northern California fishery opened up on virgin stocks in 1985 and statewide .... Sea urchin eradication programs were implemented using calcium oxide and ...
SEA URCHIN FISHERIES: A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE C. M. Dewees University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA
ABSTRACT During the past thirty years significant sea urchin fisheries have been developed, rapidly expanded, declined, and leveled off along North America's Pacific Coast from Baja California Norte, Mexico through Alaska. The primary target species is the red sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus. I will concentrate on the unique features of the California fishery. California's ocean climate is quite variable and stochastic; ranging from El Niño to La Niña conditions which significantly affect urchins. Ocean current patterns north and south of Point Conception (34° N) differ, leading to different larval transport and retention patterns. The southern sea otter, Enhydra lutris, has reoccupied approximately 350 miles of its former range and has lowered adult urchin densities to levels that cannot sustain a commercial fishery in central California. During the 1960s, sea urchins were considered a threat to valuable kelp (Macrocystis) resources by the state, divers and kelp harvesters. Fishery agencies encouraged urchin fishing in the early 1970s in southern California. From 1972 through 1985 landings ranged from approximately 3500 t to 11200 t. The northern California fishery opened up on virgin stocks in 1985 and statewide landings peaked in 1988 at approximately 23,600 t. Landings declined to 6409 t by 1999 with most of the decline in northern California. Since the 1990s the fishery has remained relatively static with annual variations due primarily to changes in urchin quality and domestic/Japanese market demand. By 1987, industry and state were both concerned about the rapid growth in landings and diver numbers and created a California Department of Fish and Game Director's Sea Urchin Advisory Committee (DSUAC). It was funded by a self-imposed landings tax to be used for activities supporting fishery monitoring, management, and enhancement. During its first five years, DSUAC was crucial for implementation of minimum size limits, restricted access, and seasons. Size limits were set at a level that allowed several years of spawning before harvest and appears to have helped prevent collapse of the fishery. Restricted access reduced the number of divers with permits from 938 in 1989 to less than 400 today, primarily through attrition. To further slow down the fishery harvest, DSUAC and Fish and Game (DFG) negotiated a series of time closures spaced throughout the year that reduced the number of fishing days to approximately 230 per year. These regulations slowed the explosive expansion and stabilized the fishery. There has been little change in management regulations during the past decade. DSUAC funding augmented DFG staff's market sampling and urchin field studies. This enabled DFG to track CPUE by locale, measure changes in size frequencies, identify levels of compliance with size limits, and monitor landings over time. DFG field studies measured changes in densities of legal sized urchins over time at survey sites. In general during the 1990s, densities declined to one-half to one quarter of their previous level. University staff, consultants, and industry personnel completed industry-funded studies testing enhancement techniques, urchin aquaculture, and establishing ongoing monitoring of urchin recruitment. To date, seeding and aquaculture experiments have proven not to be cost-effective and recent experiments are now testing translocation of urchins into food-rich habitats. Long term monitoring of
1
settlement indicates that recruitment has been consistent, partially mitigating fishery removals, especially in southern California. DSUAC's momentum waned in the late 1990s and in 2001 it was disbanded. The industry's strong interest in collaborative management, research and monitoring lead to a new industry-funded organization to carry on DSUAC-like activities more effectively. This new organization may be able to generate new management strategies for the fishery collaboratively with government to improve economic performance and maintain sustainability. DFG biologists current feel that the fishery is fully exploited and perhaps overfished in some locations. DFG management considerations include spatial management with protected areas or rotating harvest; separate zones for northern and southern California fisheries; accelerated reduction in diver numbers; annual harvest quotas; improved fishery-dependent and -independent monitoring programs. The industry is examining its fishery goals and preferred management techniques. With DFG under extreme budget constraints it is unlikely to proactively seek management changes in the near future. Key components in the ultimate outcome will include industry/DFG collaboration on a long-term fishery management plan. This plan is likely to contain some type of spatial management, lower capacity goals, and research plans for stock assessment.
