NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS

This TM series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results, interim reports, or special

purpose information. The TMs have not received complete formal review, editorial control, or detailed editing.

AUGUST 1998

MARINE HARVEST REFUGIA FOR WEST COAST ROCKFISH:

A WORKSHOP

Mary M. Yoklavich,

editor

Pacific Fisheries Environmental Laboratory

Southwest Fisheries Science Center

1352 Lighthouse Avenue

Pacific Grove, California 93950-2097

NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-255

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

William M. Daley, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

D. James Baker, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Marine Fisheries Service

Rolland A. Schmitten, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
iii

MARINE HARVEST REFUGIA FOR WEST COAST ROCKFISH

A Workshop

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ................................................................................ iii

Marine Harvest Refugia for West Coast Rockfish: An Introduction to the Workshop

Mary M. Yoklavich ....................................................................... 1

The Status of Federally Managed Rockfish on the U.S. West Coast

Stephen Ralston ........................................................................... 6

Experimental Rockfish Management and Implications for Rockfish Harvest Refugia

Bruce M. Leaman ......................................................................... 17

Concepts Relevant to the Design and Evaluation of Fishery Reserves

Mark H. Carr and Peter T. Raimondi ................................................. 27

Design Criteria for Rockfish Harvest Refugia from Models of Fish Transport

Joshua Sladek Nowlis and Mary M. Yoklavich ...................................... 32

The Influence of Larval Transport and Retention on Recruitment Patterns

and the Design of Harvest Refugia for Rockfish

Lance E. Morgan and Louis W. Botsford ............................................. 41

Design Principles for Rockfish Reserves on the U.S. West Coast

Richard M. Starr ........................................................................... 50

Monitoring the Response of Rockfishes to Protected Areas

Wayne A. Palsson ......................................................................... 64

The Role of Law Enforcement in the Creation and Management of Marine Reserves

Eugene Proulx ............................................................................. 74

Evaluating Marine Harvest Refugia: An Economic Perspecitve

Cynthia Thomson .......................................................................... 78

Marine Harvest Refugia: An International Policy Perspective

Thomas F. Hourigan ....................................................................... 84

Marine Reserves: An Environmentalist’s Perspective

Rodney Fujita ............................................................................... 86
iv

Case Studies

Marine Reserves: Lessons from Florida

James Bohnsack .............................................................................. 89

Stakeholder Group Perceptions of Marine Reserves in the

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Daniel Suman ................................................................................ 100

Trials and Tribulations of Attempting to Establish an Experimental Deep-Water

No-Fishing Zone in a National Marine Sanctuary

Peter J. Auster ................................................................................ 113

Closed Areas to Manage Rockfishes in the Gulf of Alaska

Sung Kwon Soh, Donald R. Gunderson and Daniel H. Ito ............................ 118

The Use of a No-Take Marine Reserve in the Eastern Gulf of Alaska to

Protect Essential Fish Habitat

Victoria O’Connell, W. Waldo Wakefield and H. Gary Greene ...................... 125

Restrictions on Rockfish Fishing in Existing California Marine Protected Areas

Deborah McArdle ........................................................................... 133

Working Groups

Introduction ......................................................................................... 137

Working Group Reports:

I. Fishery Management Considerations ..................................................... 138

II. Science-based Design Considerations .................................................... 143

III. Socio-economic Considerations and Implementation .................................. 149

Consolidated Recommendations of the Working Groups .................................... 154

Suggested Research ............................................................................... 155

Epilog

A Call for Change in Managing Our Rockfish Resources

Donald Gunderson ................................................................................ 156

Rockfish Refugia

Ed Ueber ...................................................................................... 157

Appendix 1. Workshop Participants ............................................................ 158
Marine Harvest Refugia For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 1 

Marine Harvest Refugia for West Coast Rockfish: An Introduction

to the Workshop

Mary M. Yoklavich, NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Pacific Fisheries

Environmental Lab, Pacific Grove, CA

“The initial opportunity to take advantage of the unique life-history features

of rockfishes has been missed. Many stocks of rockfishes have undergone

severe depletion, and we have seen few, if any, results of management

actions. A concerted effort is now required to reverse the process of

depletion and generate management and monitoring programs more

appropriate to the biology of these species.” B.M. Leaman (1991)

Our multi-species rockfish (Sebastes

spp.) resources have been among the most

economically valuable commercial and

recreational fisheries along the west coast of

North America for the last two decades.

