Depending upon the status of the fish species, efforts are directed toward the recovery and management of the target fish under specific ecosystem-based FSRP. A Fish Stock Rebuilding plan was set up for drastically depleted species. By contrast, fisheries management plan was taken into consideration for overexploited species. Intensive management on total allowable catch (TAC) was provided where TAC target species were key staples. To understand the situation of selected target species in offshore and coastal seas, the decision was made on the basis of three steps such as (1) investigating applicable materials and recovery of target fish; (2) classifying fish to manage and recover target species; and (3) setting target quantity at each

In most cases, the only data available to assess the state of fish stocks were the annual catch data, except for a few species. Based on the method used by Garibaldi and Caddy [10], 3-year moving average fishery data were analyzed to evaluate the condition of fish stocks by using the species catch data. When catch level was less than 20% of the maximum moving average value, it was grouped as depleted stock. From an analysis at the beginning, 30% catch reduc-

By 1990s, several stocks had depleted significantly; therefore, data could not depict absolute state of stock by species. To include species for recovery, fluctuation trends of catch by species were analyzed. Hence, considering the features of fluctuation trends of catch, they were grouped into (1) very low, (2) low, (3) decreasing, (4) decreasing trend after increasing, (5) fluctuation, (6) stable, and (7) increasing. Then, the species that were within (1), (2), and (3)

**1.** Fisheries resources research and assessment shall be conducted each year.

**3.** Institutional ground for co-management to settlement of dispute was established.

**2.** Plan to recover fisheries resources shall be established every 5 years.

into the law.

implementation [9].

stage for recovery.

**2.2. FSRP's scientific background**

tion of some fish species were targeted to recover.

Besides fishing pressure, climatic variations, unbalanced catch composition, environmental contamination, and habitat destruction are other factors contributing to the decline in the biomass of marine resources [7]. Moreover, co-management of fishing grounds with neighboring countries has not been effectively carried out due to territorial conflicts. Some of the fishing management strategies conventionally adopted by the Korean Government include closures in fishing time, area closures, mesh size regulations, and mesh as well as input control. Conventional fisheries management strategies had solely focused on arbitrating within fisheries and maintaining fishing industry rather than on rebuilding stocks. Besides, management policies also were implemented ineffectively in accordance with stock data. In particular, the characteristics of coastal and offshore multi-species fisheries put the ultimate challenges in implementing management policies for each fish species. Likewise, another potential reason of depletion in fisheries resources is the failure of effectively refrain fishers from overfishing of juvenile fishes due to mix fishing [6]. As a result, the Korean government has taken step to rebuild fish stocks as the core objective of fisheries policy. The government launched the Fish Stock Rebuilding Plan (FSRP) including traditional management measures and Fish Stock Enhancement Programs (FSEP) in 2005 to effectively achieve this objective.

This study introduces the methods and insights of the Korean eco-friendly FSEP-based FSRP and its 10-year fisheries management policy. It presents different strategies proposed to overcome any issues related to the implementation of the FSRP plan.

### **2. FSEP-based FSRP's legislative policy and scientific structure**

#### **2.1. FSRP's legal framework**

Understanding fisheries law is not easy to Korean fishermen due to its complex structure with 3 presidential decrees and 15 ministerial ordinances. Still, the 1960s law standards are applied even though some measures are contradictory to current fisheries management plans.

In this context, the "Fisheries Resources Management Act" was announced and established by the government on April 22, 2009, to conduct "broad and methodical fisheries resource management and to establish and implement fisheries resources recovery plan" [6]. The sole goal/

purpose of this law is to enhance fish stocks by conserving and managing marine resources through strengthening research and assessment. Some key features of the law are as follows:

Then, the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries initiated the Fishery Resources and Environment Division to develop and implement FSRP. In addition, the Fishery Resource Recovery Team (FRCT) was established to conduct research, implement resource enhancement programs, and management. For working effectively with FRCT, fishermen, academics, governmental officers, and researchers were encouraged to participate in developing, implementing, and assessing FSRP. A newly organized Science Committee (SC) and the Fishery Resource Management Committee (FRMC) will also take part in decision making for FSRP implementation [9].

#### **2.2. FSRP's scientific background**

capita fish intake registered over the last five decades [4, 5]. South Korea has increased the fishing pressure on many marine resources in a sustainable way in a short period [6, 7]. This situation compelled the whole nation and experts to think about exploited stock rebuilding to make sound marine ecosystem. Though conditions vary from species to species, stock assessment carried out in coastal and offshore areas in Korea revealed that the total fish harvest dropped consistently from 1.7 million tons in 1986 to 1.0 million tons in 2004 [8]. Remained fishing pressure can be one of the potential causes to deplete fish stocks by 3.5 million tons in a decade [6]. In addition, in the 2000s, the proportion of adult fish in the catches was lower than 20% [8]. This highlights that the reproductive capacity of fish stocks has been sharply decreased, which not only resulted in the decline of fishery resources but also increased the

Besides fishing pressure, climatic variations, unbalanced catch composition, environmental contamination, and habitat destruction are other factors contributing to the decline in the biomass of marine resources [7]. Moreover, co-management of fishing grounds with neighboring countries has not been effectively carried out due to territorial conflicts. Some of the fishing management strategies conventionally adopted by the Korean Government include closures in fishing time, area closures, mesh size regulations, and mesh as well as input control. Conventional fisheries management strategies had solely focused on arbitrating within fisheries and maintaining fishing industry rather than on rebuilding stocks. Besides, management policies also were implemented ineffectively in accordance with stock data. In particular, the characteristics of coastal and offshore multi-species fisheries put the ultimate challenges in implementing management policies for each fish species. Likewise, another potential reason of depletion in fisheries resources is the failure of effectively refrain fishers from overfishing of juvenile fishes due to mix fishing [6]. As a result, the Korean government has taken step to rebuild fish stocks as the core objective of fisheries policy. The government launched the Fish Stock Rebuilding Plan (FSRP) including traditional management measures and Fish Stock

This study introduces the methods and insights of the Korean eco-friendly FSEP-based FSRP and its 10-year fisheries management policy. It presents different strategies proposed to over-

Understanding fisheries law is not easy to Korean fishermen due to its complex structure with 3 presidential decrees and 15 ministerial ordinances. Still, the 1960s law standards are applied

In this context, the "Fisheries Resources Management Act" was announced and established by the government on April 22, 2009, to conduct "broad and methodical fisheries resource management and to establish and implement fisheries resources recovery plan" [6]. The sole goal/

even though some measures are contradictory to current fisheries management plans.

Enhancement Programs (FSEP) in 2005 to effectively achieve this objective.

**2. FSEP-based FSRP's legislative policy and scientific structure**

come any issues related to the implementation of the FSRP plan.

percentage of immature fish.

126 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

**2.1. FSRP's legal framework**

Depending upon the status of the fish species, efforts are directed toward the recovery and management of the target fish under specific ecosystem-based FSRP. A Fish Stock Rebuilding plan was set up for drastically depleted species. By contrast, fisheries management plan was taken into consideration for overexploited species. Intensive management on total allowable catch (TAC) was provided where TAC target species were key staples. To understand the situation of selected target species in offshore and coastal seas, the decision was made on the basis of three steps such as (1) investigating applicable materials and recovery of target fish; (2) classifying fish to manage and recover target species; and (3) setting target quantity at each stage for recovery.

In most cases, the only data available to assess the state of fish stocks were the annual catch data, except for a few species. Based on the method used by Garibaldi and Caddy [10], 3-year moving average fishery data were analyzed to evaluate the condition of fish stocks by using the species catch data. When catch level was less than 20% of the maximum moving average value, it was grouped as depleted stock. From an analysis at the beginning, 30% catch reduction of some fish species were targeted to recover.

By 1990s, several stocks had depleted significantly; therefore, data could not depict absolute state of stock by species. To include species for recovery, fluctuation trends of catch by species were analyzed. Hence, considering the features of fluctuation trends of catch, they were grouped into (1) very low, (2) low, (3) decreasing, (4) decreasing trend after increasing, (5) fluctuation, (6) stable, and (7) increasing. Then, the species that were within (1), (2), and (3) conditions were grouped as recovery targeted species at last. The rest of the fish species were considered as management target species.

areas since 1998 (**Figure 1**). This program is conducted by using multiple networks, based on the industry-university-institute model, to establish optimum technical and model development. Since 2009, the marine seaweeds forest program has been playing an important role in the spawning, breeding, and feeding grounds for many kinds of marine organisms including fishes. The program focuses on the reestablishment of marine seaweed forests destroyed by

Marine Stock Enhancement, Restocking, and Sea Ranching in Korea

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78373

129

Artificial reefs are man-made structures placed in the sea to attract, protect, and cultivate marine organisms. It is one of the main methods of creating and enhancing marine resources, utilizing the environment of marine life. Selective artificial coral reefs have been used to enhance specific fish populations. Improved rugged-type reef and round reefs were used for

**Figure 1.** Map of coastal marine ranches in 2014. Source: Fisheries resources agency (FIRA), homepage, business FIRA,

some factors such as sea temperature rise, marine pollution, and algae-eating animals.

*3.1.1. Artificial reefs program*

2015.

Meanwhile, stock biomass and maximum sustainable yield, MSY, for 10 targeted species was estimated. Among those species are Sand Fish (*Arctoscopus japonicus*), Blue Crab/Swimming Crab (*Portunus pelagicus*), Octopus (*Octopus vulgaris*), Tokobushi Abalone (*Haliotis discus*), Skate/Ray (*Hongeo koreana*), Cod (*Gadus macrocephalus*), Yellow Croaker (*Larimichthys polyactis*), File Fish (*Stephanolepis cirrhifer*), Korean flounder (*Paralichthys olivaceus*), and Purplish Washington Clam (*Saxidomus purpuratus* Sowerby). On the basis of the results of assessment, recovery target for every phase and recovery tenures were set.

In addition, fishery resources that required systematic and broad management were found through conducting research and assessment. FSRP, TAC, and Marine Protected Areas were also implemented after the assessment plans. A "total fishery resources information database" was created and then operated to manage systematically for implementing FSRP. Fishery resources information like fishing status, habitat, and ecological information were collected under the "total fishery resources information database." A useful scientific research assessment system was built on the basis of this database.

Furthermore, the central and local governments divided the role in research and assessment considering features of every species and strengthening human resources on stock assessment and research. It was aimed to construct a more effective scientific research and assessment system for better management and improvement of FSRP. Thus, research, assessment manuals, and model fully based on the characteristics of each species were made. Moreover, ecological changes including climate change were taken into consideration when stock assessment by species was done. To develop and implement the FSRP, the stock assessment by species was supplied as basic data [6].

### **3. FSEP-based Fish Stock Rebuilding Plan**

#### **3.1. Fish Stock Enhancement Programs**

Fish Stock Enhancement Program (FSEP) is one of the major tools of rebuilding fishery stocks carried out by the Korean Fisheries Resources Agency (FIRA). FIRA is involved in Fish Stock Enhancement Programs including the construction and installation of artificial reefs, production and release of fish seeds, and building and managing marine ranches and marine forest (marine reforestation) to restore and recover fish stocks in Korea's coastal and offshore fisheries. In Korea, the main goal of Fish Stock Enhancement Programs is to increase fish stocks and fishermen's income by improving the marine environment and restoring productivity for natural population of fish [11]. The artificial reef program was implemented in 1971 to increase fisheries resources by creating habitats and spawning grounds. The fry stocking program has been operating since 1976 in order to complement and enhance the recruitment of fishery resources by directional fry releases of Jumbo Shrimp, Blue Crab, Flat Fish, Kuruma Prawns, Jacopevers, and Abalone. The marine ranching program was conducted in four main coastal areas since 1998 (**Figure 1**). This program is conducted by using multiple networks, based on the industry-university-institute model, to establish optimum technical and model development. Since 2009, the marine seaweeds forest program has been playing an important role in the spawning, breeding, and feeding grounds for many kinds of marine organisms including fishes. The program focuses on the reestablishment of marine seaweed forests destroyed by some factors such as sea temperature rise, marine pollution, and algae-eating animals.

