Sometimes known as Ocean Shrimp, Oregon Shrimp, Pacific Pink Shrimp

PINK SHRIMP Pandalus jordani Sometimes known as Ocean Shrimp, Oregon Shrimp, Pacific Pink Shrimp SUMMARY The Pink Shrimp is found from California to Alaska and changes sex from male to female after its first year of life. The fishery, centered in Oregon, uses bottom trawl nets to catch Pink Shrimp over muddy bottoms, which are more resilient to trawling compared with other habitats. Effective management measures have addressed bycatch of depleted Pacific rockfish through the use of grates and overcapitalization problems (i.e. too many boats competing for shrimp) by establishing groundfish license buyback and limited entry programs. Chef Barton Seaver says, These soft sweet shrimp, sometimes called salad shrimp, equal their bigger cousins in briny sweet flavor. Best served poached or sautéed. Criterion Points Final Score Color Life History 2.50 2.40-4.00 Abundance 2.25 1.60-2.39 Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts 1.75 0.00-1.59 Management 3.25 Bycatch 3.75 Final Score 2.70 Color

LIFE HISTORY Core Points (only one selection allowed) If a value for intrinsic rate of increase ( r ) is known, assign the score below based on this value. If no r-value is available, assign the score below for the correct age at 50% maturity for females if specified, or for the correct value of growth rate ('k'). If no estimates of r, age at 50% maturity, or k are available, assign the score below based on maximum age. 1.00 Intrinsic rate of increase <0.05; OR age at 50% maturity >10 years; OR growth rate <0.15; OR maximum age >30 years. 2.00 Intrinsic rate of increase = 0.05-0.15; OR age at 50% maturity = 5-10 years; OR a growth rate = 0.16 0.30; OR maximum age = 11-30 years. 3.00 Intrinsic rate of increase >0.16; OR age at 50% maturity = 1-5 years; OR growth rate >0.30; OR maximum age <11 years. Intrinsic rate of increase is unknown, however Pink Shrimp change sex after their first year of life (PFMC 2004a) and have a life expectancy of less than 5 years (Pettinger, pers. comm., 2005; Collier and Hannah 2001). Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed) -0.25 Species has special behaviors that make it especially vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., spawning aggregations; site fidelity; segregation by sex; migratory bottlenecks; unusual attraction to gear; etc.). There is some site fidelity (PFMC 2004b, Collier and Hannah 2001), however Pink Shrimp aggregations shift from year to year and have to be located each new season. Vertical migrations during lowered light levels also make them difficult to locate (Hannah, pers. comm., 2005). Therefore no points are subtracted. -0.25 Species has a strategy for sexual development that makes it especially vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., age at 50% maturity >20 years; sequential hermaphrodites; extremely low fecundity). This species is a sequential hermaphrodite (i.e. changing sex from male to female); however it exhibits variable sex change that tends to balance the sex ratio as demographics change (Hannah, pers. comm., 2005; Charnov and Hannah 2002; Collier and Hannah 2001). Although larger shrimp (females) are preferred, both males and females are taken in this fishery. No points are subtracted.

-0.25 Species has a small or restricted range (e.g., endemism; numerous evolutionarily significant units; restricted to one coastline; e.g., American lobster; striped bass; endemic reef fishes). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) does not distinguish this species from Northern Shrimp - a closely related species that is widely distributed along the upper latitudes of coastal North America, Europe and Asia (FAO 2005). However Pink Shrimp occur only on the West Coast of North America, from San Diego, California to the Aleutian Islands. The largest populations occur between northern California and southern Washington. -0.25 Species exhibits high natural population variability driven by broad-scale environmental change (e.g. El Nino; decadal oscillations). Abundance appears to be driven almost entirely by environmental conditions (El Nino Southern Oscillation events) and predator abundance (Pacific Whiting), as opposed to fishing pressure (Hannah, pers. comm., 2005; Pettinger, pers. comm., 2005; PFMC 2004a; Collier and Hannah 2001). However, heavy fishing pressure can still reduce the stock size of recruited shrimp (Sylvia, pers. comm., 2005). +0.25 Species does not have special behaviors that increase ease or population consequences of capture OR has special behaviors that make it less vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., species is widely dispersed during spawning). +0.25 Species has a strategy for sexual development that makes it especially resilient to fishing pressure (e.g., age at 50% maturity <1 year; extremely high fecundity). +0.25 Species is distributed over a very wide range (e.g., throughout an entire hemisphere or ocean basin; e.g., swordfish; tuna; Patagonian toothfish). +0.25 Species does not exhibit high natural population variability driven by broad-scale environmental change (e.g., El Nino; decadal oscillations). 2.50 Points for Life History

