Disclaimer: This is an interactive, draft mock-up that was created to inform the development of the California Fisheries Portal. This is not an active website and does not represent the final draft of the California Fisheries Portal. This mock-up was developed based on the first stakeholder focus group (2018) and serves as an interactive discussion draft for the stakeholder webinar on March 22, 2019.

Pink (Ocean) Shrimp Enhanced Status Report

Table of Contents

3. Management

3.1 Past and Current Management Measures

In 1952, the Pink Shrimp trawl fishery was divided into three regulatory areas, and a quota was set for each area at 25% of estimated abundance from at-sea surveys (CDFG 2008). Later, a stock assessment model was used to set quotas due to the high cost of yearly surveys, but was ultimately found to be inappropriate given the high levels of environmental variability. In addition to the regional quotas, there were regulations specifying mesh sizes and the type of trawl gear allowed. The quota system was in place until 1976, when the current regulations were enacted.

In response to the declining CPUE rates in the 1970s, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) drafted a federal FMP for Pink Shrimp along the entire west coast. It was thought that since most shrimp fishing occurred in federal waters, a federal management plan would provide consistent regulation across the three states. However, the FMP was never adopted, and instead the PFMC recommended a coordinated management system by the three states (Parsons et al. 2013). In 1981, Pink Shrimp regulations were changed to establish uniform coast-wide management measures. The resulting regulations, which are still in effect today, are summarized in the following section.

The PFMC retained authority over the Pink Shrimp fishery until 2004, when management authority was transferred to the Commission (CDFG 2007). At this time, the California Legislature also granted the Commission management authority over California’s commercial bottom trawl fisheries. In addition, some state waters previously open to Pink Shrimp trawling were closed. Since 2004 the California Pink Shrimp fishery has been principally state-managed, although some federal regulations still apply, such as daily and monthly trip limits for incidental catches of groundfish, use of a vessel monitoring system, and area restrictions protecting groundfish Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).

There have been three major regulatory changes since 1981. In 2001, the three regulatory areas in California were eliminated and the fishery was divided at Point Conception into northern and southern management regions, with a separate permit required to fish in each region. Second, BRDs were required statewide in 2002 (Frimodig et al. 2009). The configuration of these devices, and their effects on bycatch levels, is discussed in section 3.1.3. Finally, in 2008 the Commission closed the Pink Shrimp Trawl Grounds (PSTG), effectively banning all Pink Shrimp fishing within state waters. Historically, approximately 10% of Pink Shrimp were caught within state waters, with the rest captured in federal waters (>3 miles) (mi) offshore.

3.1.1 Overview and Rationale for the Current Management Framework

California’s Pink Shrimp fishery is currently managed using a suite of static regulations to promote the sustainability of the target species. Aside from the fact that the northern fishery is limited entry and the southern fishery is open access, regulations are identical in both regions and have been in place since 1976. These include:

  • A seasonal closure from 01 November to 14 April to protect egg-bearing females.
  • A minimum mesh size of 1.38 in (36 mm) to allow for escapement of small 0 and 1 yr old shrimp.
  • A prohibition on landing shrimp that do not meet a maximum count-per-lb of 160. This is intended to prevent the take of 1 yr old shrimp.

3.1.1.1   Criteria to Identify When Fisheries Are Overfished or Subject to Overfishing, and Measures to Rebuild

There is currently no direct reference point available to specify the level of fishing that constitutes “overfishing”. However, there is a maximum count-per-lb of 160 shrimp in place to prevent the catch of too many small (1-yr-old) shrimp. The rationale behind this regulation is that catching large amounts of small shrimp could be an indicator that fishing pressure is too high, and that the larger shrimp have already been caught. Continuing to fish when too many age-one shrimp are in the catch may imperil the sustainability of the resource. The regulation prohibits fishermen from landing shrimp that do not meet the maximum count, but there is no link to a management decision.

There is also no direct reference point available to specify the size at which the Pink Shrimp population would be considered “overfished”.

There are currently no pre-specified regulations or procedures in place to halt overfishing when it is found to be occurring, or to rebuild populations when they fall below biomass thresholds. There are no rebuilding targets (specified in either abundance or catch rates) for this fishery. The MLMA specifies that the time period for preventing, ending, or otherwise appropriately addressing and rebuilding the fishery shall be as short as possible, and shall not exceed ten years except in cases where the biology of the population of fish or other environmental conditions dictate otherwise (Fish and Game Code (FGC)§7086(c)(1)).

3.1.1.2   Past and Current Stakeholder Involvement

Stakeholder involvement has primarily occurred during regulation changes affecting the Pink Shrimp fleet. Amendments to regulations pertaining to Pink Shrimp trawling (CCR Title 14 §120) were last made in 2008 when primarily organizational changes were made. Previously, statutory changes were made in 2004 giving regulatory authority to the Commission and requiring BRDs. The restricted access program was developed in 2001. During each of these changes, stakeholders were consulted and had opportunity to comment through the Commission process.