#### *3.1.1. Artificial reefs program*

conditions were grouped as recovery targeted species at last. The rest of the fish species were

Meanwhile, stock biomass and maximum sustainable yield, MSY, for 10 targeted species was estimated. Among those species are Sand Fish (*Arctoscopus japonicus*), Blue Crab/Swimming Crab (*Portunus pelagicus*), Octopus (*Octopus vulgaris*), Tokobushi Abalone (*Haliotis discus*), Skate/Ray (*Hongeo koreana*), Cod (*Gadus macrocephalus*), Yellow Croaker (*Larimichthys polyactis*), File Fish (*Stephanolepis cirrhifer*), Korean flounder (*Paralichthys olivaceus*), and Purplish Washington Clam (*Saxidomus purpuratus* Sowerby). On the basis of the results of assessment,

In addition, fishery resources that required systematic and broad management were found through conducting research and assessment. FSRP, TAC, and Marine Protected Areas were also implemented after the assessment plans. A "total fishery resources information database" was created and then operated to manage systematically for implementing FSRP. Fishery resources information like fishing status, habitat, and ecological information were collected under the "total fishery resources information database." A useful scientific research assess-

Furthermore, the central and local governments divided the role in research and assessment considering features of every species and strengthening human resources on stock assessment and research. It was aimed to construct a more effective scientific research and assessment system for better management and improvement of FSRP. Thus, research, assessment manuals, and model fully based on the characteristics of each species were made. Moreover, ecological changes including climate change were taken into consideration when stock assessment by species was done. To develop and implement the FSRP, the stock assessment by

Fish Stock Enhancement Program (FSEP) is one of the major tools of rebuilding fishery stocks carried out by the Korean Fisheries Resources Agency (FIRA). FIRA is involved in Fish Stock Enhancement Programs including the construction and installation of artificial reefs, production and release of fish seeds, and building and managing marine ranches and marine forest (marine reforestation) to restore and recover fish stocks in Korea's coastal and offshore fisheries. In Korea, the main goal of Fish Stock Enhancement Programs is to increase fish stocks and fishermen's income by improving the marine environment and restoring productivity for natural population of fish [11]. The artificial reef program was implemented in 1971 to increase fisheries resources by creating habitats and spawning grounds. The fry stocking program has been operating since 1976 in order to complement and enhance the recruitment of fishery resources by directional fry releases of Jumbo Shrimp, Blue Crab, Flat Fish, Kuruma Prawns, Jacopevers, and Abalone. The marine ranching program was conducted in four main coastal

considered as management target species.

128 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

recovery target for every phase and recovery tenures were set.

ment system was built on the basis of this database.

**3. FSEP-based Fish Stock Rebuilding Plan**

species was supplied as basic data [6].

**3.1. Fish Stock Enhancement Programs**

Artificial reefs are man-made structures placed in the sea to attract, protect, and cultivate marine organisms. It is one of the main methods of creating and enhancing marine resources, utilizing the environment of marine life. Selective artificial coral reefs have been used to enhance specific fish populations. Improved rugged-type reef and round reefs were used for

**Figure 1.** Map of coastal marine ranches in 2014. Source: Fisheries resources agency (FIRA), homepage, business FIRA, 2015.

shellfish and algae while large octagonal dams and cube and box shape reefs were used for small and medium fishes. In addition, for large fishes, composite steel fishing vessel reefs and large octagonal dome-shaped reefs were used. The installing process of artificial reefs is related to site suitability assessment, structure of reefs, and follow-up management.

**3.2. Fish Stock Rebuilding Plan**

traditional fisheries management policies.

required time of recovery with pragmatic goals.

cute plans and making them responsible for the results.

species before and after operation for effective utilization.

appropriate FSEPs.

following ways:

stable fishery production.

Korean Government established the fundamental plan for the FSRP in 2005. Its fisheries management strategies aim to mitigate the challenges of the existing fisheries management policies and to attain an expected recovery of fishery resources across EEZ territory. At national level, this ecosystem-based FSRP has been established as a comprehensive plan to enhance fish stock from the current level to a target level within a rebuilding period by choosing

Marine Stock Enhancement, Restocking, and Sea Ranching in Korea

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78373

131

Korea's FSRP was primarily aimed to marine fish stock recovery by eliminating the challenges from traditional management strategies with a view to improving conventional policies in the

**1.** FSRP focuses on specific fish stock for recovering. It contrasts to the lack of goals found in

**2.** Conventional fisheries management policy was implemented without scientific research and estimation. By contrast, FSRP took into consideration the condition of fish stocks and

**3.** Conventional fisheries management policies were established on the initiative of central government. On the other hand, FSRP ensures voluntary fishermen participation to exe-

**4.** An analysis neither before application of fisheries management measure nor after its execution regarding conventional fisheries management policies was performed. However, FSRP ensures an analysis on fisheries management measures by fishery types, sea area and

The main objective of FSRP and its policy was to enhance the total fish stock to 8 million tons by 2017 in order to maintain a consistent catch level at 1.3 million tons annually within coastal and offshore fisheries. Hence, it is anticipated that to reach fishery resources at an optimum quantity level, Korea's coastal and offshore sea ecosystem should break a vicious cycle chain of resource exploitation and aggravated fishery business condition and to keep a

FSRP was performed by dividing the operational plan into three potential phases with midterm and long-term plans. To establish system for operating FSRP, at first, the mid-term goals will get preference to achieve, and then long-term objectives will be attained by settling and spreading the management plans nationwide. To promote and operate each phase of FSRP, strategies and objectives were constructed as Phase 1—Institutional update and basic midand long-term FSRP's foundation (2005); Phase 2—FSRP implementation by species (2006– 2012); Phase 3—FSRP-based fisheries management system settlement (2013–2017) (**Table 1**). Traditionally, Korean fisheries were managed by considering input control depend on licensing system of fishing vessels and some technical measures like gear mesh size regulation, area closure, and time closures. Besides, since 1994, vessel buyback plan has been implemented.

#### *3.1.2. Fish seed-releasing program*

Young healthy artificially produced fish and shellfish are selected and released in a suitable environment with the purpose of increasing marine resource abundances. Afterwards, continuous research is conducted in order to determine releasing efficiency and investigate any effect associated to seedling releases, including monitoring the genetic diversity and the preservation of a healthy environment after the releases. The total seedling released accounted for 4.85 billion, including government (1.58 billion), laboratories (2.5 billion), and local government (770 million) [12]. Ninety percent of the total quantity is from major species including jumbo shrimps, Blue Crabs, Flat Fish, Kuruma Prawns, Jacopevers, and Abalones. Eighty-one percent of the total expenses are from major species including Abalones, Flatfish, Blue Crabs, Sea Cucumbers, and Jacopevers. By continuing disease screening and genetic diversity evaluation, healthy fish seed was produced for fruitful operation of fish seed-releasing program.

#### *3.1.3. Marine ranching program*

The marine ranching programs were conducted in the coastal and sea areas of Tongyeong, followed by Jeonnam (Yeosu) Dadohae Sea in 2001, and East Sea (Uljin), Yellow Sea (Taean), and Jeju starting from 2002 (**Figure 1**). The Jeonnam marine ranching was completed in 2011, and the marine ranches of the East Sea, Yellow Sea, and Jeju were completed by the end of 2014. With the purpose of increasing stock biomass of fish stocks in coastal fisheries in a short period of time, the technology and experience attained from the marine ranching were applied throughout the entire program. The technology and experience acquired through the marine ranching program can also be used to develop marine ranching models that suit each specific sea environment. In order to maximize the effects of the resource enhancement, the program was implemented by a marine ranching utilization management system through mutual cooperation with research institutes and academic regional organizations and established in an efficient model for the local government and local organizations, bringing direct impacts to the fish stock rebuilding.

#### *3.1.4. Marine seaweeds forest program*

Destruction of spawning grounds and nursery habitats often lead to the reduction in fish stock biomass and productivity of the marine ecosystem. Marine forest creation programs were intended to restore the fish stock biomass and the ecological functioning. A total of 47 marine forests were created between 2009 and 2013 (3334 ha, KRW 72.2 billion). Fisheries authorities have raised awareness of the importance of promoting sea forest for enhancing fish stock biomass and the necessity of building a national rebuilding program to restore the fisheries stocks and ocean ecosystem in the territorial waters of Korea (approximately 8 million ha).

#### **3.2. Fish Stock Rebuilding Plan**

shellfish and algae while large octagonal dams and cube and box shape reefs were used for small and medium fishes. In addition, for large fishes, composite steel fishing vessel reefs and large octagonal dome-shaped reefs were used. The installing process of artificial reefs is

Young healthy artificially produced fish and shellfish are selected and released in a suitable environment with the purpose of increasing marine resource abundances. Afterwards, continuous research is conducted in order to determine releasing efficiency and investigate any effect associated to seedling releases, including monitoring the genetic diversity and the preservation of a healthy environment after the releases. The total seedling released accounted for 4.85 billion, including government (1.58 billion), laboratories (2.5 billion), and local government (770 million) [12]. Ninety percent of the total quantity is from major species including jumbo shrimps, Blue Crabs, Flat Fish, Kuruma Prawns, Jacopevers, and Abalones. Eighty-one percent of the total expenses are from major species including Abalones, Flatfish, Blue Crabs, Sea Cucumbers, and Jacopevers. By continuing disease screening and genetic diversity evaluation, healthy fish seed was produced for fruitful operation of fish seed-releasing program.

The marine ranching programs were conducted in the coastal and sea areas of Tongyeong, followed by Jeonnam (Yeosu) Dadohae Sea in 2001, and East Sea (Uljin), Yellow Sea (Taean), and Jeju starting from 2002 (**Figure 1**). The Jeonnam marine ranching was completed in 2011, and the marine ranches of the East Sea, Yellow Sea, and Jeju were completed by the end of 2014. With the purpose of increasing stock biomass of fish stocks in coastal fisheries in a short period of time, the technology and experience attained from the marine ranching were applied throughout the entire program. The technology and experience acquired through the marine ranching program can also be used to develop marine ranching models that suit each specific sea environment. In order to maximize the effects of the resource enhancement, the program was implemented by a marine ranching utilization management system through mutual cooperation with research institutes and academic regional organizations and established in an efficient model for the local government and local organizations,

Destruction of spawning grounds and nursery habitats often lead to the reduction in fish stock biomass and productivity of the marine ecosystem. Marine forest creation programs were intended to restore the fish stock biomass and the ecological functioning. A total of 47 marine forests were created between 2009 and 2013 (3334 ha, KRW 72.2 billion). Fisheries authorities have raised awareness of the importance of promoting sea forest for enhancing fish stock biomass and the necessity of building a national rebuilding program to restore the fisheries stocks and ocean ecosystem in the territorial waters of Korea (approximately 8

related to site suitability assessment, structure of reefs, and follow-up management.

*3.1.2. Fish seed-releasing program*

130 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

*3.1.3. Marine ranching program*

bringing direct impacts to the fish stock rebuilding.

*3.1.4. Marine seaweeds forest program*

million ha).

Korean Government established the fundamental plan for the FSRP in 2005. Its fisheries management strategies aim to mitigate the challenges of the existing fisheries management policies and to attain an expected recovery of fishery resources across EEZ territory. At national level, this ecosystem-based FSRP has been established as a comprehensive plan to enhance fish stock from the current level to a target level within a rebuilding period by choosing appropriate FSEPs.

Korea's FSRP was primarily aimed to marine fish stock recovery by eliminating the challenges from traditional management strategies with a view to improving conventional policies in the following ways:

The main objective of FSRP and its policy was to enhance the total fish stock to 8 million tons by 2017 in order to maintain a consistent catch level at 1.3 million tons annually within coastal and offshore fisheries. Hence, it is anticipated that to reach fishery resources at an optimum quantity level, Korea's coastal and offshore sea ecosystem should break a vicious cycle chain of resource exploitation and aggravated fishery business condition and to keep a stable fishery production.

FSRP was performed by dividing the operational plan into three potential phases with midterm and long-term plans. To establish system for operating FSRP, at first, the mid-term goals will get preference to achieve, and then long-term objectives will be attained by settling and spreading the management plans nationwide. To promote and operate each phase of FSRP, strategies and objectives were constructed as Phase 1—Institutional update and basic midand long-term FSRP's foundation (2005); Phase 2—FSRP implementation by species (2006– 2012); Phase 3—FSRP-based fisheries management system settlement (2013–2017) (**Table 1**).