ABUNDANCE Core Points (only one selection allowed) Compared to natural or un-fished level, the species population is: 1.00 Low: Abundance or biomass is <75% of BMSY or similar proxy (e.g., spawning potential ratio). 2.00 Medium: Abundance or biomass is 75-125% of BMSY or similar proxy; OR population is approaching or recovering from an overfished condition; OR adequate information on abundance or biomass is not available. Estimates of Pink Shrimp abundance are not available for the West Coast (PFMC 2004a). Population abundance is determined by environmental conditions, which cause natural fluctuations in recruitment (i.e., the addition of young shrimp to the fishable population) that bear little relation to fishing effort (Collier and Hannah 2001). Abundance of Pink Shrimp off the Washington coast is unknown but is assumed to be stable (WDFW 2002). California and Washington have ceased their logbook and sampling programs (Hannah, pers. comm., 2005). The State of Oregon continues to conduct research surveys (Hannah and Jones 2005), however reliable biomass estimates cannot be determined. 3.00 High: Abundance or biomass is >125% of BMSY or similar proxy. Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed) -0.25 The population is declining over a generational time scale (as indicated by biomass estimates or standardized CPUE). There are no discernable trends in biomass or catch-per-unit-effort estimates over time (ODFW 2005a). -0.25 Age, size or sex distribution is skewed relative to the natural condition (e.g., truncated size/age structure or anomalous sex distribution). -0.25 Species is listed as "overfished" OR species is listed as "depleted", "endangered", or "threatened" by recognized national or international bodies. This species is not overfished. -0.25 Current levels of abundance are likely to jeopardize the availability of food for other species or cause substantial change in the structure of the associated food web.

+0.25 The population is increasing over a generational time scale (as indicated by biomass estimates or standardized CPUE). +0.25 Age, size or sex distribution is functionally normal. Although the larger females are targeted in this fishery, Pink Shrimp are able to adjust their sex composition through naturally variable rates of sex change (Charnov and Hannah 2002; Collier and Hannah 2001). The mechanism by which individual shrimp are able to detect population-level sex ratios is unknown. +0.25 Species is close to virgin biomass. +0.25 Current levels of abundance provide adequate food for other predators or are not known to affect the structure of the associated food web. 2.25 Points for Abundance HABITAT QUALITY AND FISHING GEAR IMPACTS Core Points (only one selection allowed) Select the option that most accurately describes the effect of the fishing method upon the habitat that it affects 1.00 The fishing method causes great damage to physical and biogenic habitats (e.g., cyanide; blasting; bottom trawling; dredging). Pink Shrimp are caught primarily by bottom trawls. Washington fishers catch less than 1% of the annual catch in traps/pots (NMFS 2005). 2.00 The fishing method does moderate damage to physical and biogenic habitats (e.g., bottom gillnets; traps and pots; bottom longlines). 3.00 The fishing method does little damage to physical or biogenic habitats (e.g., hand picking; hand raking; hook and line; pelagic long lines; mid-water trawl or gillnet; purse seines).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed) -0.25 Habitat for this species is so compromised from non-fishery impacts that the ability of the habitat to support this species is substantially reduced (e.g., dams; pollution; coastal development). -0.25 Critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning areas) for this species are not protected by management using time/area closures, marine reserves, etc. Pink Shrimp spawn during March and into the beginning of April (PFMC 2004a, b). The fishery opens April 1 (ODFW 2005a), so some female shrimp may be caught before spawning has completed. No points were subtracted here, because the season opening date is likely to afford some degree of protection for Pink Shrimp spawning. In addition, the industry often 'strikes' April 1 and does not really move to 'full' effort until May (Sylvia, pers. comm., 2005) - affording greater protection for spawning females. -0.25 No efforts are being made to minimize damage from existing gear types OR new or modified gear is increasing habitat damage (e.g., fitting trawls with roller rigs or rockhopping gear; more robust gear for deep-sea fisheries). -0.25 If gear impacts are substantial, resilience of affected habitats is very slow (e.g., deep water corals; rocky bottoms). +0.25 Habitat for this species remains robust and viable and is capable of supporting this species. Pink Shrimp use a combination of benthic and pelagic habitats. There is no indication that the damage done to shrimp habitat by trawling operations is substantial enough to negatively impact shrimp populations (Hannah, pers. comm., 2005). +0.25 Critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning areas) for this species are protected by management using time/area closures, marine reserves, etc. +0.25 Gear innovations are being implemented over a majority of the fishing area to minimize damage from gear types OR no innovations necessary because gear effects are minimal. The majority of Pink Shrimp trawls have been modified to fish 12-24' off the bottom (Hannah, pers. comm., 2005), effectively making less contact with the bottom than traditional, higher-impact bottom trawls.