In 2015, the Pink Shrimp fishery in California applied for MSC certification. During the review process it was found that the Department’s score was deficient in the category of stakeholder communication. Following the review’s recommendations, the Department aims to improve two-way communication with the fleet. This would mean better incorporation of fleet feedback on stock dynamics and management actions as well as more transparent sharing of management decision making by the Department. The Department initiated efforts towards this end with a fleet meeting in Eureka in March 2017 and discussion of Pink Shrimp capacity at the November 2017 meeting of the Commission’s Marine Resource Committee.

3.1.2 Target Species

3.1.2.1   Limitations on Fishing for Target Species
3.1.2.1.1 Catch
There is no quota currently in place for Pink Shrimp, and no pre-determined procedure available for setting or changing a quota.

3.1.2.1.2 Effort
The northern and southern fisheries manage fishing effort differently, and a separate permit is needed to fish in each region.

The fishery in the southern region is open access, with no cap on the number of permits that can be issued (CDFG 2008). The number of permits purchased in the south has increased over the last 5 yr from 15 permits sold in 2012 to 29 permits sold in 2017.

The fishery in the northern region is limited entry to control fishing capacity. In 2014 there were 32 transferable permits purchased and three non-transferable permits. Fifteen of those permits were actively fished as of September 2017. Permits are assigned to a vessel, and the size of the vessels used are tracked by the Department.

3.1.2.1.3 Gear
There is a minimum mesh size of 1.38 in (36 mm) to allow juveniles (young-of-the-year) to escape.

3.1.2.1.4 Time
The fishery is closed from 01 November to 31 March to protect egg-bearing females.

3.1.2.1.5 Sex

There are no restrictions on the sex of shrimp that can be retained.
3.1.2.1.6 Size
A maximum count-per-lb of 160 effectively functions as a size limit and prevents the excessive capture of juvenile shrimp.

3.1.2.1.7 Area
Trawling for Pink Shrimp is currently only allowed in federal waters. State waters previously open to PSTG were closed in 2008. The PSTG was defined as the area in state waters more than two nautical mi from the mainland shore between False Cape (Humboldt County) and Point Reyes (Marin County) (Frimodig et al. 2009). The PSTG encompasses an area of 307 square mi. However, only three beds, comprising 17% of the PSTG, have ever been fished. Two of the beds are located north of Fort Bragg and the third is adjacent to Bodega Harbor. In combination, these three beds span approximately 52 square mi of ocean bottom in state waters. The Commission may reverse the PSTG closure if it is deemed that the trawl gear used meets the following performance criteria (FGC §8842):

  • minimizes bycatch
  • will not damage seafloor habitat
  • will not adversely affect ecosystem health
  • will not impede reasonable restoration of kelp, coral, or other biogenic habitats

Members of the fleet have recently petitioned the Commission to re-open the PSTG. However, the Commission concluded that further research is needed in the specific areas under consideration.

3.1.2.1.8 Marine Protected Areas
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) created under the MLPA were not designed for fisheries management purposes, however, the following management considerations:

  • MPAs can serve as spatial closures to fishing if the species of interest is within their boundaries and is prohibited from harvest.
  • MPAs can function as comparisons to fished areas for relative abundance and length or age/frequency of the targeted species.
  • MPA can also serve as ecosystem indicators for species associated with the target species, either as prey, predator, or competitor.
  • To varying degrees, MPAs displaced fishing effort when they were implemented.

As the Pink Shrimp fishery is prosecuted entirely in federal waters (Figure 2-1), these MPAs, which are located in state waters, are not a significant management consideration.

3.1.2.2 Description of and Rationale for Any Restricted Access Approach

The restricted access program was developed in 2000. Past landings were a criterion for eligibility for northern permits and transferability was given to those participants meeting minimum landing requirements in the first year of holding the permit. The goal of 75 permits was derived as the halfway point between the number of vessels in 1977 (53 permits) and in 1980 (104 permits). Catch was at a record high in 1977 and relatively low in 1980. Regulations state that the Department is to evaluate the capacity goal every 3 yr and report to the Commission, with a recommendation regarding issuance of new permits (CCR Title 14 §120.2(h)). The Department performed a capacity review in 2017 following a constituent petition to the Commission for creation of new permits. Following Department review, the Commission decided at the December 2017 meeting that increasing capacity was not warranted at the time.