Traditionally, Korean fisheries were managed by considering input control depend on licensing system of fishing vessels and some technical measures like gear mesh size regulation, area closure, and time closures. Besides, since 1994, vessel buyback plan has been implemented.

the comments made by academics, governmental, and nongovernmental participants. Basically, resources are managed by applying measures not only giving importance on individual species but also for refraining from using unbalanced fishing efforts and techniques. Accordingly, management took steps to install artificial coral reef and release fish fry to increase the overall fish stock in the coastal zone of Korea. In light of recovering individual fish stock, many policies and programs were taken into consideration to enforce them for the durability of fishery resources through FSEP. However, Korea's entire fishery was not shut down for a faster fish stock recovery as in other nations [13]. Hence, ecosystem-based fisheries management was implemented though some restriction was present on individual fisheries resource exploitation for effective and quick recovery of stocks. Consequently, the minimization of overall compromised revenue due to stop fish harvest could be possible to overcome undesirable situation. Besides, Korean fishery sector also could maintain stable

Marine Stock Enhancement, Restocking, and Sea Ranching in Korea

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78373

133

One interesting attribute of FSEP-based FSRP is promising the voluntary participation of fishermen to promote community-based fisheries management. In this manner, fishermen can make decision to manage resources as efficiently as possible and take part in developing plans for FSRP. In addition, voluntary self-control management can be implemented by fishermen to avoid unregulated fishing to promote efficient FSRP for rebuilding fish stocks

Although it is difficult to evaluate a comprehensive fisheries management policy FSRP based on FSEP within only 10 years, some vivid emerging improvements were depicted at the level of biodiversity. Vital FSEP tools not only enhanced biological components in the marine ecosystem but also encouraged physical and biological manipulation to make sound habitat for

Until now, a total of 16 FSRPs have been established, including the special programs on sandfish, swimming crab, octopus (East Sea), skate ray (Yellow Sea), cod, yellow croaker, filefish, Korean flounder (East Sea) but rest FSRPs were considered for nationwide. In 2008, 10 species were considered to reach a target level of recovery based on their stock biomass from catch data. Fish Stock Enhancement Programs were acted in supporting with stock rebuilding plans to progress fish stock level. The amount of gained biomass was computed on a yearly basis by subtracting harvested amounts in 2005 from the total harvest in each subsequent year up to 2016. Once the gain in stock biomass of each targeted species is calculated for 10 consecutive years, from 2005 to 2016, the total recovery amount was estimated by adding all values of recovered stock amount of each targeted fish. As a result, the estimated 10 targeted fish stocks recovery amounts accounted for 469,827 mil-

**4. Classic and sustainable dimensions in FSEP-based FSRP**

business during the resource recovery period [14].

**4.1. Environmental friendliness of FSEP-based FSRP**

effectively.

lifting up the stock size.

lion tons (**Table 2**).

**Table 1.** Phases to operate FSRP plans.

Thereafter, the total allowable catch (TAC) as an output control measure has been implemented since 1999 to reduce excess catch of fish.

In addition, FSEP plans such as artificial reef installation, fry releasing, and seaweed forest programs also have been implemented to enhance fish stocks for coastal and offshore fisheries. Moreover, to trigger participation and encourage playing a vital role of the fisheries personnel, both Science Committee (SC) and Fishery Resource Management Committee (FRMC) were formed. Experts from various disciplines (ecology, fisheries stock assessment, statistics, etc.) were included in the Science Committee to create and improve a fish stock recovery plan exclusively relying on Fish Stock Enhancement Programs and to make pragmatic advice for considering measures to rebuild fish stocks by analyzing data from scientific researches and critical reviews. Likewise, a scientific research on fish stock is conducted by NFRDI to recover desired species and subsequently FFRMC makes action plans to rebuild fish stock. FFRMC determines the measures to manage fishery effectively by judging the comments made by academics, governmental, and nongovernmental participants. Basically, resources are managed by applying measures not only giving importance on individual species but also for refraining from using unbalanced fishing efforts and techniques. Accordingly, management took steps to install artificial coral reef and release fish fry to increase the overall fish stock in the coastal zone of Korea. In light of recovering individual fish stock, many policies and programs were taken into consideration to enforce them for the durability of fishery resources through FSEP. However, Korea's entire fishery was not shut down for a faster fish stock recovery as in other nations [13]. Hence, ecosystem-based fisheries management was implemented though some restriction was present on individual fisheries resource exploitation for effective and quick recovery of stocks. Consequently, the minimization of overall compromised revenue due to stop fish harvest could be possible to overcome undesirable situation. Besides, Korean fishery sector also could maintain stable business during the resource recovery period [14].

One interesting attribute of FSEP-based FSRP is promising the voluntary participation of fishermen to promote community-based fisheries management. In this manner, fishermen can make decision to manage resources as efficiently as possible and take part in developing plans for FSRP. In addition, voluntary self-control management can be implemented by fishermen to avoid unregulated fishing to promote efficient FSRP for rebuilding fish stocks effectively.

#### **4. Classic and sustainable dimensions in FSEP-based FSRP**

#### **4.1. Environmental friendliness of FSEP-based FSRP**

Thereafter, the total allowable catch (TAC) as an output control measure has been imple-

In addition, FSEP plans such as artificial reef installation, fry releasing, and seaweed forest programs also have been implemented to enhance fish stocks for coastal and offshore fisheries. Moreover, to trigger participation and encourage playing a vital role of the fisheries personnel, both Science Committee (SC) and Fishery Resource Management Committee (FRMC) were formed. Experts from various disciplines (ecology, fisheries stock assessment, statistics, etc.) were included in the Science Committee to create and improve a fish stock recovery plan exclusively relying on Fish Stock Enhancement Programs and to make pragmatic advice for considering measures to rebuild fish stocks by analyzing data from scientific researches and critical reviews. Likewise, a scientific research on fish stock is conducted by NFRDI to recover desired species and subsequently FFRMC makes action plans to rebuild fish stock. FFRMC determines the measures to manage fishery effectively by judging

mented since 1999 to reduce excess catch of fish.

FSRP-based fisheries management

system settlement

**Table 1.** Phases to operate FSRP plans.

**Phase Objectives Policy enforcement**

FSRP implementation by species (Plans for Mid-term)

(Master Plan Establishment)

basis

enactment

FSRPs fully

in 2006

tons

by 2012

yearly basis

(Plans for Long-term)

1.3 million tons

based FSRPs

• Review FSRPs for revising

• Update Institution to implement FSRP

• Mid- and long-term FSRP Establishment on yearly

• Set up Teams for Fish Stock Rebuilding to implement

• Species Selection for pilot projects to establish FSRPs

• Fixed targets to maintain a total catch at 1.2 million

• Basic and bio-ecological research implementation on

• Achievement of sustainable target at a total catch of

• FSRPs execution annually to recover target species • Shift species-based FSRPs to establish ecosystem-

• Pilot projects execution for 7 species by 2007 • FSRPs execution and establishment for 20 species

• New "Fisheries Resource Management Act"

Phase 1 (2005) Institutional update and basic mid- and long-term FSRP's foundation

132 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

Phase 2 (2006–2012)

Phase 3 (2013–2017)

> Although it is difficult to evaluate a comprehensive fisheries management policy FSRP based on FSEP within only 10 years, some vivid emerging improvements were depicted at the level of biodiversity. Vital FSEP tools not only enhanced biological components in the marine ecosystem but also encouraged physical and biological manipulation to make sound habitat for lifting up the stock size.

> Until now, a total of 16 FSRPs have been established, including the special programs on sandfish, swimming crab, octopus (East Sea), skate ray (Yellow Sea), cod, yellow croaker, filefish, Korean flounder (East Sea) but rest FSRPs were considered for nationwide. In 2008, 10 species were considered to reach a target level of recovery based on their stock biomass from catch data. Fish Stock Enhancement Programs were acted in supporting with stock rebuilding plans to progress fish stock level. The amount of gained biomass was computed on a yearly basis by subtracting harvested amounts in 2005 from the total harvest in each subsequent year up to 2016. Once the gain in stock biomass of each targeted species is calculated for 10 consecutive years, from 2005 to 2016, the total recovery amount was estimated by adding all values of recovered stock amount of each targeted fish. As a result, the estimated 10 targeted fish stocks recovery amounts accounted for 469,827 million tons (**Table 2**).

10 years, the total increased 0.55 million tones fish contributed to the domestic fish market. This is an important fact taking into consideration that 70% of the food supply is imported from overseas, with the value of imported fish and seafood estimated in 3.8 billion USD [16].

Marine Stock Enhancement, Restocking, and Sea Ranching in Korea

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78373

135

A bioeconomic analysis was conducted to predict the economic impact for each species. In particular, biological and economical uncertainties were considered fully during analyzing the bioeconomic modeling. After performing this analysis, the results were used to make best

Effective and voluntary participation of fishermen community in promoting self-regulatory fishery is one of the main objectives of FSRP. As a novel concept in Korean fisheries management, community-based fishery allows fishermen to deliver unique ideas to manage resources as effectively as possible through improving awareness and understanding on current situation to implement FSRP. Effectiveness of community-based FSRP can be maximized

Before selecting the stock of a target species for enhancing, an agreement was made between the fishery resource management committee and the fishermen's organizations. The purpose of this agreement was to stimulate voluntary and active participation of fishermen to maximize the effectiveness of FSRP in connection with community-based management associations. Tasks were made voluntarily by fishermen to refrain themselves from roaming for fishing beyond limits, using excess gears by vessels and disturbing in spawning grounds. The Science Committee arranged conferences to make a fruitful avenue to ensure active participation of fishermen. Eventually, many fisheries restrictions were watched and found limited unlawful fishing.

Korean fisheries rebuilding relies on the voluntary participation of fishermen community for effective stock enhancement through notable stock enhancement programs. Besides, many strategies were taken to ensure better participation in providing opinion, managing resources, and stopping illegal fishing. Accordingly, strengthen community-based fisheries management imposes losses upon fishermen during rebuilding stock for accepting to reduce

During the entire FSRP period, the government supported fishermen by taking some fruitful steps to stabilize the market for ensuring active participation. For example, some specific support was made to fix losses such as support on reducing fishing days, improvement of habitat for small fish, and also avoidance of by-catches. Expenditure to displace fishing gear

Socially accepted FSRP also provided time-demanding education and counseling to fishermen by experts having in-depth knowledge on fisheries. In addition, a fisheries management committee was set up as a system to manage and operate FSRP. To build up awareness of fishermen, the fisheries management committee worked on strengthening public relations on

policies for effectively maintaining FSEP-based Fisheries Stock Rebuilding Plans.

**4.3. Social acceptability of FSEP-based FSRP**

by ensuring active participation of fishermen.

the amount of catch from fishermen organizations.

rebuilding stocks of targeted fish [18].

and training of fishermen was aided for minimizing losses [17].

Source: 2017 Korean Fisheries Yearbook, www.fips.go.kr\* Swimming Crab. \*\*Purplish Washington Clam, Butter Clam.

**Table 2.** FSEP-based FSRP's economic effectiveness by target species.

#### **4.2. Economic viability of FSEP-based FSRP**

FSRP has contributed to rebuild fishery stocks in a relatively short period. Observations indicate a positive change in fish stock biomass during FSRP project operation. Likewise, an increment of catches triggered more revenues from targeted individual fisheries. The total revenue was computed by multiplying market price with the total recovery amount of fish over a 10-year period to evaluate the economic contribution of FSRP. Between 2005 and 2016, fishing earning increased by 4393.1 million USD (**Table 2**). Besides, an average yearly basis increment was seen in the fishing income of million USD 206.3 million amid FSRP operation [15]. In 10 years, the total increased 0.55 million tones fish contributed to the domestic fish market. This is an important fact taking into consideration that 70% of the food supply is imported from overseas, with the value of imported fish and seafood estimated in 3.8 billion USD [16].

A bioeconomic analysis was conducted to predict the economic impact for each species. In particular, biological and economical uncertainties were considered fully during analyzing the bioeconomic modeling. After performing this analysis, the results were used to make best policies for effectively maintaining FSEP-based Fisheries Stock Rebuilding Plans.

#### **4.3. Social acceptability of FSEP-based FSRP**

**Year Sandfish Blue**

2015 2016

Total increase catch amount (M/T)

Price (2016) (\$/ MT)

Increase revenue (million US\$)

4762 7593 16,374 13,558

Source: 2017 Korean Fisheries Yearbook, www.fips.go.kr\*

**4.2. Economic viability of FSEP-based FSRP**

**Table 2.** FSEP-based FSRP's economic effectiveness by target species.

\*\*Purplish Washington Clam, Butter Clam.