Historically they represent a mainstay of

many coastal communities. For instance,

many of the 59 species of rockfish in

California waters have been commercially

harvested from as early as 1875 (Phillips

1957, Lenarz 1987). Various types of gear

have been used (e.g. hook and line, gill net, and

trawl), but trawling with large mid-water and

bottom nets has yielded the largest catches of

rockfishes. Several stocks of rockfish have

been the target of intense fishing pressure

from both domestic and foreign trawl fleets

since trawl gear was introduced in the 1950s.

After rockfish landings peaked

dramatically in the mid-1970s to mid-1980s,

exploitation rates have remained high and

population biomass and size composition

have decreased alarmingly for many individual

species, and indeed for rockfish populations

in general. Following overfishing in the

1960's, there is still little sign of recovery of

Pacific ocean perch rockfish stocks in the

northwest (Ianelli et al. 1995). New stock

assessments indicate significant declines (i.e.

at or below 20% of that estimated in 1970) in

biomass for three other rockfish species as

well (Ralston 1998). Bocaccio rockfishes

recently have been considered a candidate for

IUCN's (World Conservation Union) Red List

of "critically endangered" species. While

these declines likely are due to natural

variability in the marine environment and

resultant survival of young fish, as well as

overexploitation, it is clear that traditional

management efforts alone are not successfully

protecting and sustaining coastal rockfish

resources.

Rockfishes are tremendously diverse

(about 102 species worldwide and at least 72

species in the northeastern Pacific [Kendall

1991]), and can dominate coastal benthic

habitats from subtidal kelp forests to rock

outcrops in submarine canyons at depths

greater than 300 m. Many species of

rockfishes are slow-growing, long-lived (50-

140 yrs; Archibald et al. 1981), and mature at

older ages (6-12 yrs; Wyllie Echeverria 1987).

Survival and subsequent recruitment of young

rockfishes vary widely from year to year
2 Marine Harvest Refugia 

(Ralston and Howard 1995). Because of these

life history characteristics, as well as the

sedentary and aggregating life styles of many

species, local stocks of rockfishes are

particularly vulnerable to overexploitation.

As local nearshore stocks become

depleted, fishing fleets expand their range to

greater distances from port and into deeper

waters (Karpov et al. 1995, Mason 1995).

This trend is prevalent in many coastal

fisheries, and creates difficulties in

management based on catch statistics.

Fishery managers have long thought the

remote parts of the coast served as a buffer

against overfishing, but are now concerned

that fishing regulations alone may not prevent

stock depletion. The most recent cause for

concern is generated from the very effective

(and as yet to be managed) commercial livefish fishery being conducted in very shallow

water (often < 10 m) from small skiffs

launched from shore. From its inception in

southern and central California, this fishery

has grown exponentially in number of fishers

and vessels over the last eight years; catch of

live rockfishes has increased four-fold during

this time (T. Barnes, CA Dept. Fish and

Game, La Jolla, unpubl. data). This fishery

continues to expand northward.

With increased fishing effort on stocks as

yet experiencing little exploitation, it becomes

all the more critical to evaluate the function

and effectiveness of harvest refugia (aka

marine protected areas; reserves; no-take

zones) as viable management alternatives.

Rowley (1992) suggested that harvest refugia

can be most beneficial to species that have

been overfished, reach great sizes or ages, and

have limited movements or sedentary

behavior, all of which apply to coastwide

rockfish stocks.

Marine harvest refugia are being

promoted worldwide as a viable option for

resource managers to mitigate overfishing and

the impacts of fishing activities to seafloor

habitats. Refugia potentially can conserve and

enhance fish populations by (1) increasing

fish abundance, size and age composition; (2)

protecting critical spawning stocks; (3)

providing multi-species protection; and (4)

providing undisturbed areas for research on

fishery-related problems. Aside from

protecting and enhancing fishery resources,

harvest refugia also can contribute to

preservation and maintenance of the natural

diversity of individual species, genotypes, and

habitats. Marine fisheries have been identified

as one of the most critical environmental

threats to biodiversity (Boehlert 1996).