3.1.3 Bycatch
3.1.3.1   Amount and Type of Bycatch (Including Discards)

Trawling can result in high bycatch rates, and shrimp fisheries in particular are known for high bycatch rates, with fisheries in some parts of the world catching as much as 30 lb of bycatch for 1 lb of target species (Frimodig et al. 2009). Data from the Oregon Pink Shrimp fleet indicates that the average bycatch rate for Pink Shrimp is 10% (CDFG 2008). However, managers and fishery participants have been working to reduce bycatch and it has been as low as 2% of the total catch (Hannah and Jones 2007). While these rates are low relative to the retained Pink Shrimp catch, cumulative bycatch rates from multiple trawl fisheries can have adverse effects on biologically sensitive species.

The majority of bycatch in the Pink Shrimp fishery is composed of groundfish species. Since 2004, when the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP) began, an average of 14% of Pink Shrimp trips have been observed (Somers et al. 2016a). On those observed trips, Pink Shrimp trawlers in California caught 40 species of groundfish as bycatch. However, the ratio of catch of non-shrimp species to Pink Shrimp has been less than 5% since 2007 (Somers et al. 2016b). Table 3-1 shows the groundfish species caught by the California fleet in 2014. Pacific Hake had the largest incidental catch, followed by Arrowtooth Flounder and unidentified flatfish.

Table 3-1. Observed catch of groundfish by Pink Shrimp trawlers in California, 2014. Observed total (retained and discard) catch weight (metric ton (mt)), discard weight (mt) and percent discarded from observed vessels. Zeroes represent values rounded to zero (Data from Somers et al. 2016b).

The Pink Shrimp fishery also interacts with over 80 non-groundfish species, including both finfish and invertebrates, though the composition of bycatch varies from year to year. Unidentified shrimp species make up the highest proportion of the non-groundfish bycatch (Table 3-2). In 2014, non-Humboldt squid was the second most frequently caught non-groundfish species, followed by Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), which is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Table 3-2. Observed catch of non-groundfish by Pink Shrimp trawlers in California, 2014. Observed total (retained and discard) catch weight (mt), discard weight (mt) and percent discarded from observed vessels (Data from Somers et al. 2016b).


3.1.3.2 Assessment of Sustainability and Measures to Reduce Unacceptable Levels of Bycatch
Discard Mortality
Due to the depth at which Pink Shrimp trawling occurs (300-800 ft), it is assumed that the mortality of captured groundfish species with swim bladders is 100% due to barotrauma. Discard mortality of other species is unknown.

Impact on Fisheries that Target Bycatch Species
As noted above, the observed West Coast-wide total catch is largely comprised of Pink Shrimp, Pacific Hake, and Arrowtooth Flounder (Somers et al. 2016b). Incidental catches of Pacific Hake by the California Pink Shrimp trawl fleet were less than 0.001% of the total Pacific Hake quota in 2014. Arrowtooth Flounder are commonly caught by trawl fleets off Washington and Oregon, but are frequently discarded due to low flesh quality. The 2017 stock assessment for Arrowtooth Flounder estimated the stock to be at 87% of unfished spawning biomass, and less than 60% of the coast-wide annual catch limit was taken. As a result, it is unlikely that incidental catch of these species by the California Pink Shrimp fleet is detrimental to either stock.

Bycatch of Overfished, Threatened, or Endangered Species
Pink Shrimp beds overlap with the habitat of a number of sensitive species, including rockfish species that are rebuilding or have recently been rebuilt such as Bocaccio Rockfish (Sebastes paucispinus), Widow Rockfish (Sebastes entomelas), and Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes flavidus). All overfished rockfish must be discarded. The bycatch rates for all rebuilding rockfish have been less than 0.01%, but it is also necessary to consider the bycatch in terms of each species’ Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) levels to understand the impact of the Pink Shrimp fishery on rebuilding or recently rebuilt stocks. Table 3-3 shows the projected ABC levels for 2014 for each species as well as the incidental catch by the Pink Shrimp fleet in California. Darkblotched Rockfish (Sebastes crameri) has the highest catch level, but the catch is less than 0.001% of the ABC. At this level the Pink Shrimp fishery is not impacting the ability of Darkblotched Rockfish to rebuild.

Table 3-3. Pink Shrimp bycatch of the California fleet vs. ABC of rebuilding or recently rebuilt species (Accessed on 22 May 2018. https://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/stock-assessments/by-species/).

As shown in Table 3-2, in 2014 the Pink Shrimp fleet caught and discarded 1.02 mt of Eulachon, an anadromous smelt species inhabiting the Pacific coasts of North America that was the first marine forage fish species to be listed as “threatened” under the ESA. In 2015, the catch rose to 3.13 mt (Somers et al. 2016b). However, the California fleet’s catch of Eulachon is much smaller than that of the Oregon or Washington fleet which in 2015 was 34 mt and 25 mt in 2015, respectively. There is very little data available with which to assess the size of these catches in relation to Eulachon populations, and it is unclear if this increase is due to larger populations of Eulachon or a greater overlap between Pink Shrimp fishing and the Eulachon population. Hannah and others (2011) estimated the mortality rate imposed by the Pink Shrimp fishery on the Eulachon population at well below the F = 0.1 rate recommended as sustainable by Schweigert et al. 2012 and far below the values determined by setting fishing mortality at the natural mortality rate, a commonly used rule of thumb for sustainability. However, bycatch of Eulachon should be minimized to the extent possible to promote rebuilding.

