Spiny Lobster Panulirus interruptus
©B. Guild Gillespie/www.chartingnature.com
California Traps
December 27, 2012 Meghan Sullivan, Consulting Researcher
Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to ensure all our Seafood Reports and the recommendations contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at time of publication. All our reports are peer- reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
2
Final Seafood Recommendation
This report covers wild-caught California spiny lobster caught by traps in California waters. This species is a Good Alternative.
Impacts Impacts on Manage- Habitat and Stock Fishery on the Overall other Species ment Ecosystem Stock
Rank Lowest scoring species Rank Rank Recommendation (Score) Rank*, Subscore, Score Score Score Score
California Spiny Lobster California Spiny California Spiny Lobster Yellow Yellow Yellow GOOD ALTERNATIVE Lobster, Cormorants 3.05 3 3.12 2.84 Yellow, 3.05,2.29
Scoring note – scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing operations have no significant impact.
3
Table of Contents
Final Seafood Recommendation ...... 2
Executive Summary ...... 4
Introduction ...... 6
Analysis ...... 9 Criterion 1: Stock for Which You Want a Recommendation ...... 9 Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Retained and Bycatch Stocks ...... 12 Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ...... 15 Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem ...... 19
Overall Recommendation ...... 22
Appendix A: Review Schedule ...... 26
About Seafood Watch® ...... 28
Guiding Principles ...... 29
4
Executive Summary
The spiny lobster is a widely fished marine invertebrate. There are several distinct species of spiny lobster located in various areas of the world. This report will provide information and recommendations for the California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) fished with traps in the waters of California. The California spiny lobster is found along the western coast of North America from Monterey, California to Manzanillo, Mexico though a small population exists in the Gulf of California.
The spiny lobster is moderately vulnerable to fishing pressure. They tend to mature fairly quickly (around 5 years on average), compared to their life span (approximately 20-30 years). Mature spiny lobsters tend to spawn once a year and females produce upwards of 50,000 eggs, which can disperse widely in the 7 to 11 months spent in a planktonic stage. Regular stock assessments for spiny lobster are rare. However, the California spiny lobster fishery has recently experienced steady landings and the most recent assessment suggests the California spiny lobster population is stable. Fishing mortality is estimated based on commercial landing receipts and logbook data, but the impact of the recreational fishery results in an essentially unknown mortality. The impact of the spiny lobster fishery in California on the stock is ranked green.
In the absence of a comprehensive bycatch study, or the collection of fishery dependent data, it has not been possible to determine which non-target species are impacted by the spiny lobster fishery in California. Following discussion with stakeholders, Seafood Watch recognizes that the fishery is known to interact with sheephead, Kellet’s whelk, and rock crab. These species, however, are not considered to be species of concern and are not believed to be caught in significant numbers, as the overall bycatch rate is in the region of 8%–15% (based on similar fisheries in Mexico). The fishery is also known to interact with cormorants, particularly around the Channel Islands, although accurate information about these impacts is unavailable. Seafood Watch recognizes that undersized lobsters are likely to make up the majority of discards, but they are considered under criterion 1 as they are part of the target species. Additionally, in the absence of a study regarding post-capture release, this analysis assumes 100% mortality for finfish and 50% mortality for invertebrates. Due to the effect of ghost fishing by lost traps, the incidence of capture is likely to be higher than known bycatch rates, however, as there is no species specific data on the impacts of ghost fishing in this region, and many species have been observed entering and leaving traps freely, it is not believed that any species will be impacted significantly.
Management of the spiny lobster fishery in California carries a moderate conservation concern. There is a large recreational fishery for spiny lobster, but this report focuses on the commercial fishery only. Lobster populations are protected through the use of closed areas, size limits, specific seasons to protect breeding females, gear restrictions, and limited entry into the fishery. In addition, gear restrictions are designed to reduce capture of undersized lobsters. Research about the stock and impacts to other species have been fairly limited to date.
5
Enforcement of existing regulations is ongoing and results in punishments for illegal fishing and poaching. Overall, the management of the spiny lobster fishery is ranked yellow.
The commercial spiny lobster fishery in California is entirely trap based. Traps result in some damage to the benthic habitat but California has established a large network of marine protected areas to protect a wide range of habitats from fishing. The ecosystem impacts from the trap fishery are a moderate conservation concern.
6
Introduction
Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation The spiny lobster is a widely fished marine invertebrate. There are several distinct species of spiny lobster located in various areas of the world. This report will provide information and recommendations for the California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) fished with traps in the waters of Southern California. The California spiny lobster is found along the western coast of North America from Monterey, California to Manzanillo, Mexico though a small population exists in the Gulf of California (CDFG 2011a, Figure 1).