Although harvest refugia are now being

considered as a supplement to traditional

resource management, their effectiveness in

fisheries management is poorly understood

and refugia concepts, especially as they relate

to temperate marine systems, largely are

untested.

A workshop, sponsored by the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of

Protected Resources, was convened at

NOAA’s Pacific Fisheries Environmental

Laboratory in Pacific Grove, California on

September 17-19, 1997 to evaluate marine

harvest refugia to manage, protect, and

conserve rockfish populations on the west

coast of North America. The objectives of the

workshop were to i) assess the current and

future needs, benefits, and implementation of

harvest refugia to protect and manage rockfish

populations, and ii) develop recommendations
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 3

for establishing and monitoring rockfish

refugia on the west coast of North America.

The workshop brought together thirtyseven biologists, ecologists, social scientists,

economists, and resource managers,

representing federal and state agencies from

Alaska to California, as well as academic

interests from relevant institutes to address

the following kinds of questions:

• What are key problems in managing rockfish

populations?

• Can marine harvest refugia help to manage

and conserve rockfish populations?

• What can we expect from marine harvest

refugia?

• What are the costs, benefits, and risks

involved in establishing harvest refugia?

• What are the design considerations for

effective harvest refugia?

• Who are the stakeholders interested in the

process of developing and implementing

refugia?

• What are the requirements and

considerations of these stakeholders?

The workshop agenda included fourteen

plenary papers. Fisheries scientists presented

information on the status of rockfish stocks

and current management practices; ecologists

and biologists described key elements of

refugia design, both from conceptual models

and practical experience; a marine policy

analyst addressed the process of establishing

refugia; and a representative from NMFS's

division of law enforcement focused on

compliance issues associated with closed

areas. The plenary session also included

several case histories of closed areas.

This information provided an ideal

background for further discussions and

generation of ideas and recommendations.

Three concurrent working groups focused on

issues related to:

• Benefits and Expectations of Refugia as a

Fishery Management Tool

• Science-based Design Considerations

• Socio-economic Considerations and

Implementation of Refugia.

There was general consensus that marine

harvest refugia exemplify a precautionary

approach to the management and conservation

of rockfish resources on the west coast. It was

recognized that, while there are limits to our

scientific knowledge of rockfish ecology, we

have sufficient understanding of the problems

associated with their management and

conservation to proceed with the process of

implementing refugia as a supplement to

traditional management practices. Marine

harvest refugia are one of the few constructive

ways to address protection and conservation

of essential fish habitat, and offer the

opportunity for habitat to recover from

disturbances including impacts from fishing

gear. Refugia hold promise in allowing us to

separate environmental variables from fishery

effects, incorporate ecosystem principles into

fisheries assemblage management, and collect

the needed baseline data for more accurate

stock assessments.

This proceedings of the workshop,

including papers on plenary presentations,

related case histories of harvest refugia that

have been established around the country, and

the recommendations from the working

groups, hopefully will serve to direct future

research and managerial decisions regarding

protection and conservation of rockfish

resources, as well as to make specific
4 Marine Harvest Refugia 

recommendations on design attributes of

refugia. It is clear that successful

implementation of an effective system of

refugia requires an ecosystem rather than

single-species approach to protection. While

this workshop was focused on west coast

rockfish resources, the conclusions and

recommendations will find broader application

to developing harvest refugia, biodiversity,

and habitat programs nationwide. This

workshop has taken a proactive approach in

addressing several critical elements of the

NOAA Fisheries Strategic Plan (e.g. Build

Sustainable Fisheries; Maintain Coastal

Ecosystem Health; and Recover Protected

Species [NOAA 1997]), is relevant to

NOAA's responsibilities for coastal

ecosystem and living marine resources, and

offers ways to protect and conserve essential

fish habitat and implement ecosystem

principles in fisheries management.

Acknowledgements

This workshop was funded by NOAA, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected

Resources and the Southwest Fisheries Science

Center. The efforts of several people

contributed to the success of this meeting. I

thank Lisa Ziobro for her assistance in

organizing and convening the workshop and in

arranging travel for participants. The staff at

the Pacific Fisheries Environmental

Laboratory, especially Tone Nichols, provided

support to make the workshop productive and

enjoyable for the participants. Kirsten Carlson

generously provided original artwork for the

workshop materials and report. The Maritime

Museum of Monterey provided original

photographs of fishing activities from the J.