There have been no significant interactions identified between the Pink Shrimp fishery and threatened or endangered marine species of birds or mammals (Roberts 2005; MSC 2007). The Pink Shrimp fishery is classified as a Marine Mammal Protection Act Category III fishery with no observed or documented take of marine mammals.

Measures to Reduce Bycatch
The PFMC required the use of BRDs for all shrimp vessels in 2002 to reduce finfish bycatch rates. Prior to the required use of BRDs, bycatch rates in Oregon were 32 to 61% of total catch rates (Hannah and Jones 2007). A study conducted in Oregon by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) researchers indicates the use of BRDs resulted in a 66 to 88% reduction in total fish bycatch, and the use of rigid-grate BRDs is generally more effective at bycatch reduction of groundfish species than soft-panel BRDs (Hannah and Jones 2007). Additionally, the mandatory use of BRDs has altered the species composition of the bycatch from commercially important large fish species to smaller fish species with little to no commercial value, reducing the economic incentives for higher bycatch levels. After implementing BRDs, bycatch rates dropped to an average of 8% (CDFG 2007). While there is limited bycatch data from California prior to 2004 it is thought that, given the similarities between the Oregon fleet and the California fleet, the California fleet may have experienced similar reductions in bycatch. Rigid-grate BRDs with 1.25 in bar spacing have been the most commonly used BRD in recent years. However, recent experimentation suggests that 0.75 in (19 mm) bar spacing may further reduce bycatch rates to well below 5% of the total catch with minimal shrimp loss (Hannah and Jones 2007).

Pink Shrimp vessels are subject to federal restrictions on daily and trip limits for incidental catches of federally managed groundfish. Shrimp vessel operators are allowed to retain and sell commercially valuable species. However, to prevent the excessive take of groundfish species by shrimp vessels, Pink Shrimp vessels are allowed to land up to 500 lb of groundfish per day for each day of the trip, provided that they do not land more than 1,500 lb per trip (NWFSC 2010). Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) are large depth-based area closures implemented in 2002 to protect rebuilding groundfish stocks from trawl gear. Pink shrimp fishermen are required by NMFS to file a declaration report in advance of fishing in any RCA (CDFG 2007).

The mandatory use of BRDs has significantly reduced the impacts of Pink Shrimp bycatch on the ecosystem. The fishery does not appear to have significant negative impacts on rebuilding rockfish species, though the increased take of Eulachon in recent years may be cause for concern. The Oregon fleet has been experimenting with the use of Light Emitting Diode (LED) lights on trawls, and have found that these significantly reduce Eulachon bycatch without affecting the catch of Pink Shrimp (Hannah et al. 2015). Further testing is ongoing to understand how different configurations (number and spacing) of LED lights impact catches of Eulachon, Darkblotched Rockfish, other fishes, and Pink Shrimp (ODFW 2016). In addition, ODFW staff have been testing footrope modifications to understand how these affect bycatch as well as benthic impacts (Hannah et al.  2011). The results of these studies have suggested promising results for reducing environmental impacts of shrimp trawling, especially for reductions in Eulachon bycatch.

Underwater video of a rigid-grate excluder device in operation. The Pacific Fishery Management Council required the use of excluder devices for all shrimp vessels beginning in 2002 to reduce bycatch of finfish.

3.1.4 Habitat

3.1.4.1   Description of Threats
Benthic trawling, in which fishing gear is dragged along the bottom of the ocean, can be detrimental to a variety of habitats. Relatively stable habitats, such as hard bottom and dense mud, experience the greatest changes and have the slowest recovery rates compared to less consolidated coarse sediments in areas of high natural disturbance (NRC 2002). Heavy trawling in mud habitats has been shown to decrease invertebrate density and diversity (Hannah et al. 2010). Soft bottom habitats are relatively resilient to trawl gear, but mud bottom habitats may have longer recovery times than other soft bottom habitats with larger sediment (NRC 2002; Hannah et al.  2010). The estimated recovery time in the absence of continued trawling is estimated to be 1 yr in shrimp habitat (NPFMC 2010). The 5 month closure of the fishery each year allows some time for recovery of the grounds, but likely not enough for full recovery. A recent study comparing invertebrate densities in closed areas between 2007 and 2013, corresponding to the year following the closure of the fishery and 5 yr of recovery, respectively, found that invertebrate recoveries varied by species and by site (ODFW 2014b). Sea whips, which were the dominant structure-forming macro-invertebrates in the areas surveyed, had increased markedly in density, though it was estimated that it would take another decade to achieve an unfished size structure (ODFW 2014b).