+0.25 If gear impacts are substantial, resilience of affected habitats is fast (e.g., mud or sandy bottoms) OR gear effects are minimal. Pink Shrimp are caught over mud and muddy-sand bottoms (PFMC 2004a, b; Collier and Hannah 2001). These habitat types are fairly resilient to habitat damage. 1.75 Points for Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts MANAGEMENT Core Points (only one selection allowed) Select the option that most accurately describes the current management of the fisheries of this species. 1.00 Regulations are ineffective (e.g., illegal fishing or overfishing is occurring) OR the fishery is unregulated (i.e., no control rules are in effect). 2.00 Management measures are in place over a major portion over the species' range but implementation has not met conservation goals OR management measures are in place but have not been in place long enough to determine if they are likely to achieve conservation and sustainability goals. 3.00 Substantial management measures are in place over a large portion of the species range and have demonstrated success in achieving conservation and sustainability goals. The Pink Shrimp fishery is regulated by each of the three U.S. West Coast states, although Oregon accounts for two-thirds to three-fourths of annual landings. Regulations include vessel licensing, limited entry, maximum count per pound (to ensure juvenile shrimp are not caught and increase average size to generate greater ex-vessel value), mandatory bycatch reduction devices, limited observer coverage, and seasonal closures that protect spawning females (MSC 2005; ODFW 2005a, b; Sylvia, pers. comm., 2005). Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed) -0.25 There is inadequate scientific monitoring of stock status, catch or fishing effort. Oregon, which accounts for the majority of Pink Shrimp landings, regulates fishing effort and attempts to monitor and predict stock status (Hannah and Jones 2005; ODFW 2005a).

Most vessels from California and Washington also fish in Oregon waters and are therefore subject to their regulations. Despite efforts to research Pink Shrimp status, overall knowledge is limited, and no quotas or catch limits have been set. In addition, California and Washington have ceased their logbook and sampling programs (Hannah, pers. comm., 2005). We subtracted points here, since the potential for unrestricted effort could lead to overfishing during times of naturally low abundance. -0.25 Management does not explicitly address fishery effects on habitat, food webs, and ecosystems. -0.25 This species is overfished and no recovery plan or an ineffective recovery plan is in place. -0.25 Management has failed to reduce excess capacity in this fishery or implements subsidies that result in excess capacity in this fishery. +0.25 There is adequate scientific monitoring, analysis and interpretation of stock status, catch and fishing effort. +0.25 Management explicitly and effectively addresses fishery effects on habitat, food webs, and ecosystems. +0.25 This species is overfished and there is a recovery plan (including benchmarks, timetables and methods to evaluate success) in place that is showing signs of success OR recovery plan is not needed. The general consensus is that fishing effort at current levels has little or no impact on abundance; therefore no recovery plan is needed. +0.25 Management has taken action to control excess capacity or reduce subsidies that result in excess capacity OR no measures are necessary because fishery is not overcapitalized. Each state has its own limited entry and groundfish buyback program, which has reduced effort in the Pink Shrimp fishery. California and Oregon fleets are operating fewer vessels than the number of licenses allow (Pettinger, pers. comm., 2005); most years less than 80% of the permits are fished (Sylvia, pers. comm., 2005). 3.25 Points for Management

BYCATCH Core Points (only one selection allowed) Select the option that most accurately describes the current level of bycatch and the consequences that result from fishing this species. The term, "bycatch" used in this document excludes incidental catch of a species for which an adequate management framework exists. The terms, "endangered, threatened, or protected," used in this document refer to species status that is determined by national legislation such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (or another nation's equivalent), the IUCN Red List, or a credible scientific body such as the American Fisheries Society. 1.00 Bycatch in this fishery is high (>100% of targeted landings), OR regularly includes a "threatened, endangered or protected species." 2.00 Bycatch in this fishery is moderate (10-99% of targeted landings) AND does not regularly include "threatened, endangered or protected species" OR level of bycatch is unknown. 3.00 Bycatch in this fishery is low (<10% of targeted landings) and does not regularly include "threatened, endangered or protected species." Bycatch in the Pink Shrimp fishery comprises only 0.7-2.5% of the total catch (Pettinger, pers. comm., 2005) and includes juvenile Pacific hake and several species of smelt, flatfish and rockfish (Hannah and Jones 2005). Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed) -0.25 Bycatch in this fishery is a contributing factor to the decline of "threatened, endangered, or protected species" and no effective measures are being taken to reduce it. -0.25 Bycatch of targeted or non-targeted species (e.g., undersize individuals) in this fishery is high and no measures are being taken to reduce it. -0.25 Bycatch of this species (e.g., undersize individuals) in other fisheries is high OR bycatch of this species in other fisheries inhibits its recovery, and no measures are being taken to reduce it. -0.25 The continued removal of the bycatch species contributes to its decline.