8753 9683 4 5

**Crab\***

134 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

**Octopus Tokobushi Abalone**

**Skate ray**

2349 2000

23,909 200,896 31,884 36 18,137 14,834 132,771 5959 41,401 0

1241 11,954 14,113 55,706 5350 5015 8022 6163 7460 4956

29.7 2329.2 450.1 2.0 97.0 74.4 1065.1 36.7 308.9 0

FSRP has contributed to rebuild fishery stocks in a relatively short period. Observations indicate a positive change in fish stock biomass during FSRP project operation. Likewise, an increment of catches triggered more revenues from targeted individual fisheries. The total revenue was computed by multiplying market price with the total recovery amount of fish over a 10-year period to evaluate the economic contribution of FSRP. Between 2005 and 2016, fishing earning increased by 4393.1 million USD (**Table 2**). Besides, an average yearly basis increment was seen in the fishing income of million USD 206.3 million amid FSRP operation [15]. In

Swimming Crab.

7820 4994 33,254 19,271 2040 1805 17,753 15,977 1828 1741

 2472 2683 5953 19 259 2641 17,570 1267 5345 5380 2401 3714 7637 66 255 4272 15,272 1055 5472 6534 2647 6894 7894 54 392 6810 21,428 1071 5218 3399 3769 13,606 12,033 62 375 7533 34,221 2998 7326 3422 2720 17,596 11,838 102 1343 5395 33,200 2631 5175 2672 3939 31,302 15,386 34 3254 6870 34,033 8280 5107 1918 4236 33,193 10,813 27 4131 7289 31,931 3475 6671 1950 3834 26,608 10,421 3 2925 8585 59,226 1606 6709 2314 5836 26,861 10,080 5 2123 8682 36,840 1419 6488 2037 6306 30,448 9109 5 1651 9133 35,280 1295 18,171 2199 4678 25,310 9881 10 1889 13,402 27,638 2418 18,804 2335

**Cod Yellow Croaker** **File fish**

**Korean Flounder** **Purplish W-Clam\*\***

> Effective and voluntary participation of fishermen community in promoting self-regulatory fishery is one of the main objectives of FSRP. As a novel concept in Korean fisheries management, community-based fishery allows fishermen to deliver unique ideas to manage resources as effectively as possible through improving awareness and understanding on current situation to implement FSRP. Effectiveness of community-based FSRP can be maximized by ensuring active participation of fishermen.

> Before selecting the stock of a target species for enhancing, an agreement was made between the fishery resource management committee and the fishermen's organizations. The purpose of this agreement was to stimulate voluntary and active participation of fishermen to maximize the effectiveness of FSRP in connection with community-based management associations. Tasks were made voluntarily by fishermen to refrain themselves from roaming for fishing beyond limits, using excess gears by vessels and disturbing in spawning grounds. The Science Committee arranged conferences to make a fruitful avenue to ensure active participation of fishermen. Eventually, many fisheries restrictions were watched and found limited unlawful fishing.

> Korean fisheries rebuilding relies on the voluntary participation of fishermen community for effective stock enhancement through notable stock enhancement programs. Besides, many strategies were taken to ensure better participation in providing opinion, managing resources, and stopping illegal fishing. Accordingly, strengthen community-based fisheries management imposes losses upon fishermen during rebuilding stock for accepting to reduce the amount of catch from fishermen organizations.

> During the entire FSRP period, the government supported fishermen by taking some fruitful steps to stabilize the market for ensuring active participation. For example, some specific support was made to fix losses such as support on reducing fishing days, improvement of habitat for small fish, and also avoidance of by-catches. Expenditure to displace fishing gear and training of fishermen was aided for minimizing losses [17].

> Socially accepted FSRP also provided time-demanding education and counseling to fishermen by experts having in-depth knowledge on fisheries. In addition, a fisheries management committee was set up as a system to manage and operate FSRP. To build up awareness of fishermen, the fisheries management committee worked on strengthening public relations on rebuilding stocks of targeted fish [18].

#### **5. Limitations of FSEP-based FSRP**

The Science Committee, the regional fishery management committee, and the fishermen have a significant contribution to the overall monitoring of ecosystem-based stock rebuilding. There have been fruitful opinions regarding fish stock enhancement to complete the goals for recovering fisheries resources. Fisheries rebuilding operations that run for 10 years have brought positive results on several ecological, economical, and social aspects; however, there are some challenges to be considered to get the best output to continue a comprehensive national stock rebuilding approach in Korea. These are some specific factors to be taken into consideration as follows:

**6. Conclusion**

A decade ago, Korea implemented an eco-friendly community-based national stock rebuilding approach in coastal and seashore areas within exclusive economic zone. The aim of this study is to uphold the scenarios of rebuilding fishery stocks which depleted mainly due to an excess in fishing pressure during the last 40 years. Despite the efforts of traditional fisheries management policies against unlawful fishing, unwanted trends were observed with marine fisheries resources. Based on the 10 years experience, FSEP-based FSRP in Korea has proven to be helpful for governing fishery resources for next generations. The fisheries rebuilding plan increased the fishermen's annual income by 95%. From a social perspective, fisheries enhancement has brought a secured livelihood for increasing income in a consistent manner. Despite having many praiseworthy reasons to continue ecosystem-based fisheries management, fisheries enhancement rebuilding plans have been moving with some risks of dwelling unavoidable challenges in main policy to achieve rapid effective results. Therefore, systematic research on the biology of species, mixed catches effects, pollution management, and net income loss recovery by stabilizing market for fishermen will be helpful to carryout Korean permanent fisheries rebuilding in the future. At the bottom line, cooperative fisheries resources management by adjacent nations may be a benchmark for rebuilding marine

Marine Stock Enhancement, Restocking, and Sea Ranching in Korea

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78373

137

Korean fisheries have been struggling to enhance depleted stocks at sustainable level with their conventional management policies for a couple of decades. Usually, input and output control policies, for instance, vessel buyback, total allowable catch, and restriction on breeding season, were applied by government agencies to keep resources at an optimum level. Despite immense endeavor to limit fishing pressure for meeting seafood demand sustainably in the near future, a significant proportion of stocks were dropped below sustainable level. Artificial reefs, marine ranching, fry releasing, and marine gardening programs were selected in an effort to recover environmental degradation and provide a friendly ecosystem to marine communities. Awareness of fishermen was built throughout FSRP programs for a

better understanding of the existing stock abundance and evaluation of risk factors.

To sum up, FSRP has brought positive results in most of the targeted species. These rebuilding plans helped fishermen to increase catches noticeably for generating additional income. Sustainable fishery has been achieved due to voluntary participation of fishermen community to restrict unlawful fishing. In addition, they were provided government-supported training to develop core strategies to keep stocks at a sustainable level in the long term. Such self-governance program was a proof to rebuild stocks effectively even though some limiting

Possible rebuilding of stock may be triggered by correcting bio-ecological shortfalls in comprehensive national Korean FSEP-based FSRP. Moreover, scientific analysis on stock estimation is also an important parameter to determine the exact required period of rebuilding and to select species for improving stock status. Multinational stock rebuilding is recommended to extend targeted species number from sea shore to common boundaries of neighboring

resources not only within EEZ but also between neighboring states.

factors should have been addressed to raise effectiveness of FSRP.

#### **6. Conclusion**

**5. Limitations of FSEP-based FSRP**

136 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

consideration as follows:

fishermen community.

Japan [22].

The Science Committee, the regional fishery management committee, and the fishermen have a significant contribution to the overall monitoring of ecosystem-based stock rebuilding. There have been fruitful opinions regarding fish stock enhancement to complete the goals for recovering fisheries resources. Fisheries rebuilding operations that run for 10 years have brought positive results on several ecological, economical, and social aspects; however, there are some challenges to be considered to get the best output to continue a comprehensive national stock rebuilding approach in Korea. These are some specific factors to be taken into

**1.** The first challenge involves the preservation of the genetic resources. In order to succeed, all programs must ensure a high genetic variation for the offspring of targeted species for stocking in wild environments. In Jeju, Abalone showed a reduction of its genetic diversity, probably due to intensive breeding within the same hatchery brood stock [19]. Thus, Tokobushi Abalone could not establish their population like among other targeted species in FSRP since a genetic drift also observed due to breeding practices among limited brood stocks in the same hatchery without having enough facilities to exchange broods between

hatcheries to get verity of genetic characteristics in produced fish seedlings [20].

cies for FSRP, declined sharply due to mixed catching.

expand them to evaluate data in an appropriate way [19].

**2.** Rebuilding plans focused on maximizing stocks but did not pay attention to the reduction of unwanted by-catch species. Annual catches of Butter Clam, one of the 10 targeted spe-

**3.** There are inherited limitations to assess the efficiency of the enhancement strategies due to the lack of data available and the fact that only few species are examined well enough to drive definite conclusions. For better result, some aspects such as environmental, production, migration, and resources may be taken into account to collect effective data and

**4.** Korean coastal fisheries comprise multispecies harvesting for small-scale and commercial fishing industry. Thus, conventional fisheries management could not fulfill sole target for single species through FSRP. Accordingly, related species must be taken into consideration for carrying out ecosystem-based FSRP gradually for achieving goals to enhance stock [21]. Community-based fisheries management tools are aimed for fisheries resources utilization sustainably through FSRP. Fishermen are encouraged to involve actively to both gain knowledge about their concerns and to reduce overexploitation. In order to compensate the loss in fishermen's profitability [12] and ensure a successful rebuilding plan, market stabilization and some form of compensation support may need to be provided to the

**5.** Operation of FSRP in Korea will not bring fruitful result unless cooperative action can be taken to continue large marine FSRP among adjacent nations, for example, China and A decade ago, Korea implemented an eco-friendly community-based national stock rebuilding approach in coastal and seashore areas within exclusive economic zone. The aim of this study is to uphold the scenarios of rebuilding fishery stocks which depleted mainly due to an excess in fishing pressure during the last 40 years. Despite the efforts of traditional fisheries management policies against unlawful fishing, unwanted trends were observed with marine fisheries resources. Based on the 10 years experience, FSEP-based FSRP in Korea has proven to be helpful for governing fishery resources for next generations. The fisheries rebuilding plan increased the fishermen's annual income by 95%. From a social perspective, fisheries enhancement has brought a secured livelihood for increasing income in a consistent manner. Despite having many praiseworthy reasons to continue ecosystem-based fisheries management, fisheries enhancement rebuilding plans have been moving with some risks of dwelling unavoidable challenges in main policy to achieve rapid effective results. Therefore, systematic research on the biology of species, mixed catches effects, pollution management, and net income loss recovery by stabilizing market for fishermen will be helpful to carryout Korean permanent fisheries rebuilding in the future. At the bottom line, cooperative fisheries resources management by adjacent nations may be a benchmark for rebuilding marine resources not only within EEZ but also between neighboring states.

Korean fisheries have been struggling to enhance depleted stocks at sustainable level with their conventional management policies for a couple of decades. Usually, input and output control policies, for instance, vessel buyback, total allowable catch, and restriction on breeding season, were applied by government agencies to keep resources at an optimum level. Despite immense endeavor to limit fishing pressure for meeting seafood demand sustainably in the near future, a significant proportion of stocks were dropped below sustainable level. Artificial reefs, marine ranching, fry releasing, and marine gardening programs were selected in an effort to recover environmental degradation and provide a friendly ecosystem to marine communities. Awareness of fishermen was built throughout FSRP programs for a better understanding of the existing stock abundance and evaluation of risk factors.

To sum up, FSRP has brought positive results in most of the targeted species. These rebuilding plans helped fishermen to increase catches noticeably for generating additional income. Sustainable fishery has been achieved due to voluntary participation of fishermen community to restrict unlawful fishing. In addition, they were provided government-supported training to develop core strategies to keep stocks at a sustainable level in the long term. Such self-governance program was a proof to rebuild stocks effectively even though some limiting factors should have been addressed to raise effectiveness of FSRP.

Possible rebuilding of stock may be triggered by correcting bio-ecological shortfalls in comprehensive national Korean FSEP-based FSRP. Moreover, scientific analysis on stock estimation is also an important parameter to determine the exact required period of rebuilding and to select species for improving stock status. Multinational stock rebuilding is recommended to extend targeted species number from sea shore to common boundaries of neighboring countries. For instance, Japan has been running stock rebuilding programs since 2001 [6]. Likewise, in 2016, China started the 13th 5-year mega plan to restore their exclusive economic zone to get at a higher rate of fish catch [23]. Besides commercial species, other species may be taken into account for enhancing their stocks in developing a friendly marine ecosystem to improve ecosystem status.