The PFMC and NMFS completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for designating EFH for the Pacific coast groundfish fishery (NMFS 2005). The EIS indicated that the habitat impacts by bottom trawl gear in areas where Pink Shrimp trawling occurs is rated between 0.5 and 1, which is the lowest sensitivity classification for impacts to seafloor habitat by bottom trawl gears. Additionally, the semi-pelagic trawl gear used is likely to have less impact on bottom habitats than other trawl gear and is considered less damaging than gear used in other cold water shrimp fisheries (Roberts 2005).

Trawling can be extremely detrimental to sensitive species such as corals. Corals are known to occur in California waters, including within and adjacent to the area that formerly made up the PSTG. Here six major taxa of coral or coral-like species that were documented, including hydrocorals (order Stylasterina), black corals (order Antipatharia), stony corals (order Scleractinia), sea fans (order Gorgonacea), true soft corals (order Alcyonacea), and sea pens (order Pennatulacea) (CDFG 2007). However, these species are primarily found on hard bottoms, which Pink Shrimp Trawlers avoid. Since 2008, no trawling has been allowed in state waters. However, the distribution of corals has not been fully mapped in federal waters, and so shrimp trawling may impact coral habitats (CDFG 2007).

Bottom trawling is known to negatively impact biogenic (habitat-forming species) such as corals, sponges, and sea whips/pens, many of which are slow growing and may take decades to recover if broken or removed by a trawl. Biogenic species may provide additional habitat and structure for a number of finfish and invertebrates, including rockfish, so their loss may be especially detrimental to ecosystem function.

There are no significant threats to Pink Shrimp habitat from non-fishing threats other than the potential impacts from climate change discussed in sections 1.5 and 5.4.

3.1.4.2   Measures to Minimize Any Adverse Effects on Habitat Caused by Fishing
The MLMA requires the minimization of adverse effects on habitat from fishing activities.The prohibition of Pink Shrimp trawling in state waters was enacted in part to remove the potential for adverse habitat impacts in nearshore shrimp beds. The Commission has the authority to re-open these beds to fishing if the fishery is found to be sustainable, causing only minimal habitat damage. In addition, the 5 month closed season each winter allows the habitat in shrimp beds in federal waters time to recover from the disturbance caused by trawl gear.

3.2 Requirements for Person or Vessel Permits and Reasonable Fees

The CCR describes the permits required to fish in California waters:

  • Commercial Fishing License—All Pink Shrimp fishermen must have a commercial fishing license and a vessel permit. Commercial Fishing Licenses are $141.11 for residents and $417.75 for non-residents, and is required for any resident 16 yr of age or older who uses or operates or assists in using or operating any boat, aircraft, net, trap, line, or other appliance to take fish for commercial purposes, or who contributes materially to the activities on board a commercial fishing vessel.
  • Commercial Boat Registration—The commercial boat registration fee is required for any resident owner or operator for any vessel operated in public waters in connection with fishing operations for profit in the state, and is $351.50.
  • Pink Shrimp Permit—Fishermen need to have a permit specific to Pink Shrimp. There is only a single permit for the southern region, but there are a number of different types of permits for the northern region due to the limited access program. These are described in Table 3-4.

All fees include a nonrefundable 3 percent application fee.

Table 3-4. List of fees for Pink Shrimp trawl vessel permits (Accessed 05 May 2018. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Commercial/Descriptions).

Version: The Pink Shrimp Enhanced Status Report was updated in print and online in 2019.

Download: Pink Shrimp Enhanced Status Report (2019) (pdf)

Contact Us: To contact CDFW regarding the Pink Shrimp fishery, please email invert@wildlife.ca.gov or call (831) 649-2870.

Citation: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. Pink (Ocean) Shrimp, Pandalus jordani, Enhanced Status Report.

Contributor(s): Julia Coates (2019)

Pink (Ocean) Shrimp Enhanced Status Report (2019)