2
INTRODUCTION As I write this paper, I am sitting in a coastal cabin about 20 miles north of Bodega Bay, California overlooking a sea urchin vessel (Betty Big Top) with two divers harvesting red sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus. I first became aware of sea urchin fisheries while serving as a Peace Corps volunteer teaching fisheries at the Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso from 1970 through 1972. My first sea urchin experiences were enjoying erizos con salsa verde and watching urchins landed in Puerto Montt while on a field trip with students. I did not realize at that time that I would have a 30 year involvement with California’s sea urchin fishery as part of my Sea Grant Marine Fisheries Extension Specialist position at the University of California, Davis. This involvement has ranged from organizing workshops on exporting seafood to Japan in 1974, to supervising two graduate students investigating the economics and ecology of sea urchins, to serving on the California Department of Fish and Game Director’s Sea Urchin Advisory Committee since 1987, and to running numerous workshops dealing with research and management topics relevant to the urchin fishery. This paper is based on my observations of the fishery over the past thirty years. I will present a concise description of the California coastal environment and the ecology of red sea urchin. A summary of the fishery, its management, and current status follows. Finally, I will present my thoughts on the future management alternatives and the potential benefits, problems, and likelihood implementation of the alternative approaches. My speculation about future management is based on observations of the fishery for many years, awareness of management of similar fisheries elsewhere, and conditions unique to the California situation.
CALIFORNIA’S COASTAL ENVIRONMENT California’s ocean climate is highly variable and stochastic; ranging from warm, nutrient-limited El Niño to cold, rich La Niña conditions (Figure 1). This environment varies both locally and short term as well as multidecadally and on large scales. Periods of intense upwelling lead to increased productivity but also increased offshore flow of surface waters and larvae. Periods of upwelling relaxation leading to onshore flow of surface waters appear to be critical to successful urchin settlement episodically, especially in northern California (Morgan, et al 2000).
Figure 1. California, USA
3
El Niño conditions dramatically affect kelp bed communities and the sea urchin fishery ( Tegner and Dayton 1991). The effects are more pronounced south of Point Conception where Macrocysistis forests are greatly reduced or eliminated due to high temperatures, low nutrient levels and wave damage from intense storms. Until the kelp beds recover, urchin gonads are in poor, unmarketable condition. Strong El Niño events peaked in 1940, 1958, 1983. 1992, and 1997 and sea urchin fishery landings dipped during just afterwards. Ocean current patterns north and south of Point Conception (34° N) differ, leading to different larval transport and retention patterns. South of Point Conception in the Southern California Bight, currents appear to retain larvae making them more likely to consistently settle successfully (Ebert, et al, 1994). North of Point Conception settlement is less consistent and occurs primarily during El Niño and upwelling relaxation conditions (Kalvass and Rogers-Bennett 2001). In addition, southern California has much larger area of suitable urchin habitat due to the numerous large offshore islands. In most years northern California urchin divers lose more fishing days to poor weather, especially during the winter holiday periods of peak market demand in Japan. For an overview of California’s ocean climate see Parrish and Tegner (2001). Red sea urchins have important interactions with other species that affect the fishery. Foremost is the southern sea otter, Enhydra lutris, which is listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The sea otter range extends approximately 350 miles from Half Moon Bay (San Mateo County) to Gaviota (Santa Barbara County). Within this range, predation by sea otters has lowered the density of legal sized urchins below levels to have a viable fishery. From the 1930s until the early 1980s, the sea otter population grew from about 300 to approximately 2,000 animals and expanded its range. By the 1990s, population growth had ceased, reasons for this are a subject of intense research. The sea urchin and abalone fishing industies have struggled for 30 years with attempts to establish and implement policies that would limit the otter’s range and allow continuation of shellfish fisheries. What happens with the range and management of the sea otter obviously is critical to the future of the sea urchin fishery. Urchins also interact with many near shore species. Kelp and other algae are obviously critical food sources. In southern California giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) beds are the key habitat, while areas of bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) and other brown algae mark the primary habitat for red urchins in northern California. Purple urchins (S. purpuratus) compete for space; especially in shallow habitats. Abalone (Haliotis spp.) may compete with urchins for food and space in subtidal habitats and they are found in the spine canopy of adult urchins. With the abalone resource at very low levels and under a state-mandated recovery plan, future urchin fishery management plans should take effects on abalone into consideration. Other kelp bed species that are important predators of sea urchins include spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus ), sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher), sun stars (Pycnopodia helianthoides) and rock crabs (Cancer spp.) (Kato and Schroeter 1985).