Figure 1: Primary distribution range of the California spiny lobster. Figure from CADFG 2011c
Overview of the species and management bodies The spiny lobster, of the genus Panulirus, contains approximately 20 different species occurring worldwide in tropical and semitropical waters (Pollack 1995). The spiny lobster can be easily distinguished by the long, spiny antennae and by the lack of claws on the first four pairs of legs (Holthuis 1991). Spiny lobsters are typically found at depths from 0 to 90 meters, depending upon the species (Holthuis 1991). Juvenile lobsters are known to spend their first few years in nearshore surf grass beds while adults are often found on rocky substrates, reefs, as well as within surf grass beds; areas that provide protection (CDFG 2001). Spiny lobsters tend to be
7
nocturnal and migrate among depths depending upon the season, generally moving deeper in winter months (CDFG 2001).
Several different species of spiny lobster support commercial fisheries worldwide. As previously mentioned, this report covers the spiny lobster fishery in California. The fishery in California is managed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) [The California Department of Fish and Game is changing their name to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, but this report retains the existing name and acronym] and occurs along the southern California Bight from Point Conception south to the Mexican border. The CDFG regulates the fishery through a minimum size limit of 3.25-inch carapace length. The size is greater than that at which individuals reach sexual maturity, thereby ensuring the survival of younger broodstock (CDFG 2001). The fishery season is regulated to allow fishing from early October through mid- March to protect egg-carrying (or berried) females. Females have been found carrying anywhere from 5,000 to 500,000 eggs (Johnson 1956). CDFG also requires lobster traps to have a destruct device to prevent ghost fishing and escape ports to minimize the capture of undersize lobsters (CDFG 2003). Further, a permit system for entry into the lobster fishery was established in 1961 and a restricted access program was initiated in 1996, limiting the number of permits in the fishery (CDFG 2003). Though not directly considered a regulation in the lobster fishery, it should be noted that in 2003 several no-take marine reserves were established in the region around the Santa Barbara Channel (Kay et al. 2012, CDFG 2008) and in 2010 the California Fish and Game Commission adopted regulations, which became effective January 1, 2012, creating a network of reserves, including 19 ‘no-take’ state marine reserves and 11 ‘no-take’ state marine conversation areas from Point Conception south to the Mexican border (CDFG 2010, CDFG 2012a). The CDFG began the process of developing a fishery management plan (FMP) for the spiny lobster in fall 2011, as required under the Marine Life Management Act (CDFG 2011b). Public meetings to engage stakeholders in this 3-year process began in April 2012 (CDFG 2012b).
Production statistics Landings from the California spiny lobster fishery have remained fairly steady over the last 10 years, averaging about 340 metric tons per year. All US landings of the California spiny lobster occur in the state of California (NMFS 2012, Figure 2). The US also imports spiny lobster species from Mexico (some of which are the California spiny lobster while some are the Caribbean spiny lobster, Panulirus argus).
8
450 400 350
300 250 200 150 Metric Tons Metric 100 50 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Figure 2. US Landings of California spiny lobster from 1950 to 2010 in metric tons. Figure compiled from data in NMFS 2012.
Importance to the US/North American market Establishing the import and export figures for California spiny lobster is rather complicated due to the lack of delineation of the term “lobster” in most databases. However, the 2010 ex-vessel value of the California lobster fishery was $11.13 million in 2010 (CalCOFI 2011). This is up from the $7.89 million in 2009, and the previous high of $8.06 million set in 2006 (CalCOFI 2011). The majority of the lobster caught in California is exported and shipped live (as they cannot be tailed for market) to Asian countries, particularly China, in the last several years (Barksy pers. comm. 2012).
Common and market names Spiny lobsters, in general, are also known as rock lobsters. The species discussed in this report is most commonly known as spiny lobster, but there are other less commonly used nomenclatures such as California lobster and red lobster (Shaw 1986).
Primary product forms The spiny lobster is marketed whole–and sold primarily live and sometimes cooked.
9
Analysis
Scoring guide • All scores result in a zero to five final score for the criterion and the overall final rank. A zero score indicates poor performance, while a score of five indicates high performance. • The full Seafood Watch Fisheries Criteria that the following scores relate to are available on our website at www.seafoodwatch.org.
Criterion 1: Stock for Which You Want a Recommendation
Guiding Principles
• The stock is healthy and abundant. Abundance, size, sex, age and genetic structure should be maintained at levels that do not impair the long-term productivity of the stock or fulfillment of its role in the ecosystem and food web. • Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any marine life. Fishing mortality should be appropriate given current abundance and inherent vulnerability to fishing while accounting for scientific uncertainty, management uncertainty, and non-fishery impacts such as habitat degradation.