Table of Contents
  1. The Species
    1. Natural History
      1. Species Description
      2. Range, Distribution, and Movement
      3. Reproduction, Fecundity, and Spawning Season
      4. Natural Mortality
      5. Individual Growth
      6. Size and Age at Maturity
    2. Population Status and Dynamics
      1. Abundance Estimates
      2. Range, Distribution, and Movement
      3. Age Structure of the Population
    3. Habitat
    4. Ecosystem Role
      1. Associated Species
      2. Predator-prey Interactions
    5. Effects of Changing Oceanic Conditions
  2. The Fishery
    1. Location of the Fishery
    2. Fishing Effort
      1. Number of Vessels and Participants Over Time
      2. Type, Amount, and Selectivity of Gear
    3. Landings in the Recreational and Commercial Sectors
      1. Recreational
      2. Commercial
    4. Social and Economic Factors Related to the Fishery
  3. Management
    1. Past and Current Management
      1. Overview and Rationale for the Current Management Framework
        1. Criteria to Identify When Fisheries Are Overfished or Subject to Overfishing, and Measures to Rebuild
        2. Past and Current Stakeholder Involvement
      2. Target Species
        1. Limitations on Fishing for Target Species
          1. Catch
          2. Effort
          3. Gear
          4. Time
          5. Sex
          6. Size
          7. Area
          8. Marine Protected Areas
        2. Description of and Rationale for Any Restricted Access Approach
      3. Bycatch
        1. Amount and Type of Bycatch (Including Discards)
        2. Assessment of Sustainability and Measures to Reduce Unacceptable Levels of Bycatch
          Discard Mortality
          Impact on Fisheries that Target Bycatch Species
          Bycatch of Overfished, Threatened, or Endangered Species
          Measures to Reduce Bycatch
      4. Habitat
        1. Description of Threats
        2. Measures to Minimize Any Adverse Effects on Habitat Caused by Fishing
    2. Requirements for Person or Vessel Permits and Reasonable Fees
  4. Monitoring and Essential Fishery Information
    1. Description of Relevant Essential Fishery Information
      Biological Information
      Fishery-dependent Indicators
      Environmental Indicators
    2. Past and Ongoing Monitoring of the Fishery
      1. Fishery-dependent Data Collection
        Monitoring of Bycatch Rates
      2. Fishery-independent Data Collection
  5. Future Management Needs and Directions
    1. Identification of Information Gaps
    2. Research and Monitoring
      1. Potential Strategies to Fill Information Gaps
      2. Opportunities for Collaborative Fisheries Research
    3. Opportunities for Future
      Management of the Target Stock
      Bycatch
      Restricted Access
      Stakeholder Communication
    4. Climate Readiness
List of Acronyms
ABC: Allowable Biological Catch
BRD: Bycatch Reduction Device
CCR: California Code of Regulations
CDFG: California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CPUE: Catch Per Unit Effort
EFH: Essential Fish Habitat
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement
ESA: Endangered Species Act
ESR: Enhanced Status Report
FCG: Fish and Game Code
FMP: Fishery Management Plan
HCR: Harvest Control Rule
IBC: Indicators of Biological Concern
LED: Light Emitting Diode
MLMA: Marine Life Management Act
MPA: Marine Protected Area
MSC: Marine Stewardship Council
NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service
ODFW: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
PFMC: Pacific Fishery Management Council
PSTG: Pink Shrimp Trawl Grounds
RCA: Rockfish Conservation Area
WCGOP: West Coast Groundfish Observer Program
List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Range of Pink Shrimp.

Figure 1-2. Three size (age) classes of Pink Shrimp.

Figure 1-3. Annual age composition (percent) of Pink Shrimp landed in Oregon, 1975-2017.

Figure 1-4. Pink Shrimp habitat.

Figure 2-1. Historical Pink Shrimp trawl locations in a) northern California and b) southern California.

Figure 2-2. Participation (active vessels) and landings (million lb) in the Pink Shrimp fishery, 1970-2017.

Figure 2-3. Diagrams of a) single-rigged vessel pulling one otter trawl, and b) double-rigged vessel pulling two otter trawls used on Pink Shrimp vessels.

Figure 2-4. Diagram of a rigid-grate BRD used in the Pink Shrimp fishery.

Figure 2-5. Pink Shrimp landings (million lb) and value (million dollars), 1970-2017.

Figure 2-6. Catch per trip of Pink Shrimp, 1970-2017.

Figure 2-7. Pink Shrimp on a trawl vessel deck.

Figure 2-8. Pink Shrimp percentage of total landings by port in 2017.

Figure 2-9. Pink Shrimp processing.

Figure 5-1. Eulachon in trawls a) without and b) with LED lights in Pink Shrimp landings.

List of Tables

Table 2-1. Poundage, ex-vessel value, and price per pound for Pink Shrimp, from 2000 to 2014 (most recent year of data).

Table 3-1. Observed catch of groundfish by Pink Shrimp trawlers in California, 2014.

Table 3-2. Observed catch of non-groundfish by Pink Shrimp trawlers in California, 2014.

Table 3-3. Pink Shrimp bycatch of the California fleet vs. ABC of rebuilding or recently rebuilt species.

Table 3-4. List of fees for Pink Shrimp trawl vessel permits.

Table 5-1. Informational needs for Pink Shrimp and their priority for management.

Literature Cited

Abramson N, Geibel, Golden J, Northup T, Silverthorne W, Lukas J, Heimann R. 1981. Fishery Management Plan for the Pink Shrimp Fishery off Washington, Oregon and California. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC).