FISHERY HISTORY California has had a large and valuable kelp harvesting industry since the early twentieth century. In the early years, kelp was utilized for producing ingredients for explosives, but later became a useful component of many industrial products. By the 1950s the kelp industry and fishermen interested in kelp bed fishes and abalone were concerned about the potentially harmful effects of sea urchin grazing on kelp. Sea urchin eradication programs were implemented using calcium oxide and physical destruction and some kelp beds were restored (North 1965). In 1968, the National Marine Fisheries Service examined the feasibility of developing a sea urchin fishery. After intense efforts by Susumu Kato of NMFS and others to develop processing capability, coupled with a stronger Japanese yen, the fishery began in earnest in 1973 with landings were approximately 1,600 t (Kato and Schroeter 1985). During these years the details of marketing in Japan, air shipping and processing were worked out.
4
The fishery grew steadily to over 11,200 t by 1981, but dipped to under 7,000 t during the intense El Niño of the early 1980s (Kalvass and Rogers-Bennett 2001). Practically all landings were in southern California because the processing and air shipment capability was centered there. By 1985, the combination of a relatively stronger yen, increased market demand and decreases in available supplies from the Japanese fishery, it became economically feasible to harvest, process and ship the northern California sea urchins. By 1988, landings of from virgin fishing grounds soared to 13,605 t pushing the statewide landings to 23,600 t (Figure 2). As one would expect, the northern California fishery was fished down quickly with landings under 6000 t by 1992. The influx of divers from southern California that fueled the expansion of the northern fishery began to leave the area. Landings, mean urchin size, numbers of divers and catch per diver continued to decline in northern California through the 1990s and landings reached a low in 1996 (Kalvass and Rogers-Bennett 2001; Kalvass and Hendrix 1997). Since 2000, landings have risen to over 2,000 t annually.
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
So Ca No CA StateTotal
19 71 19 74 19 77 19 80 19 83 19 86 19 89 19 92 19 95 19 98 20 01
MILLION POUNDS
RED SEA URCHIN LANDINGS
YEAR
Figure 2. California sea urchin landings
5
In contrast to the highly variable northern California fishery, southern California landings have been relatively stable, though generally declining since a 1990 peak of nearly 12,300 t. Two intense El Niños and a weakening yen reduced urchin quality and demand during the 1990s. Survey sites also showed a decline in the numbers of legal sized urchins during this period (Kalvass and Rogers-Bennett 2001). Landings dipped to about 8,100 t a year after the 1993 El Niño and declined further to 3,250 t after the 1997 event. Some kelp beds have been slow to recover and landings in recent years and southern California landings during recent years have continued at 4,000 to 5,000 t. California’s fishery landings expanded rapidly during its first fifteen years, peaked in 1988, and have been declining since due to a combination of intense fishing, a series of strong El Niño periods, and difficult marketing conditions. The fishery has evolved into two geographically distinct fisheries separated by the 350-mile zone containing sea otters. The southern fishery is strongly affected negatively by El Niño conditions and southward extensions of the sea otter range, but consistent settlement/recruitment seems to partially mitigate for fishery removals. In the north, the fishery is much younger, successful recruitment is inconsistent, and El Niño conditions appear to have less negative effects. The northern fishery took off on virgin stocks, but now appears to be harvesting primarily new recruits. For more thorough summaries of the fishery see Kato (1972), Kato and Schroeter (1985), Kalvass and Hendrix (1997), and Andrew, et al. (2002).
MANAGEMENT HISTORY For the first fifteen years, management of the fishery could be best described as passive. By the time of the rapid urchin fishery expansion in landings and value of the mid-1980s, both the industry and California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) acknowledged the need for active management. The first major action was an attempt to take emergency action to place an immediate moratorium on issuing sea urchin permits. However, the state Attorney General ruled that action illegal and required that “adequate notice” be given. This led to the number of permits ballooning to 938 when the moratorium became effective during 1987. It has taken fifteen years for the number of permits to fall to a level approaching the current capacity goal of 300 divers (Figure 3).
Figure 3. California sea urchin management history, landing and value.
6
Another key management event in 1987 was the formation of the DFG Director’s Sea Urchin Advisory Committee (DSUAC) consisting of DFG-appointed diver and processor representatives (geographically specified), a California Sea Grant representative, and a DFG member. DSUAC's primary role was to advise the DFG on sea urchin enhancement and management proposals to be funded from a special landing tax of $0.01 per pound. DSUAC also quickly began to function as the primary forum for consensus-based management of the fishery.
