviving should be used to determine the minimum viable population level for abalone. One member commented that it remains unclear whether sea otters will establish in the north, though another member commented that it is likely they will establish over the next decades. A member pointed out that the huge population of abalone was the result of the near extermination of sea otters, which is unlikely to happen again. One member suggested that rather than closing areas as otters move in, the TAC could be lowered incrementally. Another member responded that otters should trigger the opening of areas rather than closing, to allow fishermen access to the abalone before they are depleted by the otters.

Discussion on the Proposed Management Approach and Alternative Management Strategies and Refinements

Focus Questions on Fishery Adjustment:

• Are the options presented in the decision tables logical?
• Do the specified sets of criteria warrant the actions listed?
• Do the listed actions provide adequate management alternatives?

Focus Questions on Alternative Management Strategies and Refinements:

• Would the new criteria improve abalone management efforts?
• Would the alternative approaches improve TAC estimates?
• Are there any additional alternative strategies that should be considered?
• Are there any additional quantitative methods to evaluate management options?

Some members noted that according to the proposed plan, the TAC would be reduced if the average population density fell below 5000 abalone per hectare (ab/ha), the fishery would be closed if the density fell below 3000 ab/ha, but the fishery would not be reopened until density rose above 6600 ab/ha. They questioned why the proposed plan would allow fishing at reduced levels while the abalone population density was falling from 5000 to 3000 ab/ha but not while density was rising from 3000 to 6600 ab/ha. Some suggested that the plan should allow incremental reopening. One member suggested that an auction or lottery system be used to open closed sites on a limited basis, with the revenue going toward research. Another member commented, however, that closed areas should not be opened incrementally when population density is increasing because the fishery will need time to build up a surplus population without fishing pressure. Other members agreed, and one noted that requiring high densities before opening an area would be especially important in the absence of recruitment criteria.

A member recommended that the decision tables allow for discretionary adjustments. He commented that when implementing the plan, DFG will learn which criteria and methods are most effective and should allow the possibility of dropping criteria in favor of others that work better. Another member supported the idea of having a range around the criteria (a buffer) such that if stocks reach the boundaries of this range, additional studies would be triggered before changes to the fishery regulations. He commented that without such a range, closures and TAC changes could be triggered every year.

One member asked whether the plan would include a range of alternative management goals and activities as required by the Fish and Game Code. Mr. Haaker responded that DFG did not intend to include alternative density level criteria but would include different actions to respond to the criteria. Mr. Kalvass commented that the department would welcome suggestions of alternatives.

A member observed that Van Damme experienced a period of major recruitment and then a decade of no recruitment. He commented that under such a scenario, a model of linear increases in stocks in closed areas may not result in appropriate trigger points. He recommended that DFG consider the timeframe for evaluating stocks and consider using models to explore the effects of the proposed management actions under different recruitment scenarios. Another member commented that settlement may be on a ten-year cycle, with one good settlement event followed by a decade of poor settlement, and such a pulse of settlement might trigger a management change under the proposed plan. He suggested that DFG could explore the effect of the pulse using a relatively simple model. Mr. Karpov commented that an incremental increase in the TAC in response to the pulse would not likely pose a major risk to stocks. The member responded, however, that the pulse may not actually produce a surplus, but rather an occasional major settlement event may be normal and necessary for a population of long-lived animals such as abalone. He suggested that if this were true, it would argue for a conservative response to major settlement events.

Other comments and suggestions included the following:

• Consider developing criteria based on concentration levels.
• MPAs are more difficult to enforce than changes in bag and annual limits or season length in part because enforcement could require continuous observation.
• Education efforts to explain the plan and what is being done with money from the abalone stamp will help reduce negative reactions to management activities.
• Consider what will happen in the absence of necessary data; the proposed plan seems to indicate that the fishery would be closed if the data were not available.
• Consider developing a population model to determine which sizes of abalone are most important for population survival and growth.
• Increasing the minimum size requirement may not increase larval production as younger abalone may be better reproducers. DFG should examine what effect changing the minimum size requirement would have on reproduction.

Several members offered suggestions of cost effective ways to increase data collection:

• Contract commercial divers
• Use data collection partnerships
• Take advantage of volunteer programs
• Reach out to university students who are dive certified

Public Comment

Jesus Ruiz, YMCA SCUBA Program
Mr. Ruiz commented that DFG should look for ways to leverage research funding. He suggested that this could be done by further training researchers from other institutions (e.g., universities, junior colleges) to meet DFG standards or by training volunteer researchers. He cautioned DFG about raising a conflict in the legislature or creating a social stratum by increasing license fees or establishing a lottery to open areas to a limited number of people. He also commented that the abalone fishery affects more than fishermen and has an economic impact on communities.

E. A. Flynn
Mr. Flynn commented that the Fish and Game Commission has good control of the abalone resource through existing management tools. He commented that raising the minimum size requirement from 7 inches to 7.5 inches would increase reproduction. He also noted that the size of the area being considered affects the abalone density level.

Harold. M. Hoogasian
Mr. Hoogasian offered his support Mr. Flynn's suggestion that raising the minimum size requirement would aid reproduction. He also commented in support of establishing a lottery or some other system to allow limited opening of some areas with the revenue going toward conservation. He suggested that a similar system might also be used for limited reintroduction of commercial fishing, which would relieve some of the pressure on the resource from black market poaching.

Summary of Comments

Mr. Karpov and Mr. Haaker listed some of the comments they had heard from members and the public during the day's discussions:

• Generally the framework is sound.
• Reconsider the logic behind some of the proposed steps, and explain the rationale clearly in the plan.
• Opinions vary as to whether emergent or young-of-the-year (invasive) surveys are best.
• Three index sites are not a large enough sample for management decisions but could be used to trigger additional data collection. Sampling sites should be more numerous and more broadly distributed.
• Time series data is important.
• Examining the vectors of population change may provide useful information.
• Given the long time between major recruitment events, build conservativeness into the framework.
• Consider adding a buffer around the criteria to allow discretion with respect to what action is triggered.
• Consider expanding recruitment criteria.
• Sea otters probably should not be a criterion.
• It is not appropriate to have an El Niño criteria at this point. DFG should further research the effects of El Niño on abalone.
• Prioritize the research needs to assess the stocks.
• Develop new or improved research methods.
• Consider ways to cost-effectively increase data collection efforts.
• The proposed criteria do not adequately address the complexity of disease events.
• Consider management tools other than bag and annual limits and seasonal closures.
• Consider how the plan applies to the central coast.
• Provide a means for the public to evaluate how DFG's work is affecting the resource.

Mr. Karpov commented that the input from the panels and the public was very helpful in stimulating and focusing the thinking of the DFG staff. He said the staff will incorporate the comments offered today as they continue developing the ARMP. Mr. Haaker added that he hoped everyone at the workshop would continue to provide input.