Summary
Stock Fishery Inherent Stock Status Fishing Criterion 1 Vulnerability Mortality Rank Rank (Score) Rank (Score) Rank Score Moderate California California Low Concern Yellow Medium Concern Spiny Lobster Spiny Lobster (4) 3.05 (2.33)
Justification of Ranking
Factor 1.1 Inherent Vulnerability
Key Relevant Information: Medium Vulnerability According to the Seafood Watch PSA analysis, California spiny lobster appears to be of medium vulnerability.
10
Detailed Rationale:
Factor Score Source Average Age at Maturity 3-9 years, most around 5 2 CDFG 2001, Shaw 1986 Average Maximum Age 20-30 years 2 CDFG 2001 Reproductive Strategy Brooder 2 CDFG 2001, SCS 2011 Density Dependence No density dependence Behringer and suggested, but unknown Butler 2006 Score (mean of factor 2 Medium scores) Vulnerability
Factor 1.2 Stock Status
Key Relevant Information: Low Concern The biomass for spiny lobster in California has remained relatively stable since 2000 (CDFG 2011a). As such, the stock is classified as not overfished but quantitative stock assessment data is lacking.
Detailed Rationale: Since the 1800s, there has been a commercial spiny lobster trap fishery along the southern California coast. Towards the end of the 19th century landings started to decline until the fishery collapsed, forcing a two-year closure of the fishery in 1909-1910 (CDFG 2003). When the fishery reopened (in 1911), the stock once again appeared abundant. From then until World War II, landings remained between 200,000 to 400,000 lbs (CDFG 2003). During World War II, landings began to rise and peaked after the war at 1.05 million pounds. Following this, landings began to decline for the next 25 years, reaching a low in 1974-1975 (CDFG 2003, CDFG 2011a). Landings have gradually increased and are now stable around 750,000lbs. Landings in the lobster fishery appear to be strongly influenced by temperature changes associated with the PDOs and La Nina/El Nino systems (with higher landings occurring in warmer regimes (CDFG 2011a)), but have been fairly stable over the last decade. This is evident by the relatively stable CPUE (see Figure 3) over the last 20 years. This, coupled with the stable landings following the gradual increase, suggests that overall abundance is stable.
11
Figure 3: CPUE for the seasons from 1976-77 through 2009-10. The values used are the totals representing 80% of their respective seasonal totals which were achieved, on average, at 12 weeks into each season. Seasons missing data were excluded. The average CPUE across all seasons is indicated (purple line) as is the range, +/- 1 standard deviation (yellow lines). From CDFG 2011a.
Factor 1.3 Fishing Mortality
Key Relevant Information: Moderate Concern Currently, the fishery is believed to be at a sustainable level, but may be approaching Fmsy (CDFG 2011a). In recent years, the landings have remained fairly stable as has the rate of catch. However, there is some debate about the catch per unit effort. Fishermen have claimed they are catching less with more effort, but while CPUE has been higher in the last few years it is still lower than it was two or three decades ago, and statistically it is relatively stable (CDFG 2011a). Additionally, there is disagreement and uncertainty based on various models and the impact of the recreational fishery. The latest stock assessment indicated that the recent recreational fishing effort is leading to an overall fishing mortality that at times exceeded Fmsy in the Fisheries Simulation Model (CDFG 2011a).
12
Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Retained and Bycatch Stocks
Guiding Principles
• The fishery minimizes bycatch. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, pre-catch mortality and ghost fishing. All discards, including those released alive, are considered bycatch unless there is valid scientific evidence of high post-release survival and there is no documented evidence of negative impacts at the population level. • Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any marine life. Fishing mortality should be appropriate given each impacted species’ abundance and productivity, accounting for scientific uncertainty, management uncertainty and non-fishery impacts such as habitat degradation.