DSUAC Funding of Research and Monitoring During the fifteen year existence of DSUAC, over $US 1 million of the landing tax funds were used for research and monitoring activities related to resource enhancement and fishery management. In the earliest years, testing resource enhancement techniques was a primary focus. The first major action was an analysis of the feasibility of enhancement options with emphasis on techniques used in Japan (Tegner 1989). For a decade DSUAC funded demonstration projects testing the feasibility of many techniques including: seed collection from the wild, hatchery production of juveniles for out planting, out planting tests of juveniles of different sizes and different habitats, feeding kelp to urchins in pens or the wild to increase gonad quality, and translocation of urchins from food-poor areas to food rich areas. Many of the these studies were conducted by university scientists at San Diego State and the University of California’s Bodega Marine Laboratory with collaboration with industry participants. Most of these studies revealed serious economic feasibility and institutional policy barriers to successful implementation. Translocation of urchins showed the most promise. The enhancement research experience taught both the fishermen and scientists much about red sea urchins and the collaborative research process. About half of the landing tax funds were directed towards activities related to monitoring and management of the fishery. DSUAC funded additional DFG staffing to monitor landings for size frequencies, compliance with size limits, catch locations, and CPUE. Monitoring of urchin densities in fished and unfished (reserve areas) were tracked to gain a sense of the effects of fishing. Much of this information was critical to DFG and DSUAC discussions of proposed management regulations and research needs. One major spin off of the attempts to collect urchins with seed collectors for outplanting was the establishment of a long-term settlement study to monitor any changes in the timing and rate of recruitment. Sampling at numerous sites throughout southern and northern California has not revealed any significant change in settlement (Ebert et al 1994). This long-term study and others (see Wing et al 1995) have increased our knowledge about the influence of ocean physical processes on urchin recruitment.
DSUAC and DFG Influence on Management Between 1987 and 1992 almost all of the current sea urchin management regulations now in effect were developed cooperatively by DSUAC and DFG and enacted by the California Fish and Game Commission. Both industry and DFG shared concerns about resource sustainability and limiting fishing effort. By 1990, a detailed limited entry program was implemented which sought to reduce the fleet by attrition while allowing a small amount of new entry. The limited entry program continues today with adjustments made to give apprentice divers permits and to accelerate attrition towards the current 300 diver capacity goal. DSUAC was also the forum for negotiating minimum size limits. In 1989 a statewide minimum size limit of 76 mm was set to allow urchins to spawn for several years before harvest. These size limits were later increased to 89 mm in northern California and 83 mm in the south. At the same time, DFG wanted to further reduce harvest and a series of temporal closures were negotiated. Temporal closure discussions were difficult because of the industry’s strong belief that they needed the California uni product to have a
7
year round presence in the Japanese market to maintain market share and good prices. Finally, a series of shortened workweeks during summer months and a northern California closure for the month of July were implemented. By 1993, DFG’s concern about the sustainability of the urchin resource had grown to the point that the department wrote a draft management plan for the 1994 fishery. Elements of the plan included setting total allowable catches, establishing a maximum size limit, setting an October through May season statewide, and having separate permits for northern and southern California. To put it mildly, the draft plan was not popular with DSUAC members and the rest of the industry. In 1995, DFG and DSUAC agreed to send the draft plan out for scientific review by a mutually acceptable expert panel. The panel’s review (Ebert et al 1995) agreed that the “…available information indicates that there has been a depression of sea urchin stocks since fishing began and that something needs to be done in order to maintain a viable fishery.” The panel pointed out areas of needed research and stated that “currently there is no scientific basis for selecting a specific management plan”. They went on to state that “ …a plan based on minimum size limits may be the most cost effective and enforceable method for managing the sea urchin resource in California; however, details still require further work.” In the eight years since this draft plan and review there has been little progress towards a fishery management plan for sea urchins. Though DSUAC continued to meet and fund research and fishery monitoring activities, collaboration and communication between industry and DFG has become more difficult. In my opinion, this is due to some degree to differences in goals and perceptions. DFG’s orientation is towards resource conservation with interests in stock assessment, CPUE, recovery of urchin stocks to increase fishery yields in the long term, and learning more about variables affecting urchin populations. While the urchin industry shares the high priority placed on stock assessment, it has important issues related to improving $PUE, long-term economic sustainability, sustaining stocks of urchins in marketable condition, and perceived threats to the industry (sea otter range expansion, marine reserves). Reconciliation of these differences in perception and improved communication and trust will be vital in future fishery management plans for the urchin fishery. DSUAC functions ended during 2002 and the landing tax funds (approximately $300,000) were transferred to a foundation to be managed on behalf of a new sea urchin industry organization. The new organization may be able to put new life into the fishery management plan development and implementation process.