Anderson PJ, Piatt JF. 1999. Community reorganization in the Gulf of Alaska following ocean climate regime shift. Marine Ecology Progress Series 189: 117-123. 

Al-Humaidhi AW, Bellman MA, Jannot J, Majewski J. 2012. Observed and estimated total bycatch of green sturgeon and Pacific Eulachon in 2002-2010 U.S. west coast fisheries. West Coast Groundfish Observer Program. National Marine Fisheries Service. 27 p.

Butler TH. 1964. Growth, reproduction, and distribution of pandalid shrimps in British Columbia. Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada 21(6): 1403-1452.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2007. Information Concerning the Pink Shrimp Trawl Fishery off Northern California. Report to the Fish and Game Commission. 24 December 2007. Accessed 01 May 2018. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=36331.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2008. Status of the fishery report – an update through 2006. Report to the Fish and Game Commission as directed by the Marine Life Management Act. June 2008. Accessed 01 May 2018.  https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=34405&inline=true.

Charnov EL, Gotshall DW, Robinson JG. 1978. Sex ratio: adaptive adjustments to population fluctuations in Pandalid shrimp. Science 200: 204-206.

Dahlstrom WA. 1973. The status of the ocean shrimp resource and its management. California Department of Fish and Game Marine Resources Technical Report. No. 14. 19 p.

Frimodig AJ, Horeczko MC, Prall MW, Mason TJ, Owens BC, Wertz SP. 2009. Review of the California Trawl Fishery for Pacific Ocean Shrimp, Pandalus jordani, from 1992 to 2007.Marine Fisheries Review 71(2): 1-14.

Geibel JJ, Heimann FG. 1976. Assessment of ocean shrimp management in California resulting from widely fluctuating recruitment. California Fish Game 62: 255–273.  

Hannah RW. 1993. Influence of environmental variation and spawning stock levels on recruitment of ocean shrimp (Pandalus jordani). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50(3): 612–622.

Hannah RW. 1999. A new method for indexing spawning stock and recruitment in ocean shrimp, Pandalus jordani, and preliminary evidence for a stock-recruitment relationship. Fishery Bulletin 97(3): 482-494.

Hannah RW. 2010. Use of a pre-recruit abundance index to improve forecasts of ocean shrimp (Pandalus jordani) recruitment from environmental models. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Reports. No 51. 219 p.

Hannah RW, Jones SA. 1991. Fishery induced changes in the population structure of Pink Shrimp (Pandalus jordani). Fishery Bulletin89: 41–51.

Hannah RW, Jones SA. 2007. Effectiveness of bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) in the ocean shrimp (Pandalus jordani) trawl fishery. Fisheries Research 85(1-2):217–225.

Hannah RW, Jones SA, Miller W, Knight JS. 2010. Effects of trawling for ocean shrimp (Pandalus jordani) on macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity at four sites near Nehalem Bank, Oregon. Fishery Bulletin 108:30-38.

Hannah RW, Jones SA, Lomeli MJM, Wakefield WW. 2011. Trawl net modifications to reduce the bycatch of Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in the ocean shrimp (Pandalus jordani) fishery. Fisheries Research 110(2):277-282.

Hannah RW. 2011. Variation in the distribution of ocean shrimp (Pandalus jordani) recruits: links with coastal upwelling and climate change. Fisheries Oceanography 20(4):305-313.

Hannah RW, Lomeli MJ, Jones SA. 2015. Tests of artificial light for bycatch reduction in an ocean shrimp (Pandalus jordani) trawl: strong but opposite effects at the footrope and near the bycatch reduction device. Fisheries Research 170:60-67.

Jones SA, Hannah RW, Golden JT. 1996. A Survey of Trawl Gear Employed in the Fishery for Ocean Shrimp. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Information Reports Number 96-6. Accessed 01 May 2018. https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/CRL/Reports/Info/96-6.pdf

Last K, Hendrick V, Sotheran I, Foster-Smith B, Foster-Smith D, Hutchison Z. 2012. Assessing the Impacts of Shrimp Fishing on Sabellaria spinulosaReef and Associated Biodiversity in the Wash and North Norfolk SAC, Inner Dowsing Race Bank North Ridge SAC and Surrounding Areas. Report for Natural England. May 2012. 48 p.

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). 2007. The Oregon pink (ocean) shrimp trawl fishery. Accessed 01 May 2018. http://www.msc.org/assets/docs/Oregon_pink_shrimp/Final_Report_Oct_2007.pdf.  

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005. Essential Fish Habitat Designation and Minimization of Adverse Impacts Final Environmental Impact Statement. Accessed 01 May 2018. https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/nepa/groundfish/final_groundfish_efh_eis.html

National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Effects of trawling and dredging on seafloor habitat. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 136 p.