Phillips archives. I extend my appreciation to

all workshop participants, especially the

working group leaders and rapporteurs, for their

expertise and intellectual contributions to the

workshop and its proceedings. I thank a long

list of scientists for their reviews of the

individual papers, and especially appreciate the

efforts of Gary Davis, Ralph Larson and David

VenTresca in reviewing the entire workshop

proceedings. Finally I offer my appreciation to

Korie Ann Johnson for her capable assistance in

editing and producing these proceedings.

References

Archibald, C.P., W. Shaw and B.M. Leaman.

1981. Growth and mortality estimates of

rockfishes (Scorpaenidae) from B.C. coastal

waters, 1977-1979. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish.

Aquat. Sci. 1048, 57 p.

Boehlert, G.W. 1996. Biodiversity and the

sustainability of marine fisheries. Ocean. 9:28-

35.

Ianelli, J.N., D.H. Ito, and M. E. Wilkins.

1995. Status of the Pacific ocean perch

resource in waters off Washington and Oregon

as assessed in 1995. In Status of the Pacific

Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 1995 and

Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches

for 1996. Pacific Fishery Management Council,

2130 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 224, Portland, OR

97201.

Karpov, K.A., D.P. Albin, and W.H. Van

Buskirk. 1995. The marine recreational

fishery in northern and central California: a

historical comparison (1958-86), status of

stocks (1980-86), and effects of changes in the

California Current. Calif. Dept. Fish Game, Fish

Bull. 176:1-192.

Kendall, Jr., A.W. 1991. Systematics and

identification of larvae and juveniles of the

genus Sebastes. Env. Bio. Fish. 30:173-190.

Leaman, B.M. 1991. Reproductive styles and

life history variables relative to exploitation

and management of Sebastes stocks. Env. Bio.

Fish. 30:253-271.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 5

Lenarz, W. H. 1987. A history of California

rockfish fisheries. pp. 35-41. In Proceedings of

the International Rockfish Symposium,

Anchorage, Alaska, Univ. Alaska, Alaska Sea

Grant Rep. 87-2.

Mason, J. E. 1995. Species trends in sport

fisheries, Monterey Bay, California, 1959-86.

Mar. Fish. Rev. 57:1-16.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA). 1997. NOAA

Fisheries Strategic Plan. U.S. Dept. Comm.

38 p.

Phillips, J. B. 1957. A review of the rockfishes

of California (family Scorpaenidae). Calif.

Dept. Fish Game, Fish Bull. 104. 158 p.

Ralston, S. 1998. The status of federally

managed rockfish on the U.S. west coast. In

Yoklavich, M. (ed.) Marine Harvest Refugia

For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop. US

Dept. Comm. NOAA-NMFS Tech. Memo.

(This volume).

Ralston, S. and D.F. Howard. 1995. On the

development of year-class strength and cohort

variability in two northern California

rockfishes. Fish. Bull. 93:710-720.

Rowley, R.J. 1992. Impacts of marine reserves

on fisheries: A report and review of the

literature. New Zealand Dept. Cons., Sci. Res.

Series No. 51. 50 p.

Wyllie Echeverria, T. 1987. Thirty-four

species of California rockfishes: maturity and

seasonality of reproduction. Fish. Bull. 85:229-

250.

 Otter trawl catch of bocaccio and chilipepper rockfish off central

 California, 1957. Photo by J.B. Phillips, CDF&G.
6 Marine Harvest Refugia 

The Status of Federally Managed Rockfish on the U. S. West Coast

Stephen Ralston, NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Tiburon Laboratory, Tiburon, CA

Introduction

The harvest of rockfishes (genus

Sebastes) represents a very important

component of the United States west coast

groundfish fishery. In 1995 reported landings

from that sector of the fishery accounted for

almost 22,000 mt and generated ex-vessel

revenues of $20.5 million (Silverthorne 1996).

Those totals represented 16% and 24% of

combined groundfish landings and ex-vessel

revenues, respectively. The rockfish harvest

has, moreover, been of even greater

significance historically, accounting for 30%

and 32% of landings and revenues in 1990.