8
WHAT MIGHT THE FISHERY LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE? Two New California Marine Life Laws Before I describe DFG and sea urchin industry ideas about fishery management and then speculate on the future of California’s sea urchin fishery, it is helpful to describe several new California marine life management laws that are highly relevant to the urchin fishery. The Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) of 1998 requires, among other things, that the DFG to develop fishery management plans (FMPs) for state managed marine fisheries (Weber and Heneman 2000). The first two mandated plans for white sea bass and nearshore fisheries have been completed and a sea urchin FMP is likely be among the next group of plans. The MLMA specifies the required elements of the FMP which include essential fishery information and research protocols to fill gaps in this information. In addition significant constituent involvement and scientific peer review are required. The MLMA provides the outline that any future sea urchin FMP must follow and makes clear where the gaps in essential fisheries information exist (status of stocks, social and economic information, criteria for determining overfishing). A key FMP component will be design and analysis of the management alternatives to be considered by the Fish and Game Commission for implementation. The Marine Life Protection Act of 1999 mandates that California establishes a master plan for marine protected areas (MPAs) and then establishes a statewide network of MPAs. This has been an extremely contentious issue and the state recently revised their approach by establishing a series of local working groups to work out the specifics of MPAs in each region. In recent actions, the Fish and Game Commission voted to establish MPAs covering 19 percent of the area adjacent to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. It is anticipated that federal action on Channel Islands MPAs will be completed during 2004. This MPA implementation is happening at the same time as MLMA fishery management plans are being formulated. It is likely that urchin fishing areas will fall within these MPAs. It is clear that any sea urchin FMP will need to be coordinated with current and future designations and evaluations of MPAs. Both of these Acts grew out of coalitions of concerned environmental groups, scientists, citizens, legislators, and in the case of MLMA, some fishing groups. This involvement shows that many California citizens are concerned about marine conservation issues.
Management Considerations from the Department of Fish and Game In its recent report on the status of California’s fisheries (pp. 560-561 in Leet et al. 2001), the authors of the section on red sea urchins offered their views on future management considerations. While this is not DFG policy, it does provide discussion points for a future FMP. “The red sea urchin fishery is fully exploited in California, and evidence from a variety of sources points to an over-fished condition in northern and portions of southern California. Management measures developed and implemented collaboratively with the industry (minimum size limits, restricted access, temporal closures) have not been effective in reversing long-term declines in harvestable stocks. The following management-related actions may be needed to reverse this condition: 1.
Expand existing fishery-dependant and independent monitoring programs. Logbook data needs to be collected at a higher spatial resolution using GPS technology. Fishery-independent needs to expanded to allow managers to assess density and size distributions. Fishery-independent monitoring will detect trends in harvest, but is confounded by harvest levels, which are strongly
9
affected by quality of urchin gonads and market conditions. Fishery-independent monitoring will allow managers to assess abundance of size classes and poor quality urchins not sampled within the fishery. Continuation and expansion of long-term monitoring of settlement patterns is crucial to providing a relative measure of settlement supply and should be continued and expanded. Reestablishment of an industry-based revenue system would assist in funding these programs. 2.
Develop a science-based red sea urchin fishery management plan for the Fish and Game Commission.
3.
Conduct a capacity goal analysis. Consider reducing the permit goal to below present level of 300 divers and explore methods for accelerating the attrition rate.
4.
Continue to examine and consider the use of spatial management techniques (i.e., marine protected areas, rotating harvest zones) in urchin management.
5.
Expand collaborative monitoring and research with industry participation
The following management measure could be implemented on an interim basis before a fishery management plan is in place: 1.
Establish and monitor a maximum size limit to accelerate recovery of fished areas. A maximum size limit would be expected to protect animals with the greatest spawning potential and enhance the survival of juvenile urchins under the spine canopy.