Summary Stock Inherent Stock Status Fishing Mortality Subscore Score Rank Vulnerability (subscore* (based on Rank (Score) Rank (Score) discard subscore) Rank modifier) California Spiny Medium Low Concern (4) Moderate Concern 3.05 2.29 Yellow Lobster (2.33) Cormorants High Low Concern (4) Moderate Concern 3.05 2.29 Yellow (2.33) Unknown Finfish Medium Moderate Concern Low Concern (3.67) 3.32 2.49 Green (3) Unknown Medium Moderate Concern Low Concern (3.67) 3.32 2.49 Green Invertebrates (3)
In the absence of a comprehensive bycatch study, or the collection of fishery dependent data, it has not been possible to determine which non-target species are impacted by the spiny lobster fishery in California. Following discussion with stakeholders, Seafood Watch recognizes that the fishery is known to interact with sheephead, Kellet’s whelk, and rock crab (Barsky pers. comm. 2012). These species however are not considered to be species of concern (SIMoN 2012, IUCN 2012, CDFG 2008, CDFG 2002) and are not believed to be caught in significant numbers as the overall bycatch rate is in the region of 8-15% (Shester and Micheli 2008) (based on similar fisheries in Mexico). The fishery is also known to interact with cormorants (Kushner pers. comm.2012), particularly around the Channel Islands, although accurate information about these impacts is unavailable. Seafood Watch recognizes that undersized lobsters are likely to make up the majority of discards, but they are considered under criterion 1 as they are part of the target species. Additionally, in the absence of a study regarding post-capture release, this analysis assumes 100% mortality for finfish and 50 % mortality for invertebrates. Due to the effect of ghost fishing by lost traps, the incidence of capture is likely to be higher than known bycatch rates, however as there is no species specific data on the impacts of ghost fishing in
13
this region, and many species have been observed entering and leaving traps freely it is not believed that any species will be impacted significantly.
Justification of Ranking
Cormorants Three species of cormorant, the Brandt’s, pelagic and double-crested, occur in the region and there is potential to interact with the lobster fishery. As information on these interactions is poor, all the species are considered together.
Factor 2.1 Inherent Vulnerability
Key Relevant Information: High Vulnerability Seabirds are considered to have a high vulnerability to fishing pressure (Seafood Watch 2012).
Factor 2.2 Stock Status
Key Relevant Information: Low Concern There are no indications that there are any conservation concerns regarding the cormorant species found in the region of the spiny lobster fishery, and they are not listed as vulnerable, threatened or endangered under national or international legislation.
Factor 2.3 Fishing Mortality
Key Relevant Information: Moderate Concern There is very little data surrounding the interactions of the spiny lobster fishery with cormorants in California; however there is evidence of interactions in this fishery and in similar fisheries in Mexico (Shester and Micheli 2008). All interactions between lobster gear and cormorants are considered to result in mortality. It is likely that other anthropogenic impacts such as pollution are having a greater impact on cormorant populations.
Unknown finfish and invertebrates Factor 2.1 Inherent Vulnerability
Key Relevant Information: Moderate Vulnerability Finfish and invertebrates of unknown taxa and species are considered to have a moderate vulnerability to fishing pressure (Seafood Watch 2012).
Factor 2.2 Stock Status
Key Relevant Information: Moderate Concern The status of the populations of finfish and invertebrates caught by the spiny lobster fishery are unknown (Seafood Watch 2012).
14
Factor 2.3 Fishing Mortality
Key Relevant Information: Low Concern Fishing mortality on the unknown finfish and invertebrate species are considered to be of low conservation concern (Seafood Watch 2012).
Factor 2.4 Overall Discard Rate
Key Relevant Information: >100% Total discard rates given by Shester and Micheli (2011) for spiny lobster trap fisheries in Mexico are presented as 15%. While this study is not specific to the lobster fishery in California, it is currently the best available science related to bycatch in a California spiny lobster fishery. It should be noted that trap design within different fisheries may differ and could lead to differences in bycatch rates and/or taxa. This figure includes the invertebrates that are most often returned to the water alive, but does not include the bait used. Bait use is generally quite large (for one season in the Punta Abreojos and Bahia Tortugas cooperatives in Mexico bait use was equal to approximately 4,500 to 5,000 t (SCS 2011)). The bait use in the California spiny lobster has not been quantified; many fishermen have arrangements with local fish processors and use the scraps and carcasses provided post-processing, however, lobster fishermen have also been known to use a wide variety of fish including mackerel, as it is readily available (Barsky pers. comm. 2012). It should also be noted that in the Mexican lobster fishery, incidental fish caught are often used as bait (SCS 2011). Studies from other lobster fisheries globally have shown that volumes of bait used regularly exceed the volume of the target species landed (Harnish and Willison 2009; Waddington and Meeuwig 2009, SCS 2011). With no accurate information available from the California spiny lobster fishery, bait use is considered to be greater than 100% of the volume landed.
15
Criterion 3: Management effectiveness
Guiding Principle
• The fishery is managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all impacted species. Management should be appropriate for the inherent vulnerability of affected marine life and should incorporate data sufficient to assess the affected species and manage fishing mortality to ensure little risk of depletion. Measures should be implemented and enforced to ensure that fishery mortality does not threaten the long-term productivity or ecological role of any species in the future.