Finally, it is important to recognize that the

combined rockfish catch is composed of many

different species. The groundfish Fishery

Management Plan (FMP) lists 52 Sebastes

species in the groundfish management unit

(Table 1; Pacific Fishery Management Council

1993).

Due to the importance of Sebastes

species in the groundfish fishery, the Pacific

Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has

actively managed the rockfish complex for

many years (PFMC 1997). The purpose of

this contribution is to briefly review the

current management practices of the PFMC

vis-à-vis the rockfish complex, and to describe

trends in population biomass and spawning

output for some of the better studied species.

The Current Management Regime

Management practices have evolved over

time and regulations often vary with areas

fished. In addition, in situations where

sufficient information exists, regulations are

likely to be promulgated for individual

species. Conversely, where data are sparse or

lacking altogether, the various species of

Sebastes may be pooled into larger aggregates

within the complex. Widow rockfish

(Sebastes entomelas) provides a good example

of PFMC management of a species for which

data are plentiful. Primary harvest regulations

for any particular species of rockfish are

based upon the results of a stock assessment

conducted for the PFMC by a fishery analyst

(e.g. Ralston and Pearson 1997). Because

rockfishes typically grow slowly and stocks

are comprised of many age classes, stock

biomass typically does not change rapidly

(Gunderson 1997). Consequently, stock

assessments of the principal rockfish species

are usually conducted only once every three

years. The main goal of a stock assessment is

to estimate exploitable biomass of the stock in

the year of the assessment and to project the

population forward for the next three years

under a specific harvest policy. For a number

of years the Stock Synthesis model (Methot

1990) has been used in PFMC assessments to

develop the best reconstruction of historical

stock dynamics and to estimate population

size in the near future. Stock Synthesis is a
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 7

Table 1. Species of rockfish in the groundfish FMP. Note that species in bold typeface have

recently been assessed with the Stock Synthesis model and published estimates of population

trajectory are available. Rockfishes evaluated in Rogers et al. (1996) were assessed through a

static calculation that was based upon the Fmsy = M approximation, which was applied to adjusted

swept-area trawl survey biomasses.

 Scientific Name Common Name Assessment Author(s)

