Working Group on Management Considerations

Terms of Reference and Topics for Discussion

Given the current status of west coast groundfish populations and our methods and abilities to manage these resources, this group was asked to consider the following issues and questions in their discussions of refugia for rockfish management:

1. Status and prospects for the current management framework
A. Are rockfish stocks being depleted?
B. What are the shortcomings of existing management for rockfishes?
C. Is sustainable management of rockfish resources possible?

2. What are our options for improved management of these resources?
A. How can current management measures be revised to increase conservation of groundfish assemblages and to rebuild stocks?
B. Over what time span must we act? Which options are the most effective while easiest to implement?

3. Is there a need for marine harvest refugia to manage and conserve rockfish populations?
A. What are the benefits?
B. What can we expect from marine harvest refugia?


Participants:
Alec MacCall, Chair (NMFS, Tiburon Laboratory, Groundfish Analysis Branch)
Tory O'Connell, Rapporteur (State of Alaska, Groundfish Management)
George Boehlert (NMFS, Pacific Fisheries Environmental Laboratory)
Don Gunderson (University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute)
Bob Lea (California Department of Fish and Game)
Dave Mackett (NMFS, Southwest Fishery Science Center)
Marc Mangel (University of California, Santa Cruz; Dept. Environmental Studies and Institute of Marine Sciences)
Rod McInnis (NMFS, Southwest Region)
Sung Kwon Soh (University of Washington, School of Fisheries)
Larry Six (Pacific Fisheries Management Council)
Jim Thomas (NMFS, Office of Habitat Protection)
Cindy Thomson (NMFS, Southwest Fishery Science Center)

The management working group limited their discussion to the implications of marine refugia to fisheries management of rockfishes, while acknowledging that there are other justifications for no-take areas unrelated to commercial and recreational fisheries.

Rockfishes are vulnerable to overharvest, particularly because of the following life history characteristics:

-low mobility of adults
-extreme longevity (up to 140 years in age)
-low natural mortality
-infrequent recruitment success
-low productivity/biomass
-habitat specificity
-limited knowledge for many species

There is a dearth of scientific knowledge of stocks and life histories for many of the 72 species of rockfishes that occur in the Northeast Pacific. The mechanisms associated with recruitment and year-class-strength, in particular, are not well understood. This lack of knowledge is a persistent and unavoidable characteristic of these resources and is unlikely to be resolved even with greatly increased research efforts.

Traditional fishery analyses and management have performed poorly in protecting the sustainability of these resources. There are at least two unsolved management problems. First, currently we have no effective management practices to deal with the interdecadal variability in recruitment of most rockfish populations. Second, assemblage management may be required for numerous co-occurring species of rockfishes, but this can result both in the weakest (i.e., lowest productivity rate) species in the assemblage being seriously depleted and in serial overfishing.

Benefits. Considering these life history characteristics and limitations in management that are symptomatic of rockfish populations, several benefits of harvest refugia were identified. The biological benefits of refugia that are expected by scientists and managers include:

-maintenance of longevity and genetic diversity by reducing the effects of fishery selection
-complete protection for a portion of the population
-increased habitat and biological diversity
-de facto protection of other groundfish species
-a control area for monitoring demographic and ecological trends
-decreased uncertainty in stock assessments, and
-insurance or a hedge against uncertainty in management

Considering the fishermen's expectations, harvest refugia might offer a way to reduce bycatch problems, as well as improve fishery yields. Improved fishery yields does not necessarily mean increased yields, but rather could be indicated by reduced variability of harvests, larger average size of fishes, etc. Refugia also provide insurance or a hedge against uncertainty in management, and could improve the public image of the fishing industry.

Costs and Risks. There are a number of costs and risks involved in establishing harvest refugia or no-take areas, and there are few opportunities to learn from other's experience as this is a new management technique. Refugia may confound fishery stock assessments, given the current assessment techniques. For example, "leakage" of older fish from the protected area into the non-protected areas may distort catch-age composition, causing errors in standard age-based fisheries analyses. Rockfish refugia may increase fishing effort in open areas, which could negatively affect other open-area fisheries. Fishermen likely will expect a reduction in traditional regulations in trade for no-take areas. While refugia could actually reduce maximum yields under many scenarios, this outcome could be compensated to an even greater extent by reduction in the risk of overfishing.