Summary
Fishery Management: Harvest Management: Bycatch Criterion 3 Strategy Rank Rank (Score) Rank (Score) Score California Spiny Yellow Moderate Concern (3) Moderate Concern (3) Lobster 3
Fishery Critical? Mgmt Recovery of Scientific Scientific Enforce. Track record Stakeholder Management of strategy and stocks of research and advice inclusion Retained Species implement. concern monitoring Rank (Score)
California spiny Moderately Highly Moderately Highly Moderately Highly Highly lobster No Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Moderate (3)
Fishery All Critical? Mgmt Scientific Scientific Enforce. Management of Species strategy and research and advice bycatch species Retained? implement. monitoring Rank (Score)
Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately California spiny lobster No No Effective Effective Effective Effective Moderate (3) Justification of Ranking
Factor 3.1 Management of Fishing Impacts on Retained Species
Key Relevant Information: Moderate Concern Management of the spiny lobster fishery in California has been moderately effective at maintaining a relatively stable population over time. Lobster populations are protected through the use of closed areas, specific seasons to protect breeding females, size restrictions, gear restrictions, and limited entry into the fishery. In addition, gear restrictions are designed to reduce capture of undersized lobsters. However, though there are gear type restrictions,
16
there is no limit on the amount of gear used. Research about the stock and impacts to other species have been fairly limited to date. Enforcement of existing regulations is ongoing and results in punishments for illegal fishing, but there are concerns that enforcement is not fully effective, and frequent poaching of commercial traps by recreational divers continues. Overall, the management of the spiny lobster fishery is ranked yellow.
Detailed Rationale: Management Strategy and Implementation: Moderately Effective Currently, the CDFG regulates the fishery through a minimum size limit of 3.25-inch carapace length, a regulated fishing season (from early October through mid-March) to protect egg- carrying (or berried) females and molting individuals, gear restrictions (destruct devices and escape ports), and a limited entry system (CDFG 2003). There are no total catch limits or trap limits for the fishery.
To date, most changes in the management and regulation of the fishery have occurred as a reaction to declines in the landings (see section 1.2). With the past decade of landings fairly stable, there have been no significant changes in the management. However, the CDFG is in the early information gathering stage of developing an FMP. At this point, it is too early to state whether significant changes in regulations will be the result, but additional research related to stock assessments and bycatch will likely be proposed as part of the FMP development process. The California spiny lobster fishery is also impacted by the large recreational fishery. The recreation fishery lands approximately 30%–60% of what is landed in the commercial fishery (Barsky pers. comm. 2012). While there are management measures such as bag limits and seasonal closures in place for the recreational fishery, some of the current models attempting to assess the stock have indicated that recreational catches may by pushing overall mortality over FMSY (CDFG 2011a).
Recovery of Stocks of Concern: Highly Effective Currently, there are no stocks of concern specifically impacted by the lobster fishery; the lobster population appears stable and no other species is caught in significant numbers (CDFG 2011a, Barsky pers. comm. 2012).
Scientific Research and Monitoring: Moderately Effective Until the recent stock assessment effort in anticipation of the FMP development, there was a general lack of knowledge of life history parameters and no comprehensive information about the stock size. There have been several local fishery-independent studies over the years based on tag/recapture methodologies, but these are not interrelated nor do they represent the entire lobster fishery along the Southern California Bight (CDFG 2011a). Management is therefore typically based on fishery dependent data (landings, CPUE, etc.). The latest stock assessment used the fishery-dependent data in several different models to determine the current status. As the FMP process moves forward, additional work will likely be dedicated to refining the stock assessment and working on a more detailed bycatch study (Barsky pers. comm. 2012).
17
Scientific Advice: Highly Effective The CDFG has gathered scientific evidence to guide management of the lobster fishery and has a history of modifying the regulations in response to declines in landings and improving the management system. Additionally, the CDFG has established a lobster committee to guide the development of the FMP and has contracted scientists worldwide to ensure global expertise is available.
Enforcement: Moderately Effective CDFG wardens are charged with patrolling and enforcing current regulations. Additionally, the CDFG has relied upon a commercial logbook system since 1973 (CDFG 2001, CDFG 2011a). The logs are required to document the catch effort, the numbers of legal and short (undersized) lobsters caught, the number of traps pulled, and the depths of traps fished (CDFG 2001). Despite this, poaching is known to occur.