+0.25 Measures taken over a major portion of the species range have been shown to reduce bycatch of "threatened, endangered, or protected species" or bycatch rates are no longer deemed to affect the abundance of the "protected" bycatch species OR no measures needed because fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear). Bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) have been mandatory on all shrimp trawls since 2003 and have greatly reduced bycatch of depleted rockfish species in this fishery. Canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish and thornyheads (including the endangered shortspine thornyhead; IUCN 2004), although rarely caught, may not be landed (ODFW 2005a). +0.25 There is bycatch of targeted (e.g., undersize individuals) or non-targeted species in this fishery and measures (e.g., gear modifications) have been implemented that have been shown to reduce bycatch over a large portion of the species range OR no measures are needed because fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear). Bycatch reduction devices (i.e. hard grates or soft panels) consist of a series of vertical bars spaced 1-2' apart, which prevent undersized fish from entering the codend of the shrimp trawl. This gear modification has reduced overall bycatch to less than 5% of targeted landings, and footrope modifications have also reduced bycatch in this fishery (Hannah and Jones 2001, 2003). Landings of undersized shrimp are controlled by maximum count regulations (160 shrimp per pound), and landings of all non-threatened rockfish species are governed by applicable per-day and per-trip groundfish limits (Pettinger, pers. comm., 2005; ODFW 2005a, b). +0.25 Bycatch of this species in other fisheries is low OR bycatch of this species in other fisheries inhibits its recovery, but effective measures are being taken to reduce it over a large portion of the range. There is virtually no Pink Shrimp bycatch in West Coast groundfish fisheries (Hannah, pers. comm., 2005). +0.25 The continued removal of the bycatch species in the targeted fishery has had or will likely have little or no impact on populations of the bycatch species OR there are no significant bycatch concerns because the fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear). 3.75 Points for Bycatch

REFERENCES **We would like to thank Environmental Defense for their Pink Shrimp research and contributing this score card to our Seafood WebGuide. Charnov, E.L. and R.W. Hannah. 2002. Shrimp adjust their sex ratio to fluctuating age distributions. Evolutionary Ecology Research 4:239-246. Available at: http://biology.unm.edu/ Charnov/EER2002(4).pdf. Collier, P.C. and R.W. Hannah. 2001. Ocean Shrimp. In: Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson, eds., California's Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. California Department of Fish and Game. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ mrd/status/ocean_shrimp.pdf. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 2005. Fishieries Global Information System: Species Fact Sheet. Available at: http://www.fao.org/figis/servlet/species?fid=3425. Hannah, R.W. 2005. Personal communication. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Hannah, R.W. and S.A. Jones. 2005. A Survey Evaluating Shrimp Abundance, Sex Composition, Bycatch and Trawl Gear Performance on the Northern Oregon Shrimp Grounds - Fall 2004. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Fish Division), Newport, OR. Hannah, R.W. and S.A. Jones. 2003. Measuring the height of the fishing line and its effect on shrimp catch and bycatch in an ocean shrimp (Pandalus jordani) trawl. Fisheries Research 60(2-3): 427-430. Hannah, R.W. and S.A. Jones. 2001. Bycatch Reduction In An Ocean Shrimp (Pandalus jordani) Trawl From a Simple Modification to the Trawl Footrope. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 27:1-7. Available at: http://journal.nafo.int/archive22-33/j27/hannah.pdf. Hannah, R.W. 1999. A new method for indexing spawning stock and recruitment in ocean shrimp, Pandalus jordani, and preliminary evidence for a stock-recruitment relationship. Fisheries Bulletin 97:482-494. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). 2005. Fisheries Undergoing Assessment: Oregon Pink Shrimp. Available at: http://www.msc.org/html/content_1180.htm. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005. Commercial Fisheries Data. Accessed May 5, 2005. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/index.html Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005a. 16th Annual Pink Shrimp Review. Available at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/mrp/publications/shrimp_6.pdf.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005b. Oregon Administrative Rules: Commercial Fisheries (Division 005, Shellfish Fisheries). Available at: http://www.dfw.state.or. us/oars/05.pdf. Pettinger, B. 2005. Personal communication. Oregon Trawl Commission. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2004a. The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan Bycatch Mitigation Program: Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement [Appendix B]. Available at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/ groundfish/eis_efh/ pseis/eis-bycatch_final/14b_appendices_b-c.pdf. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2004b. The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan Bycatch Mitigation Program: Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement [Chapter 3. Affected Environment]. Available at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/ groundfish/eis_efh/pseis/eis-bycatch_final/6_chapter_3.pdf. Sylvia, G. 2005. Comments received in the review of this report. Hatfield Marine Science Center, Oregon State University. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2002. 1999-01 Biennial Report. Olympia, WA. World Conservation Union (IUCN). 2004. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available at: http://www.redlist.org/. Accessed May 6, 2005.