[9] Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MOMAF), A Study on the Promotion of Mid

Marine Stock Enhancement, Restocking, and Sea Ranching in Korea

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78373

139

[10] Garibaldi L, Caddy J. Depleted marine resources: An approach to quantification based on the FAO capture data base. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1011. Rome; 2004

[11] Fisheries Resources Agency(FIRA). Business FIRA. 2017. http://www.fira.or.kr/english/

[12] National Fisheries Research & Development Institute (NFRDI). A Symposium on the

[13] Brodziak J, Cadrin SX, Legault CM, Murawski SA. Goals and strategies for rebuilding New England groundfish stocks. Fisheries Research. 2008;**94**:355-366. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[14] Lee SG. A Vision of Korean Fisheries and Policy Directions. Sejong, South Korea;

[16] Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2015. Insight South Korea, the Fish and Seafood Trade. http://www.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/Internet-Internet/MISB-DGSIM/ATS-SEA/

[17] Kim DH. Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in Other Nations. Busan, South Korea: Korea

[19] An HS, Hong SW, Kim EM, Lee JH, Noha JK, Kim HC, Park CJ, Min BH, Myeong JI. Comparative genetic diversity of wild and released populations of Pacific abalone Haliotis discus discus in Jeju, Korea, based on cross-species microsatellite markers including two novel loci. Animal Cells and Systems. 2010;**14**:305-313. DOI: 10.1080/

[20] An HS, Lee JW, Kim HC, Myeong JI. Genetic characterization of five hatchery populations of the Pacific Abalone (*Haliotis discus hannai*) using microsatellite markers. International

[21] National Fisheries Research & Development Institute (NFRDI), Evaluations of Optimal Catch Ability for Major Offshore Fisheries in Korea. Busan, South Korea; 2001

[22] Ryu JG. An Analysis on the Institutional Aspects of Fisheries Management and Policy.

[23] Cao L, Chen Y, Dong S, Hanson A, Huang B, Leadbitter D, Little DC, Pikitch EK, Qiu Y, Sadovy de Mitcheson Y, Sumaila UR, Williams M, Xue G, Yeo Y, Zhang W, Zhou Y, Zhuang P, Naylor RL. Opportunity for marine fisheries reform in China. PNAS. 2017;**114**:435-442.

Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2011;**12**:4836-4849. DOI: 10.3390/ijms12084836

Sejong, South Korea: Ministry of Ocean and Fisheries (MOF); 2004

[18] Lee SG. Policies of Rebuilding Fish Stocks. Busan: Designseasang. p. 2008

[15] Lee SG. Marine Bioeconomics. Busan: Pukyong National University (PKNU); 2007

and Long-Term Fish Stock Rebuilding Plan. Sejong, South Korea; 2005

english\_010101.jsp [Accessed: 30 December 2017]

Ministry of Ocean and Fisheries (MOF); 2004

PDF/6590-eng.pdf [Accessed: 14 January 2018]

Maritime Institute (KMI); 2004

19768354.2010.525813

DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1616583114

fishres.2008.03.008

Fish Stock Rebuilding Plan. Busan, South Korea; 2004

#### **Author details**

#### Sang-Go Lee

Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Department of Marine Business and Economics, Pukyong National University, Busan, Korea

#### **References**

[9] Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MOMAF), A Study on the Promotion of Mid and Long-Term Fish Stock Rebuilding Plan. Sejong, South Korea; 2005

countries. For instance, Japan has been running stock rebuilding programs since 2001 [6]. Likewise, in 2016, China started the 13th 5-year mega plan to restore their exclusive economic zone to get at a higher rate of fish catch [23]. Besides commercial species, other species may be taken into account for enhancing their stocks in developing a friendly marine ecosystem to

Department of Marine Business and Economics, Pukyong National University, Busan, Korea

[1] Ye Y, Cochrane K, Bianchi G, Wilmann R, Majkowski J, Tandstad M, Carocci FR. Rebuilding global fisheries: The world summit goal, costs and benefits. Fish and

[2] Rice JC, Garcia SM. Fisheries, food security, climate change and biodiversity: Characteristics of the sector and perspectives of emerging issues. ICES Journal of Marine

[3] UN, The Ocean Conference, the UN Follows Up on the Ocean Conference Voluntary Commitments for the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 14. 2017. https://oceanconference.un.org/UN-follows-up-on-the-Ocean-Conference-Voluntary-

[4] Merino G, Manuel B, Fernandes JA, Mullon C, Cheung W, Trenkel V, Lam V. Estimating the economic loss of recent North Atlantic fisheries management. Progress in

[5] FAO. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. In: Opportunities and Challenges.

[6] Lee SG, Midani AR. National comprehensive approaches for rebuilding fisheries in South Korea. Marine Policy. 2013;**45**:156-162. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.12.010

[7] Zhang CI, Lim JH, Kwon Y, Kang HJ, Kim DH, Seo YI. The current status of west sea fisheries resources and utilization in the context of fishery management of Korea. Ocean

[8] Lee SG. The economics of rebuilding fisheries in Korea: National comprehensive approaches. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research. 2010;**2**:020-027.

Fisheries. 2012;**14**:174-185. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2012.00460.x

Oceanography. 2014;**129**:314-323. DOI: 10.1016/j.pocean.2014.04.022

http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1379499465\_Lee.pdf

Science. 2011;**68**:1343-1353. DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsr041

Commitments [Accessed: 16 October 2017]

and Coastal Management. 2014;**104**:493-505

Rome Italy: FAO; 2014

improve ecosystem status.

138 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
**Author details**

Sang-Go Lee

**References**

**Chapter 9**

**Provisional chapter**

**Evaluation of a White Seabass (***Atractoscion nobilis***)**

**Evaluation of a White Seabass (***Atractoscion nobilis***)**

The scientific knowledge and technologies needed to attempt marine stock enhancement have grown in recent decades, yet contributions of many enhancement programs to wild stocks generally remain low. Additionally, enhancement programs are often less effective than they could be in contributing to associated social, economic and management objectives due to exclusion of non-science factors in program planning. An independent evaluation of a White Seabass (*Atractoscion nobilis*) enhancement program in California highlighted advances and shortfalls in a 30-year old, publicly funded program. While the program advanced the knowledge of biology and culture of White Seabass, it contributed <1% of fish caught in the state's fisheries. Further, the social and economic impacts of the program remained unassessed despite the potential significance of these impacts. The review highlighted the importance of regular, independent reviews to help stock enhancement programs achieve progress in meeting goals, and for adaptive management. In general, the California White Seabass enhancement program's success in meeting goals was dependent upon the existence of clear, agreed-upon goals and objectives; appropriate levels of funding; internal organizational cooperation; evidence of public benefit and support; improved assessment strategies; and unified, transparent messaging. Lessons learned from this review are applicable to other stock enhancement efforts.

**Keywords:** finfish aquaculture, fisheries management, hatchery program, integrated management, Sciaenidae, stock enhancement, tag and recapture, White Seabass

> © 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.77310

**Enhancement Program in California**

Theresa Sinicrope Talley, Nina Venuti, Richard Starr

**Enhancement Program in California**

Theresa Sinicrope Talley, Nina Venuti, Richard Starr and Christopher Myrick

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.77310

and Christopher Myrick

**Abstract**

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

#### **Evaluation of a White Seabass (***Atractoscion nobilis***) Enhancement Program in California Evaluation of a White Seabass (***Atractoscion nobilis***) Enhancement Program in California**

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.77310

Theresa Sinicrope Talley, Nina Venuti, Richard Starr and Christopher Myrick Theresa Sinicrope Talley, Nina Venuti, Richard Starr and Christopher Myrick

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.77310

#### **Abstract**

The scientific knowledge and technologies needed to attempt marine stock enhancement have grown in recent decades, yet contributions of many enhancement programs to wild stocks generally remain low. Additionally, enhancement programs are often less effective than they could be in contributing to associated social, economic and management objectives due to exclusion of non-science factors in program planning. An independent evaluation of a White Seabass (*Atractoscion nobilis*) enhancement program in California highlighted advances and shortfalls in a 30-year old, publicly funded program. While the program advanced the knowledge of biology and culture of White Seabass, it contributed <1% of fish caught in the state's fisheries. Further, the social and economic impacts of the program remained unassessed despite the potential significance of these impacts. The review highlighted the importance of regular, independent reviews to help stock enhancement programs achieve progress in meeting goals, and for adaptive management. In general, the California White Seabass enhancement program's success in meeting goals was dependent upon the existence of clear, agreed-upon goals and objectives; appropriate levels of funding; internal organizational cooperation; evidence of public benefit and support; improved assessment strategies; and unified, transparent messaging. Lessons learned from this review are applicable to other stock enhancement efforts.

**Keywords:** finfish aquaculture, fisheries management, hatchery program, integrated management, Sciaenidae, stock enhancement, tag and recapture, White Seabass

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

#### **1. Introduction**

Marine stock enhancement holds promise for augmenting and strengthening resilience of recruitment-limited wild populations that are of recreational and commercial fishing interest. Enhancement effectiveness is not only dependent on the contributions to enhancement itself, which involves the production, release and survival of juveniles in the wild, but also on the contributions of the program to a variety of other biological, ecological, social, economic and management objectives surrounding the environment and the fishery [1–13]. The aquaculture and fisheries science needed to attempt enhancement, in particular the knowledge and technologies needed to breed, rear, tag, release, recapture and estimate the contributions of hatchery fish to wild populations, all exist to varying degrees for different taxa [5, 10]. However, the contributions of most enhancement programs to wild stocks remain variable and generally low [2, 5, 11, 14], indicating that there is much to be learned about applying the science. Further, enhancement programs' effectiveness in contributing to associated social, economic and management objectives tends to fall short due to the trade-offs involved in meeting varied program goals and a general lack of inclusion of these non-science factors in program planning [5, 8, 11, 12].

**1.** Develop and implement hatchery operation and growout methods that provide a supply

Evaluation of a White Seabass (*Atractoscion nobilis*) Enhancement Program in California

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.77310

143

**2.** Conduct the replenishment program in a manner that will avoid any significant environmental impacts resulting from operation of either the hatchery or pen rearing facilities. **3.** Maintain and assess a broodstock management plan that results in progeny being released

**4.** Quantify contributions to the standing stock in definitive terms by tagging fish prior to

**5.** Continue to develop, evaluate, and refine hatchery operations to maximize the potential

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) administers the OREHP with the assistance of the 10-member Ocean Resources Enhancement Advisory Panel (OREAP). The program is primarily funded by revenue from the federal Sport Fish Restoration Act and sales of California Sport Fishing Ocean Enhancement Stamps. The primary hatchery facility where OREHP activities take place is the Leon Raymond Hubbard, Jr. Marine Fish Hatchery in Carlsbad, California run by the Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute (HSWRI), the OREHP's primary contractor. As part of their OREHP contractual obligations, the primary contractor has developed the culture protocols required to raise White Seabass (*Atractoscion nobilis*) [17, 20] and has conducted research on culture protocols for other species, including California Halibut (*Paralichthys californicus*), California Yellowtail (*Seriola lalandi*), Giant Seabass (*Stereolepis gigas*) and California Sheephead (*Semicossyphus pulcher*) (see [21, 22]).

The OREHP is the longest-running experimental marine fish stock enhancement program in the United States, created in 1983. There were no formal assessments of the program until early 2015 when California Sea Grant (CASG), at the request of CDFW, began to coordinate a comprehensive review of the OREHP, including its progress in achieving its goals and objectives. With guidance from CDFW, CASG created a nine-member Science Advisory Committee (SAC), comprised of scientists from around the country, and tasked them with evaluating the program. The SAC, appointed by the CDFW Director, included members with demonstrated expertise in a wide variety of disciplines, including aquaculture, fish pathology, population dynamics, genetics, and water quality. Comprehensive and rigorous evaluations of marine enhancement programs are, in general, lacking, making this thorough and detailed evalua-

The SAC spent 2 years (2015–2017) conducting a review of the OREHP hatchery and enhancement operations. The purpose of the review was to assess the program's functionality and efficiency, environmental impacts, scientific accomplishments, economic costs and benefits,

that have genotypic diversity very similar to that of the wild population.

of healthy and vigorous fish.

release and assessing their survival in the field.

for achieving the goal of the program. **6.** Develop quantitative measures of success.

tion one of the first of its kind.