2.
Establish regional management zones for northern and southern California.
3.
Establish annual harvest quotas based on the five-year average annual catch. This measure could ensure that a sudden increase in demand, as occurred in the mid-1980’s, does not drive stock levels below their ability to recover.”
Sea Urchin Industry Goals, Management Preferences and Research Priorities: During August and September of 2002 the University of California Sea Grant Extension Program, in collaboration with the Sea Urchin Fishery Advisory Committee, facilitated three all day meetings to help the industry identify their high priority goals for the fishery and techniques for achieving those goals. Meeting results will be used by SUFAC to help guide their decisions on the use of industry landing tax funds and development of sea urchin fishery management plan. A total of 45 participants at the three workhops brought up a very diverse set of ideas, we have summarized the highest priority goals ranked within the top ten goals at all three meetings. • • • • •
Year round steady supply Processor and diver cooperation/collaboration Subsidy for lost market share due to imports Market driven scheduling Maximize resource value Goals ranked among the top five at two of the three meetings included:
• • •
Having transferable permits Stock sustainability and fishery sustainability Collaborative data collection and management with DFG Several participants had goals as specific as 1,000 pounds/diver/day and 100,000 pounds/diver/year.
10
When asked to rank management techniques for achieving these fisheries goals the outcomes were even more diverse. Two major types of management approaches were ranked in the top five at all three meetings. • •
Capacity issues such as setting capacity goals, buyout programs, permit stacking, permit transferability and individual transferable quotas (pro and con) were deemed high priority. Establishing and using an effective industry organization to participate in DFG and Commission meetings, organize industry participation in research and data collection, accessing fishery data, improve advertising about the industry, etc.
Many of these goals and management techniques are related to economic as well resource sustainability issues. These ideas will be important elements in future FMP development. Future Management Alternatives: I envision four primary potential management alternatives for California’s sea urchin fishery during the coming decade. The likely possibilities include (1) status quo, (2) implementation of the proposed DFG management considerations, (3) spatially based management, and (4) harvest rights systems. These alternatives are not mutually exclusive and parts of each management type could be combined into a comprehensive FMP. The ultimate outcome will need to involve industry and DFG collaboration. In addition to resource sustainability and ecological considerations successful long-term management of the fishery will have to provide opportunities for sustained industry profitability. This is especially important in this era of increased recovery of management and research costs from the industry by the state. Future management is likely to lead to an industry with fewer participants. I anticipate that a long-term sea urchin plan will contain spatial management techniques, probably some form of spatially-based individual or group harvest rights. Continuation of Current Management: The most likely scenario for the next couple of years will be simply muddling through with the current management system. DFG, facing serious budget shortfalls, is likely to focus much of its effort dealing with current issues surrounding the process of setting up a statewide network of marine protected areas and implementation of the nearshore fisheries management plan. DFG is unlikely to initiate a sea urchin FMP in the near term unless there is significant demand from industry or other outside groups. There is a reasonable probability that the sea urchin industry will undertake activities to begin FMP development using existing landing tax funds. The first step was the series of industry/university workshops to identify industry’s management goals and research needs. Industry is now exploring research possibilities related to stock assessment and may put together other management-related efforts. This approach, if combined with collaboration with DFG invertebrate fisheries biologists, could start the FMP development process. Until this happens, few changes in the management of the fishery are likely. Landings will vary as (1) recruitment to legal size occurs, (2) kelp bed condition, gonad quality, yen/dollar exchange rates, and market demand varies, (3) fishing areas are set aside in MPAs and (4) sea otters’ range changes. A slow decline in the number of divers will continue as they age and will accelerate and possibly include a decline in processors during periods of poor economic returns. Implementation of 2001 DFG Management Considerations: This depends upon the assertiveness, willingness and availability of financial resources within CDFG to go ahead with its ideas for future management of the fishery. CDFG has been slow to initiate a sea urchin fishery management plan under the 1998 Marine Life Management Act due to other more urgent management priorities and shortfalls in funding. Recently the sea urchin industry has initiated actions, such as seeking proposals for stock assessment and conducting their own surveying of industry participants about management preferences, with the idea of using this information in FMP development. To implement the major management measures considerations listed from the CDFG's Status Report (Leet et al 2001), the department will need to overcome considerable industry opposition to maximum