1. Sebastes aleutianus rougheye rockfish --

2. Sebastes alutus Pacific ocean perch Ianelli et al. 1995

3. Sebastes atrovirens kelp rockfish --

4. Sebastes auriculatus brown rockfish --

5. Sebastes aurora aurora rockfish --

6. Sebastes babcocki redbanded rockfish --

7. Sebastes borealis shortraker rockfish --

8. Sebastes brevispinis silvergray rockfish Rogers et al. 1996

9. Sebastes carnatus gopher rockfish --

10. Sebastes caurinus copper rockfish --

11. Sebastes chlorostictus greenspotted rockfish --

12. Sebastes chrysomelas black and yellow rockfish --

13. Sebastes ciliatus dusky rockfish --

14. Sebastes constellatus starry rockfish --

15. Sebastes crameri darkblotched rockfish Rogers et al. 1996

16. Sebastes dallii calico rockfish --

17. Sebastes diploproa splitnose rockfish Rogers et al. 1996

18. Sebastes elongatus greenstriped rockfish --

19. Sebastes entomelas widow rockfish Ralston & Pearson 1997

20. Sebastes eos pink rockfish --

21. Sebastes flavidus yellowtail rockfish Tagart et al. 1997

22. Sebastes goodei chilipepper Rogers & Bence 1993

23. Sebastes gilli bronze spotted rockfish --

24. Sebastes helvomaculatus rosethorn rockfish --

25. Sebastes hopkinsi squarespot rockfish --

26. Sebastes jordani shortbelly rockfish Pearson et al. 1991

27. Sebastes levis cowcod --

28. Sebastes maliger quillback rockfish --

29. Sebastes melanops black rockfish Wallace & Tagart 1994

30. Sebastes melanostomus blackgill rockfish --

31. Sebastes macdonaldi mexican rockfish --

32. Sebastes miniatus vermilion rockfish --

33. Sebastes mystinus blue rockfish --

34. Sebastes nebulosus china rockfish --

35. Sebastes nigrocinctus tiger rockfish --

36. Sebastes ovalis speckled rockfish --

37. Sebastes paucispinis bocaccio Ralston et al. 1996

38. Sebastes pinniger canary rockfish Sampson 1996

39. Sebastes proriger redstripe rockfish Rogers et al. 1996

40. Sebastes rastrelliger grass rockfish --

41. Sebastes reedi yellowmouth rockfish Rogers et al. 1996

42. Sebastes rosaceus rosy rockfish --

43. Sebastes rosenblatti greenblotched rockfish --

44. Sebastes ruberrimus yelloweye rockfish Rogers et al. 1996

45. Sebastes rubrivinctus flag rockfish --

46. Sebastes rufus bank rockfish Rogers et al. 1996

47. Sebastes saxicola stripetail rockfish --

48. Sebastes serranoides olive rockfish --

49. Sebastes serriceps treefish --

50. Sebastes umbrosus honeycomb rockfish --

51. Sebastes variegatus harlequin rockfish --

52. Sebastes zacentrus sharpchin rockfish Rogers et al. 1996
8 Marine Harvest Refugia

model with separable time and age fishing

mortality components that projects a

simulated population forward in time. The

separability aspect of the model means that,

at least in its most basic configuration, the

relative exploitation pattern of a fishery on

the different age classes in a stock is modeled

so that the pattern does not change from year

to year. Even so, that simplification can be

relaxed to allow for a changing exploitation

pattern over time. Likewise, any particular

stock assessment is based upon a maximum

likelihood fit of the model to observed age and

length frequency data, which are typically

modeled with a realistic multinomial error

structure. Auxiliary data are easily

incorporated into the fitting procedure, and

many other features of the model provide

great flexibility to the analyst in creating a

simulated population that possesses the most

important characteristics and features of the

actual stock.

Once a plausible trajectory of population

biomass has been determined, based upon the

joint and simultaneous analysis of all available

data, the analyst projects the population

forward under several harvest policies. The

current policy favored by the PFMC for

rockfish is a constant rate harvest at F40%.

That policy is defined as the fishing mortality

rate that reduces the spawning potential per

recruit (SPR) to 40% of the unfished

condition (Clark 1991, 1993). The Allowable

Biological Catch (ABC) is then calculated by

application of the F40% fishing mortality rate

to the model’s estimate of exploitable

biomass. The average yield over the threeyear projection horizon is the estimated ABC.

Although the Stock Synthesis model

provides a very powerful tool in assessing the

status of rockfish stocks, for certain species it

is not unusual for age and/or length frequency

data to be sparse or missing altogether. Even

determining the catch of the minor rockfish

species can present huge problems in

sampling the landings at commercial ports. In

those situations a simpler approach has been

taken, wherein the ABC is estimated using the

Fmsy = M approach (Deriso 1982). That

calculation assumes that the rate of natural

mortality experienced by a stock (M) is a

reasonable estimator of the fishing mortality

rate that will produce maximum sustainable

yield (Fmsy). Triennial bottom trawl research

surveys have been conducted by the Alaska

Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) along the

U.S. west coast since 1977 (Wilkins 1996).

Stock biomass of the minor rockfish species

has been estimated using those data and a

swept-area calculation, with biomass adjusted

for the catchability of the net and the

completeness of survey coverage (Rogers et

al. 1996). The ABC is then calculated as the

product of adjusted swept-area biomass and

an estimate of the natural mortality rate (M).

Regardless of how it is estimated, once the

ABC is determined the analyst’s role in the

management process is largely concluded.

The next step in the process is to convert

the ABC to a Harvest Guideline (HG), which

is equivalent to a Total Allowable Catch

(TAC) or annual quota. The Groundfish

Management Team (GMT) is a subsidiary

body of the PFMC that receives the results of

the stock assessment and prepares

preliminary HG recommendations, which can

be greater or less than the ABC. At this point

in the process, estimated discards at sea are

usually taken into consideration, as well as

any other mitigating circumstances that would
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 9

warrant altering the HG from the ABC. The

Council receives the report of the GMT, with

comments by its other advisory bodies (i.e.

the Scientific and Statistical Committee, the

Groundfish Advisory Panel, and the public),

and sets the final ABC and HG by vote. The

final HG is then apportioned between the

limited entry and open access sectors of the

fishery, which have fixed percentage

allocations of the catch. To fish in the limited

entry fishery, an operator needs a limited

entry permit; these are “limited” in number

and are bought and sold on the open market.