**2. Evaluation of the program**

Commonly missing is the application of a comprehensive (inter-sector) program framework that guides unbiased and well-informed decisions about the most appropriate tools and approaches to use given the place, time, species and other potentially complicated contexts surrounding enhancement [1, 6, 15]. Use of such an integrative framework could help with decisions about the application of science and technology and how best to integrate associated priorities. In particular, the program framework should include factors such as clear, broadly-agreed upon program goals and objectives; integration of stakeholder input and both fisheries and other management priorities; a plan to oversee, evaluate and adaptively manage the program; appropriate funding levels; coordination among program elements and partners, and; information to optimize biological and economic efficiency [5, 10, 11, 15, 16]. A recent evaluation of a marine finfish enhancement program in California highlighted this need to include periodic, comprehensive (inter-sector) reviews of an enhancement program's goals, objectives, and management plan, and provided recommendations for syncing the science with program-wide management [17].

The Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP) was established by the California State Legislature in 1983 to conduct a program of basic and applied research on the artificial propagation, rearing and stocking of important marine fish species occurring in ocean waters off southern California [18]. The current legislation focuses on determining "if hatchery-released fish can artificially enhance certain stocks of various desirable species, through increased hatchery production of fish and increased monitoring of fisheries to assess the contribution of hatchery-released fish to that enhancement" [18]. The ultimate goal of the OREHP has been "to enhance populations of marine finfish species important to California for their sport and commercial fishing value" [19].

The legislative intent was used to craft a primary goal for the OREHP, which is "to evaluate the economic and ecological feasibility of releasing hatchery-reared fish to restore depleted, native, marine fish populations to a higher, sustainable level" [19, 20]. The original objectives developed to achieve this OREHP primary goal were to:

**1. Introduction**

142 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

Marine stock enhancement holds promise for augmenting and strengthening resilience of recruitment-limited wild populations that are of recreational and commercial fishing interest. Enhancement effectiveness is not only dependent on the contributions to enhancement itself, which involves the production, release and survival of juveniles in the wild, but also on the contributions of the program to a variety of other biological, ecological, social, economic and management objectives surrounding the environment and the fishery [1–13]. The aquaculture and fisheries science needed to attempt enhancement, in particular the knowledge and technologies needed to breed, rear, tag, release, recapture and estimate the contributions of hatchery fish to wild populations, all exist to varying degrees for different taxa [5, 10]. However, the contributions of most enhancement programs to wild stocks remain variable and generally low [2, 5, 11, 14], indicating that there is much to be learned about applying the science. Further, enhancement programs' effectiveness in contributing to associated social, economic and management objectives tends to fall short due to the trade-offs involved in meeting varied program goals and a general lack of inclusion of these non-science factors in program planning [5, 8, 11, 12].

Commonly missing is the application of a comprehensive (inter-sector) program framework that guides unbiased and well-informed decisions about the most appropriate tools and approaches to use given the place, time, species and other potentially complicated contexts surrounding enhancement [1, 6, 15]. Use of such an integrative framework could help with decisions about the application of science and technology and how best to integrate associated priorities. In particular, the program framework should include factors such as clear, broadly-agreed upon program goals and objectives; integration of stakeholder input and both fisheries and other management priorities; a plan to oversee, evaluate and adaptively manage the program; appropriate funding levels; coordination among program elements and partners, and; information to optimize biological and economic efficiency [5, 10, 11, 15, 16]. A recent evaluation of a marine finfish enhancement program in California highlighted this need to include periodic, comprehensive (inter-sector) reviews of an enhancement program's goals, objectives, and management plan, and provided recommendations for syncing the science with program-wide management [17].

The Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP) was established by the California State Legislature in 1983 to conduct a program of basic and applied research on the artificial propagation, rearing and stocking of important marine fish species occurring in ocean waters off southern California [18]. The current legislation focuses on determining "if hatchery-released fish can artificially enhance certain stocks of various desirable species, through increased hatchery production of fish and increased monitoring of fisheries to assess the contribution of hatchery-released fish to that enhancement" [18]. The ultimate goal of the OREHP has been "to enhance populations of marine finfish species important to California

The legislative intent was used to craft a primary goal for the OREHP, which is "to evaluate the economic and ecological feasibility of releasing hatchery-reared fish to restore depleted, native, marine fish populations to a higher, sustainable level" [19, 20]. The original objectives

for their sport and commercial fishing value" [19].

developed to achieve this OREHP primary goal were to:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) administers the OREHP with the assistance of the 10-member Ocean Resources Enhancement Advisory Panel (OREAP). The program is primarily funded by revenue from the federal Sport Fish Restoration Act and sales of California Sport Fishing Ocean Enhancement Stamps. The primary hatchery facility where OREHP activities take place is the Leon Raymond Hubbard, Jr. Marine Fish Hatchery in Carlsbad, California run by the Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute (HSWRI), the OREHP's primary contractor. As part of their OREHP contractual obligations, the primary contractor has developed the culture protocols required to raise White Seabass (*Atractoscion nobilis*) [17, 20] and has conducted research on culture protocols for other species, including California Halibut (*Paralichthys californicus*), California Yellowtail (*Seriola lalandi*), Giant Seabass (*Stereolepis gigas*) and California Sheephead (*Semicossyphus pulcher*) (see [21, 22]).

The OREHP is the longest-running experimental marine fish stock enhancement program in the United States, created in 1983. There were no formal assessments of the program until early 2015 when California Sea Grant (CASG), at the request of CDFW, began to coordinate a comprehensive review of the OREHP, including its progress in achieving its goals and objectives. With guidance from CDFW, CASG created a nine-member Science Advisory Committee (SAC), comprised of scientists from around the country, and tasked them with evaluating the program. The SAC, appointed by the CDFW Director, included members with demonstrated expertise in a wide variety of disciplines, including aquaculture, fish pathology, population dynamics, genetics, and water quality. Comprehensive and rigorous evaluations of marine enhancement programs are, in general, lacking, making this thorough and detailed evaluation one of the first of its kind.

#### **2. Evaluation of the program**

The SAC spent 2 years (2015–2017) conducting a review of the OREHP hatchery and enhancement operations. The purpose of the review was to assess the program's functionality and efficiency, environmental impacts, scientific accomplishments, economic costs and benefits, and contribution to the wild White Seabass stocks [17]. The SAC reviewers also considered alternative hatchery uses.

interested public (Objectives 1 and 6). Further, there has been no evidence that the program has caused any adverse environmental impacts at the production levels to date (Objective 2). Other OREHP objectives, or aspects of objectives, were deemed to be unmet. The analysis of tag-recapture data revealed that hatchery fish suffer high mortality rates within the first few months following release (Objective 1) that likely limit contributions to fishery stock. Low post-release survival and fishery contribution rates likely stem from some combination of fish health and fitness challenges (e.g., effects of unresolved gas supersaturation issues, inconsistency in diagnosis and response to health findings, domestication effects; Objectives 1 and 4), and uncertainty about optimal release strategies (Objectives 1 and 4). While the maintenance of genotypic diversity (Objective 3) has not been sufficiently addressed throughout the program, the lack of significant hatchery contribution to the wild population has prevented any

Evaluation of a White Seabass (*Atractoscion nobilis*) Enhancement Program in California

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.77310

145

adverse genetic effects to the wild population (e.g., the Ryman-Laikre effect) [26, 27].

The review revealed that the operating budget needed to achieve all aspects of the OREHP objectives exceeded the base funding level of approximately \$1.6 million per year that had been available for the program. With inadequate funding, the OREHP objectives suffered. Restricted funding reduced or limited several OREHP capabilities, including the ability to exchange broodstock at rates needed to ensure adequate genetic diversity in released fish (Objectives 1 and 3), provide stricter oversight of volunteer-run growout facilities (Objective 1), address reoccurring gas supersaturation issues (Objective 1), consistently and extensively perform and address challenges related to recapture surveys (Objective 4), and perform fisheries enhancement modeling (Objective 4). Limited resources also likely prevented the initiation of a genetic monitoring program (Objective 3) and (socio-) economic assessments (Objective 5 and 6). The primary OREHP contractor contributed in excess of \$400,000 annually to meet operational expenses that were at least in part related to the OREHP, and sought grants and both monetary and in-kind contributions from a mix of private and government sources to make infrastructure repairs and improvements to the hatchery facility, to get assistance with White Seabass collections, and to operate the volunteer-run growout facilities [28]; the contractor also brought in external funds to cover research and outreach efforts that were related

While the scientific and aquaculture advancements of the enhancement program have had worldwide impacts, the negligible (<1%) contributions of hatchery fish to fishery stocks revealed that there is still much to learn about applying the science, given the conditions and uncertainties under which the program operates (e.g., inadequate funding, uncertainty about the causes of post-release mortality and the drivers of White Seabass population change). Insufficient funds to support the dual objectives of research and actual enhancement, as well as a lack of consensus about which of the two objectives was the higher priority, likely contributed to the shortfalls in meeting program objectives. Decisions about research priorities, integration of aspects of the program with other social and fisheries

**2.3. Budget conclusions**

to, but not part of, the OREHP.

**2.4. Lessons from the program evaluation**

#### **2.1. Fulfillment of the ultimate program goal: enhancement of marine fish stocks**

The review concluded that the OREHP met the intent of the program laid out by the California State Legislature to conduct basic and applied research on the propagation, rearing, stocking, and distribution of an important marine fish, White Seabass [18]. In 1983, little was known about the techniques needed to successfully spawn, rear, and release saltwater fishes [9]. Since then, the OREHP has significantly contributed to the world's knowledge about marine enhancement science and techniques (see Chapter 6.3 in [17]). However, the review also found that White Seabass enhancement had not been effective to date, and thereby the program had not fulfilled its ultimate goal.

An analysis conducted for the review [17] using tag-recapture data generated by the OREHP between 2000 and 2011 [23] indicated that the program made a less than 1% contribution to the California White Seabass fishery due to high levels of mortality suffered by hatchery-reared White Seabass following release into the wild. According to the analysis, if mortality rates of released hatchery fish were reduced to equal those of wild White Seabass, then current stocking rates could result in a hatchery contribution of 18% instead of <1% of the total fishery catch [17]. Therefore, in order to achieve fisheries enhancement, the approaches and technologies developed for White Seabass would require further development aimed at reducing post-release mortality, including the related recommendations made throughout the evaluation report.

It should also be noted that, whereas the White Seabass stock was considered to be depleted when the OREHP was initiated and White Seabass was chosen as the program's focal species, the stock has since increased, likely due to a combination of high recruitment related to favorable environmental conditions and fisheries management measures (e.g., closure of the coastal gill net fishery) [24], and then decreased again, likely due in part to unfavorable environmental conditions [25].

#### **2.2. Fulfillment of the six OREHP objectives**

The review [17] concluded that several of the six OREHP objectives had been partially or fully met. The biggest achievements of the OREHP have been its contributions to research discoveries surrounding the biology and culture of all life stages of White Seabass (Objective 6) and the transferability of those discoveries to other marine finfish species. Other notable successes include the development of appropriate hatchery (Objective 1) and tagging methods (Objective 4) for White Seabass, and the constant improvements in hatchery practices that have been made over the years (Objectives 1 and 5). Through its program of releases of tagged fish, and fisheries-independent and dependent monitoring of released fish, the OREHP had successfully collected enough data to evaluate the post-release survival of hatchery fish and the contribution of hatchery fish to the White Seabass fishery (Objective 4), both of which were determined to be low. Substantial engagement and outreach regarding White Seabass life history and culture has been conducted to the sportfishing community, K-12 students, and members of the interested public (Objectives 1 and 6). Further, there has been no evidence that the program has caused any adverse environmental impacts at the production levels to date (Objective 2).

Other OREHP objectives, or aspects of objectives, were deemed to be unmet. The analysis of tag-recapture data revealed that hatchery fish suffer high mortality rates within the first few months following release (Objective 1) that likely limit contributions to fishery stock. Low post-release survival and fishery contribution rates likely stem from some combination of fish health and fitness challenges (e.g., effects of unresolved gas supersaturation issues, inconsistency in diagnosis and response to health findings, domestication effects; Objectives 1 and 4), and uncertainty about optimal release strategies (Objectives 1 and 4). While the maintenance of genotypic diversity (Objective 3) has not been sufficiently addressed throughout the program, the lack of significant hatchery contribution to the wild population has prevented any adverse genetic effects to the wild population (e.g., the Ryman-Laikre effect) [26, 27].