Track Record: Highly Effective There has been a commercial spiny lobster fishery in California since the late 1800s (CDFG 2001, CDFG 2011c). Since 1901, the state has maintained a closed season (CDFG 2011c). Landings data have been collected since 1916 and show significant increases and decreases over time, typically coinciding with El Niño and La Niña events and the world wars (CDFG 2011a). Since 1976, CDFG has required an escape port in all lobster traps so undersized lobsters (and some legal sized) can escape ((CDFG 2011a). With this regulation, the decline that began in the 1950s ended, and landings showed a steady increase until about year 2000. Since then, landings have remained fairly steady—around 750,000 pounds (CDFG 2011a). With the initiation of the process to develop an FMP, it is likely the population will remain stable.
Stakeholder inclusion: Highly Effective The management of spiny lobster stock in California is transparent and includes stakeholder input. Stakeholders were key during the process of establishing marine reserves under the Marine Life Protection Act (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa), and a lobster advisory committee is participating in the development of the FMP (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/lobsterfmp/involved.asp). Additionally, the California Lobster and Trap Fishermen’s Association has been active in various collaborative fisheries research (CFR) projects in conjunction with researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara and the CDFG (Kay et al. 2012).
Factor 3.2 Management of Fishing Impacts on Bycatch Species
Key Relevant Information: Moderate Concern The spiny lobster fishery in California does not have any specific regulations designed to manage and mitigate the fishing impacts on bycatch species. However, as the total discard rate for the lobster fisheries is generally thought to be between 8% and 15%, it is unlikely any one species comprises more than 5% of the catch and is significantly impacted. Due to the high value of lobsters, non-targeted species are returned to the water alive (Barsky pers. comm.
18
2012). However, there is potential capture of sea birds (cormorants) that are protected by the Migratory Bird Act (Kushner pers. comm. 2012).
Detailed Rationale: Management Strategy and Implementation: Moderately Effective The CDFG requires all incidentally caught species to be released with a few exceptions—Kellet’s whelk and rock crab (Barsky pers. comm. 2012, CDFG 2008). Though sheephead can be caught with a permit, they must be released if caught within a lobster trap (Barsky pers. comm. 2012, CDFG 2002). Lobster traps are required to have a minimum of one escape port (measuring 2.38 in. x 11.5 in) to minimize the capture of undersize lobsters (CDFG 2003). The escape port allows other species to escape as well. Additionally, traps are required to have a destruct device to ensure lost and/or abandoned traps do not continue to fish indiscriminately (CDFG 2003). However, the destruct device can take up to a year to disintegrate, making it likely that ghost fishing will occur until the device becomes effective (Kushner pers. comm. 2012).Traps are also required to be pulled every 96 hours to minimize bycatch.
Scientific Research and Monitoring: Moderately Effective As the FMP process moves forward, additional work will likely be dedicated to a more detailed review of bycatch in the lobster fishery by both the sport and commercial fisheries (Barsky pers. comm. 2012). Currently, landing receipts document the pounds of the three species allowed to be retained and landed, but there is little data, aside from logbook data, related to other retained species.
Scientific Advice: Highly Effective Little research has been performed about the impacts of the fishery on other species, but the history of the CDFG to respond to the information that is available indicates they would react to scientific advice.
Enforcement: Moderately Effective CDFG wardens are charged with patrolling and enforcing current regulations, which include illegal possession of various species. Beyond this, there is no additional enforcement related specifically to bycatch species.
19
Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem
Guiding Principles
• The fishery is conducted such that impacts on the seafloor are minimized and the ecological and functional roles of seafloor habitats are maintained. • Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any fished species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts or reduction of genetic diversity.
Summary
Fishery Impact of gear on the Mitigation of gear impacts EBFM Criterion 4 substrate Rank Rank (Score) Rank (Score) Rank (Score) Score California Spiny Yellow Low Concern (3) Minimal mitigation (0.25) Moderate Concern (3) Lobster 3.12
Justification
Factor 4.1 Impact of the Fishing Gear on the Substrate
Key Relevant Information: Low Concern In California, the commercial spiny lobsters fishery is entirely trap based. Spiny lobster is generally found on rocky substrates and reefs, or wherever protection and shelter can be found (Holthuis 1991). As such, traps are deployed in a variety of habitats, including rocky reefs.
Factor 4.2 Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Fishing Gear Impacts
Key Relevant Information: Minimal Mitigation The California trap fisheries have more than 50 state marine conservation areas in Southern California that are closed to commercial fishing to protect representative habitats (CA Fish and Game Code 2853, See Figure 4). As such, minimal mitigation is in place for these fisheries.