11
size limits, separate northern and southern California management zones, and set TACs based on a fiveyear catch average. These management measures were suggested as potential interim measures until the FMP is developed. If implemented, their effects should be thoroughly evaluated to provide useful guidance to long-term policy decisions. An alternative would be to implement these or other measures on a smaller spatial scale as management experiments. I sense that these 2001 DFG management considerations will be difficult to implement unless they are perceived as compatible with the sea urchin industry's priorities for management goals and management options identified in the series of industry meetings held in 2002. Collaboration between DFG and industry will be a key element. Spatial Management: Andrew et al (2002), concerned with the general worldwide decline in sea urchin fisheries, suggested that small-scale management holds the highest promise for long-term sustainability. I believe that three spatial management paths are possible in California. The first will be the network of MPAs mandated under the Marine Life Protection Act of 1999. These MPAs will not be designed specifically for sea urchin management, but the sea urchin fishery will have to adapt to this situation. The second approach may be a series of reserves or rotating reserves as an option under a DFGauthored sea urchin fishery management plan. Any such option would be enhanced by incorporating recent analysis by Smith and Wilen (in press) which integrates ten years of sea urchin diver logbook data with a multi-patch biological model of larval dispersal. They found that divers' choices based on weather risk, costs (distance) and expected returns, are important in modeling the impacts of closures. It is likely to be several years before DFG begins work on a sea urchin FMP. Other, higher priority activities and projected shortfalls in funding are slowing down fishery plan development. A third approach could be based on California's existing system of designated kelp beds. Many of these beds are leased for up to 20 years and the anticipated kelp harvest in the coming decade is approximately 80,000 tons annually (Bedford 2001). While most of these beds are in southern California, the concept could be extended statewide with leases or harvest rights held by local urchin industry groups. Some urchin divers have expressed interest in territorial use rights as a small-scale management technique. While these spatial harvest rights would not have the degree of "private property" found in Japan, they would present opportunities for state-industry co-management. This type of approach would allow more careful market-based planning, increased opportunities to reap any benefits of enhancement techniques, and collaborative resource monitoring. This type of small scale spatial management will only happen if (1) the number of harvesters declines to a level which makes cooperative action feasible, (2) DFG and industry can work out shared responsibilities and authority, (3) industry can pay for a significant portion of the management and monitoring costs and (4) others interested in kelp bed resources are agreeable to this approach. I believe that territorial use rights will not become a reality in the near future because they would be such a radical change from the current management system. One possibility would be to try this approach on an experimental basis for a limited area and evaluate the outcome. Harvest Rights: A vocal minority of urchin divers strongly advocate establishing a harvest rights system such as individual transferable quotas (ITQ). During the mid-1990s they hired a team of New Zealand fisheries consultants to run a series of informational workshops. This team also put together a very thorough outline of a California sea urchin ITQ system based on New Zealand's experience (Ackroyd and Beattie 1996). Heated discussions about the merits of this type of system have raged since then. Dewees (1993) and Boyd and Dewees (1992) discussed issues related to ITQ implementation. For California's urchin fishery issues include: methods for initial allocation of quota shares, determining total allowable catches, processor-diver relationships, cost recovery mechanisms, and aggregation limits. Possible benefits of a harvest rights system to those remaining in the fishery include: potential for market-
12
based, year round fishing, potential increased profitability, potential for spatial, small-scale management, possession of a potentially valuable asset, and eventually reduced management costs for the state. Implementation of harvest rights are unlikely at this time because of the high level voracity of opposition among much of the industry. If the state continues to move towards harvest rights in portions of the nearshore groundfish fishery in the near future, fishermen will have an opportunity to see how that type of system works. Eventually, harvest rights may evolve out of more spatially-explicit management schemes as participants seek to maximize profits. These harvest rights may include exclusive access to reefs and may be held by individuals or groups.