#### **2.3. Budget conclusions**

and contribution to the wild White Seabass stocks [17]. The SAC reviewers also considered

The review concluded that the OREHP met the intent of the program laid out by the California State Legislature to conduct basic and applied research on the propagation, rearing, stocking, and distribution of an important marine fish, White Seabass [18]. In 1983, little was known about the techniques needed to successfully spawn, rear, and release saltwater fishes [9]. Since then, the OREHP has significantly contributed to the world's knowledge about marine enhancement science and techniques (see Chapter 6.3 in [17]). However, the review also found that White Seabass enhancement had not been effective to date, and thereby the program had

An analysis conducted for the review [17] using tag-recapture data generated by the OREHP between 2000 and 2011 [23] indicated that the program made a less than 1% contribution to the California White Seabass fishery due to high levels of mortality suffered by hatchery-reared White Seabass following release into the wild. According to the analysis, if mortality rates of released hatchery fish were reduced to equal those of wild White Seabass, then current stocking rates could result in a hatchery contribution of 18% instead of <1% of the total fishery catch [17]. Therefore, in order to achieve fisheries enhancement, the approaches and technologies developed for White Seabass would require further development aimed at reducing post-release mortality, including the related recommendations made throughout the evaluation report.

It should also be noted that, whereas the White Seabass stock was considered to be depleted when the OREHP was initiated and White Seabass was chosen as the program's focal species, the stock has since increased, likely due to a combination of high recruitment related to favorable environmental conditions and fisheries management measures (e.g., closure of the coastal gill net fishery) [24], and then decreased again, likely due in part to unfavorable

The review [17] concluded that several of the six OREHP objectives had been partially or fully met. The biggest achievements of the OREHP have been its contributions to research discoveries surrounding the biology and culture of all life stages of White Seabass (Objective 6) and the transferability of those discoveries to other marine finfish species. Other notable successes include the development of appropriate hatchery (Objective 1) and tagging methods (Objective 4) for White Seabass, and the constant improvements in hatchery practices that have been made over the years (Objectives 1 and 5). Through its program of releases of tagged fish, and fisheries-independent and dependent monitoring of released fish, the OREHP had successfully collected enough data to evaluate the post-release survival of hatchery fish and the contribution of hatchery fish to the White Seabass fishery (Objective 4), both of which were determined to be low. Substantial engagement and outreach regarding White Seabass life history and culture has been conducted to the sportfishing community, K-12 students, and members of the

**2.1. Fulfillment of the ultimate program goal: enhancement of marine fish stocks**

alternative hatchery uses.

144 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

not fulfilled its ultimate goal.

environmental conditions [25].

**2.2. Fulfillment of the six OREHP objectives**

The review revealed that the operating budget needed to achieve all aspects of the OREHP objectives exceeded the base funding level of approximately \$1.6 million per year that had been available for the program. With inadequate funding, the OREHP objectives suffered. Restricted funding reduced or limited several OREHP capabilities, including the ability to exchange broodstock at rates needed to ensure adequate genetic diversity in released fish (Objectives 1 and 3), provide stricter oversight of volunteer-run growout facilities (Objective 1), address reoccurring gas supersaturation issues (Objective 1), consistently and extensively perform and address challenges related to recapture surveys (Objective 4), and perform fisheries enhancement modeling (Objective 4). Limited resources also likely prevented the initiation of a genetic monitoring program (Objective 3) and (socio-) economic assessments (Objective 5 and 6). The primary OREHP contractor contributed in excess of \$400,000 annually to meet operational expenses that were at least in part related to the OREHP, and sought grants and both monetary and in-kind contributions from a mix of private and government sources to make infrastructure repairs and improvements to the hatchery facility, to get assistance with White Seabass collections, and to operate the volunteer-run growout facilities [28]; the contractor also brought in external funds to cover research and outreach efforts that were related to, but not part of, the OREHP.

#### **2.4. Lessons from the program evaluation**

While the scientific and aquaculture advancements of the enhancement program have had worldwide impacts, the negligible (<1%) contributions of hatchery fish to fishery stocks revealed that there is still much to learn about applying the science, given the conditions and uncertainties under which the program operates (e.g., inadequate funding, uncertainty about the causes of post-release mortality and the drivers of White Seabass population change). Insufficient funds to support the dual objectives of research and actual enhancement, as well as a lack of consensus about which of the two objectives was the higher priority, likely contributed to the shortfalls in meeting program objectives. Decisions about research priorities, integration of aspects of the program with other social and fisheries management priorities, and funding requirements and levels need to be made in a comprehensive, program-wide, coordinated fashion.

The main concern about deformity that emerged during the review was the difference in opinions between the pathologists working for CDFW and those working for the primary contractor regarding the definition of deformed fish, and the implications of the range of morphological variability found in hatchery fish for vigor and fitness. These differences in opinion catalyzed a large public relations problem and inhibited smooth operations at the Carlsbad hatchery, thereby resulting in reduced juvenile production due to diversion of resources and delays in decisions about health diagnoses and appropriate responses. Further, differences in opinion, and therefore the outcome of diagnoses and actions taken, may have ultimately affected release numbers and post-release survival. Although risk of introduction of disease or unwanted genetic characteristics to the wild fish population via deformed fish is low due to the low likelihood that deformities are linked with disease or genetics, it is critical to have consistent decision-making criteria and to set appropriate policy for dealing with malformed fish so the OREHP can meet its objective of producing healthy and vigorous fish. The review strongly recommended that CDFW and the primary contactor engage an independent panel

Evaluation of a White Seabass (*Atractoscion nobilis*) Enhancement Program in California

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.77310

147

of experts that would be charged with the following:

to wild populations.

contractor's staff agree upon.

*3.2.2. Science and technical advice*

clearer guidance to OREHP staff and researchers.

**3.3. Need to strengthen public communication and transparency**

**1.** Compare the morphological diversity of wild fish with that of hatchery fish.

**3.** Determine which morphologies cause a measurable loss in post-release fitness.

**5.** Develop approaches that minimize frequencies and levels of deformities.

**2.** Determine which unique hatchery morphologies pose a genetic or other biological threat

**4.** Develop a set of criteria and protocols for identifying and responding to fish that have unacceptable phenotypes and/or levels of deformity that both CDFW and the primary

The review [17] strongly recommended that CDFW periodically enlist an independent external group of science and technical experts to work with CDFW and stakeholders to develop, and later to help evaluate, a set of quantitative criteria, benchmarks, and timelines for each of the established OREHP objectives. The review presented assessment topics within each OREHP objective that guided determinations about the extent to which each objective had successfully been met. However, needed is the further development of a set of more focused, clear, feasible, and occasionally updated metrics (e.g., see Chapter 6 in [17]) that would allow for more efficient, and more frequent, assessments of the program, and that would provide

Throughout the program's life, the primary contractor has taken the lead on public outreach, stakeholder engagement, and public relations for the OREHP without provision of communications and development professionals, or adequate resources to support this task. This responsibility taxed the contractor's already limited resources for the OREHP and added the stress of

### **3. Program level recommendations**

Although the review [17] did not include a comprehensive review of OREHP management processes, it recommended that the organizational structure of those groups overseeing the OREHP be updated to better achieve program goals and objectives. The review also highlighted several program-level weaknesses and made recommendations for strengthening the OREHP.

#### **3.1. Need to strengthen and update the program organizational structure**

The ultimate authority for many programmatic decisions within the OREHP was unclear. It was deemed necessary to clarify, for example, who had the authority to make decisions relating to research priorities and issues that influence hatchery operations and scientific research, or issues that put these two things into conflict with one another. Part of this uncertainty was caused by the OREHP's dual focus on production and research, two activities which can be very different and for which there were limited resources. Additional uncertainty may have been due to "mission creep"— the change in the internal interpretation and communication of OREHP intent, goals and objectives through time, and in the absence of periodic program reviews.

The review [17] noted that the program's advisory panel (OREAP) had not been as effective or valuable as it could have been, and that CDFW should reconsider how to best utilize an advisory panel. The current OREAP does not include representatives from all of the groups detailed in the original legislation, as some of these groups no longer exist or have changed focus. It was recommended that CDFW restructure and reconstitute the OREAP, and, in addition, create an independent science and technical advisory group with expertise in hatchery science (and associated issues, such as fish health), population dynamics, release and recapture strategy optimization, and genetics to help develop and evaluate quantitative criteria, benchmarks, and timelines to be used in future, regular evaluations of the program.

#### **3.2. Need for external, independent guidance**

#### *3.2.1. Fish health guidance*

The OREHP voluntarily has one of the most rigorous fish malformation, or deformity, assessment protocols of any of the stocking and supplementation programs in the U.S. (see Chapter 1.9.1 in [17]). The deformity level of hatchery-raised White Seabass, as with many other cultured fish, is generally of little concern because the deformities are typically thought to be linked to environmental factors, such as nutrition, water temperature and water quality, and therefore pose little risk to wild fish [17, 29–31]. Deformities in yet other cultured fish have, however, been shown to have low to sometimes moderate heritability [32–35]; because the OREHP is charged with research, the monitoring of physical anomalies informs the program's scientific research (see Chapter 1.9.1 in [17]) and provides a better general understanding of the underlying causes and effects of deformities.

The main concern about deformity that emerged during the review was the difference in opinions between the pathologists working for CDFW and those working for the primary contractor regarding the definition of deformed fish, and the implications of the range of morphological variability found in hatchery fish for vigor and fitness. These differences in opinion catalyzed a large public relations problem and inhibited smooth operations at the Carlsbad hatchery, thereby resulting in reduced juvenile production due to diversion of resources and delays in decisions about health diagnoses and appropriate responses. Further, differences in opinion, and therefore the outcome of diagnoses and actions taken, may have ultimately affected release numbers and post-release survival. Although risk of introduction of disease or unwanted genetic characteristics to the wild fish population via deformed fish is low due to the low likelihood that deformities are linked with disease or genetics, it is critical to have consistent decision-making criteria and to set appropriate policy for dealing with malformed fish so the OREHP can meet its objective of producing healthy and vigorous fish. The review strongly recommended that CDFW and the primary contactor engage an independent panel of experts that would be charged with the following:

#### *3.2.2. Science and technical advice*

management priorities, and funding requirements and levels need to be made in a compre-

Although the review [17] did not include a comprehensive review of OREHP management processes, it recommended that the organizational structure of those groups overseeing the OREHP be updated to better achieve program goals and objectives. The review also highlighted several program-level weaknesses and made recommendations for strengthening the OREHP.

The ultimate authority for many programmatic decisions within the OREHP was unclear. It was deemed necessary to clarify, for example, who had the authority to make decisions relating to research priorities and issues that influence hatchery operations and scientific research, or issues that put these two things into conflict with one another. Part of this uncertainty was caused by the OREHP's dual focus on production and research, two activities which can be very different and for which there were limited resources. Additional uncertainty may have been due to "mission creep"— the change in the internal interpretation and communication of OREHP intent,

The review [17] noted that the program's advisory panel (OREAP) had not been as effective or valuable as it could have been, and that CDFW should reconsider how to best utilize an advisory panel. The current OREAP does not include representatives from all of the groups detailed in the original legislation, as some of these groups no longer exist or have changed focus. It was recommended that CDFW restructure and reconstitute the OREAP, and, in addition, create an independent science and technical advisory group with expertise in hatchery science (and associated issues, such as fish health), population dynamics, release and recapture strategy optimization, and genetics to help develop and evaluate quantitative criteria,

**3.1. Need to strengthen and update the program organizational structure**

goals and objectives through time, and in the absence of periodic program reviews.

benchmarks, and timelines to be used in future, regular evaluations of the program.

The OREHP voluntarily has one of the most rigorous fish malformation, or deformity, assessment protocols of any of the stocking and supplementation programs in the U.S. (see Chapter 1.9.1 in [17]). The deformity level of hatchery-raised White Seabass, as with many other cultured fish, is generally of little concern because the deformities are typically thought to be linked to environmental factors, such as nutrition, water temperature and water quality, and therefore pose little risk to wild fish [17, 29–31]. Deformities in yet other cultured fish have, however, been shown to have low to sometimes moderate heritability [32–35]; because the OREHP is charged with research, the monitoring of physical anomalies informs the program's scientific research (see Chapter 1.9.1 in [17]) and provides a better general understanding of

hensive, program-wide, coordinated fashion.

