2011
Environmental benefits of MSC certification
23 OREGON PINK SHRIMP
23.1 Introduction
For the Oregon pink shrimp Pandalus jordani (otter trawl) fishery, the Principle 1 and 2 ‘Outcome’
PIs were mapped against the following indicators within the stated reports:
FAM PI:
Assessment Report 2007
Performance Indicator:
1.1.1 Stock status
1.1.6.1
1.1.2 Reference points
1.1.3.1
1.1.3 Stock rebuilding
1.2.1
2.1.1 Retained species
2.1.2.1
2.2.1 Bycatch species
2.1.2.2
2.3.1 ETP species
2.2.1.2
2.4.1 Habitats
2.1.3.1
2.1.1.2
2.5.1 Ecosystems
2.1.1.4
2.1.3.2
The spawning stock is at or above the reference level.
There are reference levels that are appropriate for the stock, respect limit and
target objectives and take ecosystem effects into account. These reference levels
include fishing mortality rates and/or spawning stock abundance.
When the stock is below the reference abundance level, and/or the fishing
mortality is above the reference level, there are measures designed and
implemented for recovery and rebuilding.
There is information available on the nature, extent and fate of the bycatch
(landings and discards of non-target species) (all bycatch is landed thus ‘retained’).
Is information available on the extent of discard and slippage (the proportion of
the catch not landed)?
Interactions of the fishery with endangered, threatened, and protected species are
adequately characterized.
There is adequate knowledge of the physical impacts on the habitat resulting from
use of gear.
Information is available on non-target species directly and indirectly affected by the
fishery.
Information exists on the ability of the ecosystem to recover from fishery related
impacts.
Gear loss during fishing operations and its effects are known (I.e. ghost fishing).
Tavel completed the initial AR (2007) and the first SR. Moody Marine completed the second SR
(2010).
-
Feb: SR1
Aug: SR2
Principle 1 FAM reference
(PI)
Year
1.1.1 Stock
status score
1.1.2
Reference
point score
1.1.3 Stock
rebuilding
Aug: AR
23.2 Principle 1
2007
2008
2009
2010
1.1.6.1 80
-
-
-
1.1.3.1 85
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
148
Environmental benefits of MSC certification
2011
Figure 1.
CPUE
(lbs/hour) for
Oregon pink
shrimp. Source:
ODFW 2011
(20th review).
Figure 2. Catch
per unit effort
(lb/SREhr)
Source: ODFW
2011 (20th
review).
23.2.1 Indicator trend
1.2.1.1 Stock Status
Despite the reduction in spawning stock due to fishing mortality, subsequent recruitment has not
been shown to be consistently impacted by the fishery (AR, 2007). Fishing effort has been
constrained to 1/5 of the historical high, and market samples suggest that the fishery is shifting back
to multiple age classes rather than just 1-year-old shrimp (AR, 2007; Hannah and Jones, 2006a). In
2007, CPUE had increased to a level higher than the average level from 1968 to 2005 (AR, 2007).
There has been a reduction in effort, most likely due to the reduction in the permanent fleet in the
fishery, the low price paid for shrimp and the high cost of fuel (AR, 2007).
149
2011
Environmental benefits of MSC certification
The current spawning stock levels are thought to not be significantly impacted by the fishery and the
spawning stock is above the reference level (AR, 2007).
1.2.1.2 Reference Points
Reference levels address biological and environmental influences as well as traditional knowledge
(AR, 2007). The management program addresses the sources of uncertainty, variability and data
limitations (AR, 2007). Much work has been done and is ongoing to help to understand stock
dynamics and to establish reference levels but further development is needed (AR, 2007).
1.2.1.3 Stock rebuilding
The stock of west coast pink shrimp has been confirmed to not be in a depleted state currently
based on the available evidence, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and fishers.
23.2.2 PI score trend
All three of the indicators were scored above 80 in the Assessment Report and were not re-scored
during either of the surveillance reports.
23.2.3 Conditions
No conditions were raised against any of the P1 indicators in this fishery.
Feb: SR1
Aug: SR2
2.5.1
Ecosystems
-
Principle 2 FAM reference
(PI)
Year
2.1.1 Retained
species
2.2.1 Bycatch
species
2.3.1 ETP
species
2.4.1 Habitats
Aug: AR
23.3 Principle 2
2007
2008
2009
2010
-
-
-
-
2.1.2.1 85
-
-
-
2.2.1.2 90
-
-
-
2.1.3.1 80
-
-
-
2.1.1.2 85
2.1.1.4 75
2.1.3.2 80
-
‘Condition 2’ on
target/attained
2.1.1.4 rescored at 80
23.3.1 Indicator trend
Bycatch species
Historically, retained bycatch of finfish species made up a large proportion of catch by shrimp
trawlers (AR, 2007). This problem has been targeted through gear modification and fish excluder
devices (which are now mandatory) as well as caps on allowable bycatch based on stock
assessments and fishery evaluations (AR, 2007; Hannah et al., 1996). Restrictions have also been put
in place on fishing in areas where finfish (in particular, vulnerable rockfish) may be taken incidentally
150
Environmental benefits of MSC certification
2011
(AR, 2007). Bycatch has now been reduced by 97%, and the total catch of non-target species in the
fishery is less than 10% of the total catch (AR, 2007).