Detailed Rationale: In California, a network of marine reserves was established under the Marine Life Protection Act. The South Coast marine protected areas cover 187 square miles, including more than 100 square miles in no-take marine reserves (CDFG 2010, See Figure 4). These reserves are in addition to the network of protected areas around the Channel Islands (CDFG 2010). However, not all of the protected habitat are considered essential lobster habitat.
20
Factor 4.3 Ecosystem and Food Web Considerations
Key Relevant Information: Moderate Concern Lobsters are known to be an important predator in kelp forest and reef ecosystems, controlling herbivore populations. Recent studies in similar fisheries have shown that decreasing lobster abundance and/or size can alter ecosystems and result in cascading effects on marine systems (Barrett et al. 2009, Ling et al. 2009, and Shears and Babcock 2003). FMPs are generally intended to fully assess the ecological impacts of a fishery. With the lobster FMP currently under development, we cannot assess whether it includes EBM until it is finalized but EBM should be included as part of its development.
21
Figure 4. Location of Protected Areas along South Coast. Figure from CDFG 2011d
22
Overall Recommendation
Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).
The overall recommendation for the fishery is calculated as follows:
– Best Choice = Final score ≥ 3.2 and scores for Criteria 1, 3 and 4 are all ≥ 2.2 and Criterion 2 subscore ≥ 2.2
– Some Concerns = Final score ≥ 2.2 and Criterion 3 ≥ 2.2 and (Final score ≤ 3.2 or scores for Criteria 1 &4 ≤ 2.2 or Criterion 2 subscore ≤ 2.2)
- Red= Final score < 2.2 or score for Criterion 3 < 2.2 or any one criterion has a critical score or two or more of the following are < 2.2: Criterion 1 score, Criterion 2 subscore, Criterion 4 score
Impacts Impacts on Manage- Habitat and Stock Fishery on the Overall other Species ment Ecosystem Stock
Rank Lowest scoring species Rank Rank Recommendation (Score) Rank*, Subscore, Score Score Score Score
California Spiny Lobster California Spiny California Spiny Lobster Yellow Yellow Yellow GOOD ALTERNATIVE Lobster, Cormorants 3.05 3 3.12 2.84 Yellow, 3.05,2.29
23
Acknowledgements
Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.
Seafood Watch® would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.
24
References
Barrett, N.S., Buxton, C.D., and G.J. Edgar. 2009. Changes in invertebrate and macroalgal populations in Tasmanian marine reserves in the decade following protection. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 370. 104–119 Barsky, K. 2012. Senior Marine Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game. Personal communications on 29 February 2012 Behringer, D.C. and M.J. Butler IV. 2006. Density-dependent population dynamics in juvenile Panulirus argus (Latreille): The impact of artificial density enhancement. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 334: 84–95 CalCOFI. 2011. Review of Selected California Fisheries for 2010: Coastal Pelagic Finfish, Market Squid, Ocean Salmon, Groundfish, Highly Migratory Species, Dungeness Crab, Spiny Lobster, Spot Prawn, Kellet’s Whelk, and White Seabass. Fisheries Review CalCOFI Report, Vol. 52 pp. 13-35 CA Fish and Game Code §2853. Marine Life Protection Act. Accessed via: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml CDFG 2001. California’s Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. California Department of Fish and Game, December 2001. Spiny lobster information on pp. 98-100 CDFG 2002. Nearshore Fishery Management Plan. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/nfmp/ CDFG 2003. Annual Status of the Fisheries Report- California spiny lobster. pp. 4-1 to 4-12 CDFG 2008. Annual Status of the Fisheries Report – Kellet’s Whelk. Pp. 2-1 to 2-6 CDFG. 2010. DFG News Release: California Fish and Game Commission Gives Final Approval for South Coast Marine Protected Areas. Dec. 15 2010. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/news10/2010121501-Commission-Approves-SCMPA.html CDFG. 2011a. Assessment of the California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) by Douglas J Neilson. Available at: http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=41068&inline=true CDFG. 2011b. Spiny lobster Fishery Management Plan Under Way. Marine Management News: October 2011. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/newsletter/1011.asp#lobsterfmp CDFG. 2011c. DFG News Release. South Coast Marine Protected Areas Effective January 1. Dec. 16, 2011. Available at: http://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/south-coast-marine-protected- areas-effective-january-1/ CDFG 2011d. Southern California State and Federal Marine Protected Areas. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/images/scmpas/scmpas.jpg CDFG 2012a. South Coast Marine Protected Areas. Accessed on December 12, 2012 via http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/scmpas_list.asp CDFG. 2012b. Lobster FMP Oxnard Public Meeting (4/18/2012) Informal Questions and Comments Summary. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/lobsterfmp/meetingsummaries.asp#comments CDFG, Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, and Channel Islands National Park. 2008. Channel Islands Marine Protected Areas: First 5 Years of Monitoring: 2003–2008. Airamé, S. and J. Ugoretz (Eds.). 20 pp. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/channel_islands/fiveyears.asp Harnish, L. and J.H. Martin Willison. 2009. Efficiency of bait usage in the Nova Scotia lobster fishery: a first look. Journal of Cleaner Production 17(3): 345-347 Holthuis, L.B. 1991. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 13. Marine lobsters of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of species of interest to fisheries known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis. No. 125, Vol. 13. Rome, FAO. 1991. 292 p. Accessed via: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/t0411e/t0411e00.htm
25
IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1.