REFERENCES Ackroyd, P. and R. Beattie. 1996. California’s Sea Urchin Fishery: ITQs-Fishing with a Future. Sea Right Investments Ltd., Christchurch, New Zealand. 51pp. Andrew, N.L., Y. Agatsuma, E. Ballesteros, A.G Bazhin, E.P. Creaser, D.K.A. Barnes, L.W. Botsford, A. Bradbury, A. Campbell, J.D. Dixon, S. Einarsson, P. Gerring, K. Hebert, M. Hunter, S. B. Hur, C.R. Johnson, M.A. Juinio-Menez, P. Kalvass, R.J. Miller, C.A. Moreno, J.S. Palleiro, D. Rivas, S.M.L. Robinson, S.C. Schroeter, R.S. Steneck, R.I. Vadas, D.A. Woodby and Z Xiaoqi. 2002. Status and management of world sea urchin fisheries. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 40: 343-425. Bedford, D. 2001. Giant kelp. Pp. 277-281 In: Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson, editors. California's Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. Sacramento: California Dept. of Fish and Game. ANR Publ. SG01-11. Botsford, L.W., J.F. Quinn, S.R. Wing and J.G. Brittnacher. 1993. Rotating spatial harvest of a benthic invertebrate, the red sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus. Pp. 409-428 In: Proc. Internat. Symp. Management Strategies for Exploited Fish Populations. Alaska Sea Grant College Program AK-SG-9302: Fairbanks. Boyd, R.O. and C.M. Dewees. 1992. Putting theory into practice: Individual transferable quotas in New Zealand’s fisheries. Society and Natural Resources 5: 179-198. Castilla, J.C. and O. Defeo. 2001. Latin American benthic shellfisheries: emphasis on co-management and experimental practices. Rev. in Fish Biol. And Fisheries 11: 1- 30. Dewees, C.M. 1993. Fisheries management: individual transferable quotas (ITQs). Sea Grant Extension Program: Davis, California. UCSGEP 93-8. 3p. Ebert, T.A., J. DeMartini, S. Kato and D.Reed. 1995. Review of the draft management plan for the California commercial red sea urchin fishery. Unpublished manuscript. California Department of Fish and Game: Sacramento. Ebert, T.A., J.D. Dixon and S.C. Schroeter. 1992. Experimental outplant of juvenile red sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus, in California. Final Technical Report Fg-0182 to California Department of Fish and Game. 41p. Ebert, T.A., S.C. Schroeter, J.D. Dixon, and P. Kalvass. 1994. Settlement patterns of red and purple sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus fransciscanus and S. purpuratus) in California, USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 111:41-52. Kalvass, P.E. and J.M. Hendrix. 1997. The California red sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus, fishery: catch, effort and management trends. Mar. Fish. Rev. 59 (2): 1-17. Kalvass, P.E. and L. Rogers-Bennett. 2001. Red sea urchin. Pp. 101-104 and 560-561.
13
In: Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson, editors. California's Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. Sacramento: California Dept. of Fish and Game. ANR Publ. SG01-11. Kato, S. 1972. Sea urchins: A new fishery develops in California. Mar. Fish. Rev. 34(9-10):23-30. Kato, S. and S.C. Schroeter. 1985. Biology of the red sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus, and its fishery in California. Mar. Fish Rev. 47(3): 1-20. Morgan, L., S. Wing, L.W. Botsford, C. Lundquist and J. Diehl. 2000. Spatial variability in red sea urchin recruitment in northern California. Fisheries Oceanography 9(1): 83-98. North, W.J. 1965. Urchin predation. In W.J.North (principal investigator), Kelp Habitat Improvement Project, Annual Rep. 1964-65, p 57-61. California Inst. Technol.: Pasadena. Parrish, R.R. and M.J. Tegner. 2001. California's variable ocean environment. Pp. 21-28. In: Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson, editors. California's Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. Sacramento: California Dept. of Fish and Game. ANR Publ. SG01-11. Smith, M.D. and J.E. Wilen. In press. Economic impacts of marine reserves: the importance of spatial behavior. Environmental Economics and Management. Tegner, M.J. 1989. The feasibility of enhancing red sea urchin Strongylocentrotus franciscanus stocks in California; an analysis of the options. Mar. Fish. Rev. 51(2): 1-22. Tegner, M.J. and P.K. Dayton. 1991. Sea urchins, El Niños, and the long term stability of southern California kelp forest communities. Marine Ecol. Prog. Series 77: 49-63. Weber, M.L. and B. Heneman. 2000. Guide to California's Marine Life Management Act. Common Knowledge Press, Bolinas, CA, 133p. Wing, S.R., J.L. Largier, L.W. Botsford, and J.F. Quinn. 1995. Settlement and transport of benthic invertebrates in an intermittent upwelling region. Limnol. Oceanogr. 40:316-329.
14