There is always the risk of making hollow promises when offering harvest refugia as a management tool. A realistic payoff scenario should be established, including how soon to expect benefits and at what level of benefit. Evaluating the success and benefits of the refugia will be difficult. Optimal locations may change over time. Appropriate sizes of refugia need to be determined. A schedule to evaluate the effectiveness of the refuge should be established.

Identifying specific sites for rockfish refugia focuses attention on locations of prime habitat. This could result in increased harvest in these locations if the refugia are not implemented. A related concern is that the no-take areas, once established, will attract illegal fishing. This type of risk possibly can be reduced by assignment of property rights, which would encourage fishermen to take a personal interest in the protection of the refuge. Natural predators, such as sea lions, may also be attracted to increased resources, resulting in increased natural mortality rate of fishes inside the refuge.

Evaluating the effectiveness of refugia may require expensive monitoring programs. Enforcement of no-take areas will be difficult and will require additional costs; a feasible plan of enforcement should be developed early in the process. Vessel-tracking-systems (VTS) are an attractive aid to enforcement, but their establishment and cost of output monitoring need to be determined. Establishing and monitoring refugia for management purposes requires large upfront and ongoing costs, potentially with little measure of pay off.

Management Problems And Refugia As A Solution. This working group identified key management problems and the likelihood that harvest refugia would be an effective management tool to solve them, recognizing that there are both strategic and tactical solutions to some problems. The following scores were used:
0 = refugia are not effective
1 = refugia have potential, but the solution depends on other management actions as well
2 = refugia are promising
3 = refugia are "The Answer"

Problem

Score

Bycatch and discard  
  Tactical: reduce bycatch in specific areas  2
  Strategic: protect enough of the stock so bycatch outside refuge doesn't matter  1
Rare successful recruitment events and low natural mortality  2
Assemblage management and lack of information  2-3
Habitat degradation and gear effects  
  Tactical: offers an opportunity to recover 3
  Strategic: may cause overfishing in open areas  1-2
Recruitment Overfishing 2
Localized depletion and spatial distribution of harvest  
  Tactical: 2 
  Strategic:  0-1
No baseline data for stock assessments  2-3
Need to separate environmental variables from fishery effects  2-3


Recommendations

Management. There was considerable discussion about new provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (M-SFCMA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. Language under Section 303 in the M-SFCMA gives the Fishery Management Councils the authority to implement marine harvest refugia as part of a fisheries management plan. Marine harvest refugia are one of the few constructive ways to address protection and conservation of essential fish habitat and the implementation of ecosystem principles in fisheries management.

The working group made the following recommendation regarding the establishment of strategic harvest refugia as a tool for rockfish management:

A marine harvest refugia is a permanent no-take area. For rockfishes in particular, and groundfishes in general, there are limits to our scientific knowledge. Further, there are currently no effective management practices to deal with infrequent recruitment and its interdecadal variability, which are exhibited by rockfishes. Current rockfish assemblage management can result in serial overfishing and overfishing on the weakest stocks.

We recommend the development of marine harvest refugia for rockfish management. Expected benefits of rockfish marine refugia include:
1. protection insurance (demographic, ecological and habitat, and genetic)
2. establishment of control areas that will provide information on effects of fishing and baseline data for stock assessment
3. reduction of catch variability and increased possibility of sustainability

The expected level of success and benefits of the refugia need to be identified and defined; how success or effectiveness will be evaluated should be established prior to refugia implementation.

Marine reserves provide one of the few management tools for implementation of multiple provisions of the M-SFCMA that traditional management tools cannot address, including protection of essential fish habitats, incorporating ecosystem principles in fisheries management, and taking a precautionary approach to management.

Research. The working group discussed needs for further information relating to expectations of harvest refugia for rockfishes, and recommended the following areas of research:

- Tactical use of refugia for managing local bycatch and discard problems.
- Effects of refugia on fisheries yields and effort.
- Means to protect refugia from anthropogenic impacts, including illegal fishing.
- Determine which species will benefit most from management by refugia and develop criteria for candidate species and sites.
- How much and what type of science is needed for refugia implementation and evaluation?
- Quantify economic and social costs of implementing refugia.
- Develop criteria for evaluation of harvest refugia (performance vs expectations).

 

return to refugia index