ETP Species
The required reporting of marine mammal mortalities as well as the mandatory use of excluders has
minimized interactions between the fishery and animals listed as threatened or endangered (AR,
2007).
Habitats
The extent and location of potential gear impacts is known and has been quantified (AR, 2007).
Several no-trawl areas have been established to protect essential fish habitat for groundfish;
however, it was not deemed necessary to exclude shrimp trawling for this protection (AR, 2007).
Gear has been observed to be semi-pelagic, so the trawl doors make contact with the sea floor but
the net and fishing line do not (AR, 2007). Nets have not been observed to get snagged on hard
bottom substrates or to pick up rocks and hard corals, probably due to the fact that area where the
trawling takes place has a mainly mud-sand bottom (AR, 2007). The sensitivity of habitats within the
shrimp grounds have only shown small adverse effects resulting from this fishery, as they tend to be
in areas of soft substrates which have low to moderate sensitivity to trawl impacts (AR, 2007). These
areas do, however, take longer to recover from these impacts than other habitat types (AR, 2007)
Ecosystems
The ocean shrimp fishery is thought to cause few direct impacts (AR, 2007). The overall impacts to
the ecosystem were investigated by the client, and measureable effects were found as a result of
trawling on macro invertebrate abundances and diversity, with the size of the impact depending on
the intensity of the trawling (SR2, 2010). Ecosystem recovery times and characteristics are difficult to
measure as little is known about how quickly these environments change (SR2, 2010).
The level of bycatch is low due to the use of excluder devices and is expected to further decrease as
more fishers use rigid grate Bycatch Reduction Devices (AR, 2007; Hannah and Jones, 2006b).
The loss of fishing gear was found to be very rare; and, when nets have been lost, there have been
financial incentives to recover the nets as they are expensive (AR, 2007). There have been no
estimates for ‘ghost fishing’ mortality from lost nets but it is likely to be negligible due to the rarity
of gear loss (AR, 2007)
Indirect impacts are also likely to be low as ocean shrimp make up a small proportion of predator
species’ diet; the fishing effort is very low in comparison to historical levels and the use of fish
excluders results in very little bycatch (AR, 2007). Fishery impacts appear to be a small factor in the
dynamics of shrimp abundance and potential trophic cascade effects (Field et al., 2006; Hannah and
Jones, 1991).
23.3.2 PI correlation
For the Assessment report, all of the FAM references for Principle 2 scored in the range of 75 to 90.
For the surveillance reports the FAM reference that scored 75 in the assessment report was rescored
at 80 after meeting the conditions raised.
23.3.3 Conditions
There was one condition raised against the Ecosystems P2 2.1.1.4 in AR (2007). It specified that the
client had to research and document the main elements of the ecosystem that would be impacted
151
Environmental benefits of MSC certification
2011
by the fishery (AR, 2007). The client completed this study and provided a greater understanding of
the type and magnitude of the effects of the shrimp trawl on the ecosystem and how it may recover
from the impacts associated with this fishery (SR2, 2010).
23.4 References
Field, J.C., Francis, R.C., and Aydin, K. (2006) Top-down modeling and bottom-up dynamics: linking a
fisheries-based ecosystem model with climate hypotheses in the Northern California
Current. Progress in Oceanography 68:238-270.
Hannah, R.W. and Jones, S.A. (1991) Fishery-induced changes in the population structure of Pink
Shrimp Pandalus jordani. Fishery Bulletin 89:41-51
Hannah, R.W., Jones, S.A. and Hoover, V.J. (1996) Evaluation of fish excluder technology to reduce
finfish bycatch in the ocean shrimp trawl fishery. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife,
Newport, Oregon, April 1996, Information Report No. 96-4.
Hannah, R.W. and Jones, S.A (2006a) Personal communication through interview. J. T. Golden,
Newport, Oregon. September 1, 2006.
Hannah, R.W. and Jones, S.A. (2006b) 17th Annual Pink Shrimp Review. Oregon Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife, Newport, Oregon, February 20, 2006
Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) (2011) Marine Resources Program Publications (Pink
shrimp). Available: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/publications/. Accessed 27 July 2011.
The following documents were used as reference material in this case study:
Assessment
Report (AR)
(2007)
SR1 (2009)
SR2 (2010)
http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/pacific/oregon-pink-shrimp/assessment-downloads1/Pub_Cert_Report_Dec07.pdf
http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/pacific/oregon-pink-shrimp/assessment-downloads1/13.03.2009%20Pink%20Shrimp%20-%20Surveillance.pdf
http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/pacific/oregon-pink-shrimp/assessment-downloads-1/26.08.2010surveillance-report-or-pink-shrimp.pdf
152