146 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

**3. Program level recommendations**

**3.2. Need for external, independent guidance**

the underlying causes and effects of deformities.

*3.2.1. Fish health guidance*

The review [17] strongly recommended that CDFW periodically enlist an independent external group of science and technical experts to work with CDFW and stakeholders to develop, and later to help evaluate, a set of quantitative criteria, benchmarks, and timelines for each of the established OREHP objectives. The review presented assessment topics within each OREHP objective that guided determinations about the extent to which each objective had successfully been met. However, needed is the further development of a set of more focused, clear, feasible, and occasionally updated metrics (e.g., see Chapter 6 in [17]) that would allow for more efficient, and more frequent, assessments of the program, and that would provide clearer guidance to OREHP staff and researchers.

#### **3.3. Need to strengthen public communication and transparency**

Throughout the program's life, the primary contractor has taken the lead on public outreach, stakeholder engagement, and public relations for the OREHP without provision of communications and development professionals, or adequate resources to support this task. This responsibility taxed the contractor's already limited resources for the OREHP and added the stress of public scrutiny. The reviewers occasionally had to dig deeply to find information needed to assess the status of various aspects of the OREHP and noticed the presence of potentially confusing statistics about various aspects of the program in reports and non-peer reviewed publications (e.g., newsletters). The review recommended that the primary contractor and CDFW make greater efforts to keep information about the OREHP openly available to each other and to the public, and to improve consistency and transparency of outcomes and incidences, particularly for issues of public interest (e.g., contribution of the program to wild stocks, recapture rates of tagged fish in gill nets, incidences of disease and deformity, occasional accidents or die-offs, costs and benefits of the program, etc.). Improved transparency may include the development of a process that allows communication with a broad range of stakeholders, including those not already associated with the program, to collect input regarding priorities and development of the program. Further, the review recommended that CDFW assist more with this duty, or find and support knowledgeable public communications professionals to help.

#### **4. The future of the program: review and reform**

The evaluation of the OREHP objectives, goals, intent and budget indicated that 30 years was too long for the relevant authorities and stakeholders to wait to review and reevaluate the overall focus and strategy of the program. The evaluation showed that, while the research and technology development objectives of the program have largely been met, the program is not currently in a position to substantially enhance the White Seabass fishery due to a variety of factors, including high post-release mortality of juvenile White Seabass. Further, the California White Seabass stock, which is estimated to have been very low when the OREHP was established and White Seabass was chosen as its focal species, has cycled through a higher level of abundance and is again in decline [25]. Additionally, White Seabass proved to be a difficult species to use in enhancement, in part due to its lack of site fidelity and long, oceanic dispersal distances and distributions outside of U.S. waters. These factors, together with changes in the status and management of other California stocks, and increased understanding of the potentials and limitations of stock enhancement to contribute to fisheries management outcomes (e.g., see [11, 15]), suggested that it is timely to reassess the program's utility, and to review and reform the program's priorities and the approaches used to fulfill each of the program's objectives.

Responsible Approach to Marine Fisheries Enhancement [6] and in the Hatchery Reform processes implemented for several salmon hatchery programs in the Pacific Northwest [36]. Scientific methods, such as fisheries models used to assess the potential effectiveness of stock enhancement and other fisheries management measures in achieving desired fisheries management outcomes, enable a systematic approach to the planning of enhancement programs. Stakeholders, principally recreational and commercial fishermen, have played a major role in the operation and funding (through license fees) of the OREHP. The program review suggested that it is therefore imperative to involve stakeholders systematically and constructively, and to use current scientific information in making the following decisions about the

**Figure 1.** Flow chart of decisions and actions resulting from the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program

Evaluation of a White Seabass (*Atractoscion nobilis*) Enhancement Program in California

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.77310

149

The OREHP review indicated that the list of candidate species, including White Seabass, that was identified by CDFW and the primary contractor for use during the review should be honed using analysis of the biological, economic and social costs and benefits of utilizing an

**4.2. Step 2: assess the potential role of enhancement in California fisheries**

program's future direction [17].

**management**

(OREHP) evaluation.

The review [17] outlined the following five steps (4.1–4.5) for assessing the future of the OREHP (**Figure 1**), noting that these recommendations were made without consideration of cost and thus would need to be evaluated with respect to program priorities and levels of available funding.

#### **4.1. Step 1: conduct a science-based and participatory public process**

The OREHP review indicated that the future of the program should be determined through a process that is both science-based and participatory with respect to the program's stakeholders (**Figure 1**) (e.g., see [4]). Overall guidance for such a process can be found in the Updated

public scrutiny. The reviewers occasionally had to dig deeply to find information needed to assess the status of various aspects of the OREHP and noticed the presence of potentially confusing statistics about various aspects of the program in reports and non-peer reviewed publications (e.g., newsletters). The review recommended that the primary contractor and CDFW make greater efforts to keep information about the OREHP openly available to each other and to the public, and to improve consistency and transparency of outcomes and incidences, particularly for issues of public interest (e.g., contribution of the program to wild stocks, recapture rates of tagged fish in gill nets, incidences of disease and deformity, occasional accidents or die-offs, costs and benefits of the program, etc.). Improved transparency may include the development of a process that allows communication with a broad range of stakeholders, including those not already associated with the program, to collect input regarding priorities and development of the program. Further, the review recommended that CDFW assist more with this

duty, or find and support knowledgeable public communications professionals to help.

The evaluation of the OREHP objectives, goals, intent and budget indicated that 30 years was too long for the relevant authorities and stakeholders to wait to review and reevaluate the overall focus and strategy of the program. The evaluation showed that, while the research and technology development objectives of the program have largely been met, the program is not currently in a position to substantially enhance the White Seabass fishery due to a variety of factors, including high post-release mortality of juvenile White Seabass. Further, the California White Seabass stock, which is estimated to have been very low when the OREHP was established and White Seabass was chosen as its focal species, has cycled through a higher level of abundance and is again in decline [25]. Additionally, White Seabass proved to be a difficult species to use in enhancement, in part due to its lack of site fidelity and long, oceanic dispersal distances and distributions outside of U.S. waters. These factors, together with changes in the status and management of other California stocks, and increased understanding of the potentials and limitations of stock enhancement to contribute to fisheries management outcomes (e.g., see [11, 15]), suggested that it is timely to reassess the program's utility, and to review and reform the program's priorities and the approaches used to fulfill each of

The review [17] outlined the following five steps (4.1–4.5) for assessing the future of the OREHP (**Figure 1**), noting that these recommendations were made without consideration of cost and thus would need to be evaluated with respect to program priorities and levels of

The OREHP review indicated that the future of the program should be determined through a process that is both science-based and participatory with respect to the program's stakeholders (**Figure 1**) (e.g., see [4]). Overall guidance for such a process can be found in the Updated

**4.1. Step 1: conduct a science-based and participatory public process**

**4. The future of the program: review and reform**

148 Wildlife Management - Failures, Successes and Prospects

the program's objectives.

available funding.

**Figure 1.** Flow chart of decisions and actions resulting from the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP) evaluation.

Responsible Approach to Marine Fisheries Enhancement [6] and in the Hatchery Reform processes implemented for several salmon hatchery programs in the Pacific Northwest [36]. Scientific methods, such as fisheries models used to assess the potential effectiveness of stock enhancement and other fisheries management measures in achieving desired fisheries management outcomes, enable a systematic approach to the planning of enhancement programs. Stakeholders, principally recreational and commercial fishermen, have played a major role in the operation and funding (through license fees) of the OREHP. The program review suggested that it is therefore imperative to involve stakeholders systematically and constructively, and to use current scientific information in making the following decisions about the program's future direction [17].

#### **4.2. Step 2: assess the potential role of enhancement in California fisheries management**

The OREHP review indicated that the list of candidate species, including White Seabass, that was identified by CDFW and the primary contractor for use during the review should be honed using analysis of the biological, economic and social costs and benefits of utilizing an enhancement program as compared to relying solely on (non-OREHP) fishery management strategies (e.g., updating catch quotas and/or size limits) to conserve and manage each of the species (**Figure 1A**). If the analysis indicates that conventional fishery management strategies alone may be sufficient for the conservation and management of most candidate species, then discontinuation of the program should be considered as one option, if legislatively feasible. If some stocks are deemed to be extremely low (i.e., severely depleted), and/or if responses to conventional fishery management actions alone are predicted to be ineffective, then further development or modification of the enhancement program should be considered, and funding adjusted to enable the program to meet its objectives. The candidate species list put forward by CDFW and the primary contractor was generally supported by the review committee, with California Halibut of particular interest for inclusion in this initial assessment given the available information on its biology, ecology, and culture practices, its depressed populations [37], and the high recreational and commercial fishing demand.

broodstock), and other logistical considerations. An independent advisory panel should be used for guidance on planning of the phasing and the development and initiation of a new

Evaluation of a White Seabass (*Atractoscion nobilis*) Enhancement Program in California

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.77310

151

The results of the program evaluation stress the importance of minimizing post-release mortality of hatchery White Seabass to increase the potential of the enhancement program. The same need would likely exist for new focal species that might be chosen for enhancement. Greater emphasis should therefore be placed within the program on research of factors that affect post-release mortality, and on husbandry and release strategies that minimize this mortality (**Figure 1B**) (e.g., see [39–42]). This focus may require increased funding to the program in order to fulfill a commitment to understanding, and subsequently reducing short-term (e.g., 6 month) post-release mortality rates. Increasing production to compensate for high mortality rates is not recommended because of the increased expenses, increased infrastructural and resource needs (e.g., staff time, supplies), and increased risk of fish health issues that

In particular, to improve survival and stock contribution rates, greater attention should be

**2.** Resolution of fish health challenges (e.g., resolving gas supersaturation and its health effects, understanding effects of deformity types and severity on fitness, consistency in diag-

**3.** Continued improvements to placement and oversight of growout facilities (Objective 1).

**4.** More research focused on optimizing release strategies such as timing, size, location and

**5.** More effort on post-release monitoring needed to optimize release strategies and estimate

**6.** Greater integration with fishery management to understand relationships between en-

If White Seabass production is increased or if there is a change in focal species, however, potential environmental impacts associated with these changes should be reassessed (Objective 2), and monitoring efforts should be modified appropriately to account for higher production

If survival rates increase, improved genetic practices and monitoring should also be implemented in order to address the potential genetic effects associated with enhancement (e.g., the Ryman-Laikre effect [26, 27]), which to date have not been an issue because of the extremely

levels and/or different impacts depending upon system changes (all Objectives).

**4.4. Step 4: focus future White Seabass enhancement on reducing post-release**

enhancement program (**Figure 1C**).

would be associated with higher production rates.

nosis and response to health findings; Objective 1).

hancement efforts and wild populations/fisheries (Objective 4).

magnitude of releases (Objectives 1 and 4).

**1.** Domestication issues (Objective 1).

recapture rates (Objective 4).

**mortality**

given to:

#### **4.3. Step 3: prioritize candidate focal species by enhancement potential**

The OREHP review recommended that if the initial assessment of the value of enhancement in relation to other fishery management strategies indicates that the program could likely contribute to some of the candidate species' stocks, then those species remaining on the candidate list should be prioritized. Specifically, an *a priori* systematic and quantitative assessment of each candidate species (**Figure 1A**) (e.g., see [13, 38]) should be conducted in cooperation with an independent advisory committee and should include input from a broad range of stakeholders, consideration of economic and social costs and benefits, and more consideration of fit with fisheries management strategies (e.g., see [11]). Criteria should include depressed stock numbers (e.g., consistently low enough to offset genetic risks associated with enhancement), ease of culture, life history that is amendable to rearing, tracking and enhancement (e.g., relatively high growth rates, not highly dispersive), geographic range that can be feasibly sampled (e.g., most common in U.S. waters), availability of existing biological information, and high demand and value within commercial and recreational fishing industries and throughout the food supply chain (see Chapter 6.5.3 in [17]). Clearly, the findings of the economic, social and ecological (e.g., environmental, genetic and population-level) trade-offs analyses used to narrow the candidate species list may be used to inform this process.