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). 2010. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 5-year Review for 2010. https://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/conservation_issues/EFH/EFH5yr_rev1209.pdf.

Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC). 2010. Data report and summary analyses of the California and Oregon Pink Shrimp trawl fishery. West Coast Groundfish Observer Program. National Marine Fisheries Service. 30 p.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2013. Annual Pink Shrimp review. Accessed 01 May 2018. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/publications/docs/shrimp_newsletter2013.pdf.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2014a. Annual Pink Shrimp review. Accessed 01 May 2018.  http://www.dfw.state.or.us/mrp/publications/docs/shrimp_newsletter2014.pdf.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2014b. A comparison of 2007 and 2013 macroinvertebrate surveys of mud habitats at Nehalem Bank, Oregon: changes in areas with continued trawling and those closed to trawling in 2006. Information Reports Number 2014 – 03. Accessed 01 May 2018. https://www.dfw.state.or.us/mrp/shellfish/commercial/shrimp/docs/ODFW-INFO-2014-03-Hannah,%20Jones,%20Kupillas,%20Miller-A%20comparison%20of%202007%20and%202013%20macroinvertebrate%20surveys%20of%20Nehalem%20Banks.pdf.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2014c. The Population Dynamics of Oregon Ocean Shrimp (Pandalus jordani)and Recommendations for Management Using Target and Limit Reference Points or Suitable Proxies. Information Reports Number 2014-08. Accessed 01 May 2018.  https://www.dfw.state.or.us/mrp/shellfish/commercial/shrimp/docs/ODFW-INFO-2014-08-%20Hannah,%20Jones-%20Shrimp%20Target%20and%20Limit%20Management.pdf.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2014d. Mid-season Pink Shrimp update. Accessed 01 May 2018.  http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/publications/docs/shrimp_newsletter2014_midseason.pdf.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2016. Annual Pink Shrimp review. Accessed 28 April 2018.  https://www.dfw.state.or.us/mrp/shellfish/commercial/shrimp/docs/27th_APSR_2016.pdf.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2018a. Annual Pink Shrimp review. Accessed 28 April 2018.  https://www.dfw.state.or.us/mrp/shellfish/commercial/shrimp/docs/29th_APSR_2018.pdf

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2018b. Fishery Management Plan for Oregon’s Trawl Fishery for Ocean Shrimp (Pandalus jordani). Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources Division. Accessed 01 May 2018.  https://www.dfw.state.or.us/mrp/shellfish/commercial/shrimp/docs/Oregon%20Pink%20Shrimp%20Fishery%20Management%20Plan%20March2018.pdf.

Ocean Science Trust (OST). 2014. Pink Shrimp Rapid Assessment, 2014. Accessed 04 June 2018. http://www.opc.ca.gov/2013/09/rapid-assessments-for-selected-california-fisheries/. 

Parsons D, Pederson M, Hanna S, Park A. 2013. MSC Public Certification Report for Oregon Pink Shrimp (Pandalus jordani) Trawl Fishery. 226 p.

Pearcy WG. 1970. Vertical migration of the ocean shrimp, Pandalus jordani: a feeding and dispersal mechanism. California Fish and Game 56:125-129.

Roberts S. 2005. Wild-caught coldwater shrimp. Seafood Watch Seafood Report. Monterey Bay Aquarium. 63 p.

Rothlisberg PC. 1979. Combined Effects of Temperature and Salinity on the Survival and Growth of the Larvae of Pandalus Jordani (Decapoda: Pandalidae). Marine Biology 54(2): 125-134.

Schweigert J, Wood C, Hay D, McAllister M, Boldt J, McCarter B, Therriault TW. 2012. Recovery Potential Assessment of Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Research Document 2012/098. 128 p.

Shanks AL, Roegner GC. 2007. Recruitment-limitation in Dungeness crab populations is driven by temporal variation in atmospheric forcing. Ecology 88: 1726–1737.

Somers KA, Jannot JE, Tuttle V, McVeigh J. 2016a. FOS coverage rates, 2002-2016. NOAA Fisheries, NWFSC Observer Program. May 2017. Accessed 01 May 2018.  http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observation/data_products/sector_products.cfm#ob.

Somers KA, Lee YW, Jannot JE, McVeigh J. 2016b. Catch tables by sector: Pink Shrimp trawl, 2004-2015. NOAA Fisheries, NWFSC Observer Program. 1 August 2016. Accessed 01 May 2018.  http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observation/data_products/sector_products.cfm#obs.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Marine Region (Region 7)

Regional Manager: Dr. Craig Shuman

Main Office: 20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 100, Monterey, CA 93940

AskMarine@wildlife.ca.gov | (831) 649-2870

Office Locations | Marine Blog | Subscribe