26
Appendix A: Review Schedule As noted, the California Department of Fish and Game is developing a fishery management plan (FMP) for spiny lobster. The following information and timeline is provided from the DFG website (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/lobsterfmp/).
CDFG decided to move forward with development of an FMP for California spiny lobster as required by the Marine Life Management Act and because the lobster supports important commercial and recreational fisheries as well as plays a key role in the southern California kelp forest ecosystem. With the implementation of new marine protected areas in Southern California in 2012, the spiny lobster FMP will need to evaluate how MPAs might be incorporated into the management of the state’s lobster fisheries. CDFG is committed to making the process transparent, objective, and accessible to all, with the ultimate goal of completing an adaptable FMP that will ensure a sustainable lobster resource and healthy fisheries.
CDFG began exploring partnership options to assist in the development of the lobster FMP over two years ago (see the October, 2009 issue of the Marine Management News). In May 2011, the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) approved a $990,000 grant to the nonprofit California Wildlife Foundation (CWF) to support the lobster FMP process. CWF provides project management and fund administration for CDFG projects. The grant will allow the CDFG to fund completion of FMP development tasks that are unable to be undertaken by staff, and will provide for significant public involvement in the FMP process. CDFG will issue a call for volunteers to participate on a lobster advisory cmmittee, which will have a major role in the FMP process. Public information meetings on the lobster FMP process will be held in spring 2012 and 2013. CWF is soliciting bids for the tasks and sections of the FMP that outside contractors will undertake. For contract opportunities on the lobster FMP and information on applying for a contract follow the "CWF Request for Qualifications" link.
A spiny lobster stock assessment, completed by CDFG and reviewed by a panel of experts in 2011, will serve as the basis for this FMP. The stock assessment describes the past and current status of the lobster population off the southern California coast.
The lobster FMP is a framework document that gathers the best available scientific information on the natural history of spiny lobster, its fisheries (both recreational and commercial), the economic conditions under which they operate, and the effects of the fisheries on the marine ecosystem. The FMP will review fishery management methods used in lobster fisheries in other parts of the world, and examine any other conservation and management measures that should be considered for the sustainability of the resource and its fisheries.
27
Lobster FMP Timeline 2012 • Public Meetings: April 18 and 19 • Lobster Advisory Committee Meetings: June 20, August 1, December 5 2013 • Public Meetings: June • Lobster Advisory Committee Meetings: February, April, June 12, August 15 2014 • Public Meetings: April • Lobster Advisory Committee Meeting: April or May • Formal Scientific and Public Review • Draft FMP Introduced to Fish and Game Commission 2015 • Fish and Game Commission adopts FMP and any regulations necessary for implementation • Environmental document prepared to accompany Commission action
For more information, go to http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/lobsterfmp/
28
About Seafood Watch®
Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.
Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes.
Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.
Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.
Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
29
Guiding Principles
Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems.
The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that capture fisheries must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program:
• Stocks are healthy and abundant. • Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any marine life. • The fishery minimizes bycatch. • The fishery is managed to sustain long-term productivity of all impacted species. • The fishery is conducted such that impacts on the seafloor are minimized and the ecological and functional roles of seafloor habitats are maintained. • Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any fished species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts, or reduction of genetic diversity.
Based on these guiding principles, Seafood Watch has developed a set of four sustainability criteria to evaluate capture fisheries for the purpose of developing a seafood recommendation for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:
1. Impacts on the species/stock for which you want a recommendation 2. Impacts on other species 3. Effectiveness of management 4. Habitat and ecosystem impacts
Each criterion includes: • Factors to evaluate and rank • Evaluation guidelines to synthesize these factors and to produce a numerical score • A resulting numerical score and rank for that criterion
Once a score and rank has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ranks and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide:
Best Choices/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in environmentally friendly ways.
1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.
30
Good Alternatives/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or farmed.
Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.