However, with certain restrictions on gear,

anyone can fish in the open access sector,

although the percentage allocation of fish to

that sector is quite small. These two fisheries

are then managed using in-season actions to

insure that (1) the annual HG is not exceeded

and (2) there is a year-round opportunity to

fish.

To accomplish the latter goal, the GMT

examines overall fleet harvest rates and

participation levels during the preceding three

years and derives bimonthly cumulative catch

limits that cannot be exceeded by limited

entry fishermen. Open access fishermen have

individual trip limits on catch applied to their

landings to control the overall fleet harvest

rate. As with the ABC and HG, the GMT’s

trip limit recommendations are reviewed by

the Council and its advisory bodies before

they are approved. Once established, the

GMT then monitors cumulative landings as

the year progresses and makes

recommendations to adjust these bimonthly

cumulative catch limits and trip limits up or

down to suppress or accelerate the rate of

landings. A major problem with this

particular management procedure is the

creation of management-induced discarding of

species with low bimonthly cumulative limits.

Numerous other restrictions apply to

commercial fishermen. These include, but are

not limited to: (1) area management of

species-specific in-season limits, (2) minimum

mesh size requirements for trawl gear, (3)

limitations on the transferral of limited entry

permits, (4) linkage between fishing vessel

size and permit class, (5) logbook reporting

requirements, and (6) requirements to land

only fish for which there was a specific

market order.

In addition to widow rockfish, four other

rockfishes are routinely managed in this

manner, including Pacific ocean perch

(Sebastes alutus), yellowtail rockfish

(Sebastes flavidus), bocaccio (Sebastes

paucispinis), and canary rockfish (Sebastes

pinniger) (Table 1). Note that, while

chilipepper (Sebastes goodei) and black

rockfish (Sebastes melanops) have recently

been assessed using the Stock Synthesis

model, the ABCs of those species are

currently consolidated within the overall

Sebastes complex HG, which is the sum of the

ABCs of the remaining rockfish. Clearly the

management of rockfishes by the PFMC is

quite complicated.

The Status of Rockfish Resources

In this section the status of seven of the

major commercial rockfish species is briefly

reviewed. Each was assessed for the PFMC

within the last five years using the Stock

Synthesis model or a similar approach (Table

1). Therefore, as a group, these species

represent our best composite view of the
10 Marine Harvest Refugia

overall status of federally managed rockfish on

the U. S. west coast.

Widow Rockfish. In a recent stock

assessment Ralston and Pearson (1997)

described four distinct widow rockfish

fisheries and modeled them over a time period

that extended from 1970-97. Their approach

emphasized an annual time varying

component in the selectivity curve of each

fishery (i.e. the strict separability assumption

was relaxed), although the exploitation pattern

among the three northern fisheries was linked.

The purely age-based version of the Stock

Synthesis model was used, and the

incorporated auxiliary data sources included a

logbook CPUE index, a bycatch index of

widow rockfish in the Pacific hake fishery,

and a survey index of pre-recruit abundance.

The assessment indicated that widow rockfish

total biomass (i.e. age 1+ fish) reached a

maximum in 1973 due to the recruitment of a

very strong 1970 year-class (Fig. 1). As

expected, maximum spawning output lagged

somewhat and peaked in 1978. Both

population indicators have since declined,

with total biomass currently believed to be

33% of its 1973 maximum and spawning

output equal to 22% of its apex in 1978.

Based on the assessment the HG of widow

rockfish in 1998 was reduced from 6,500 to

4,300 mt (PFMC 1997).

Bocaccio. This species was last assessed by

Ralston et al. (1996) and, like widow rockfish,

four unique bocaccio fisheries were identified,

including a significant recreational sector. For

the assessment the length-based

implementation of Stock Synthesis model was

used, due to the availability of extensive and

highly informative length-frequency data.

Also, the selectivity curve was allowed to

vary across years in two of the modeled

fisheries. Auxiliary data sources included

CPUE and length frequency data from the

AFSC triennial shelf trawl survey, a

Southwest Fisheries Science Center midwater

trawl survey index of pre-recruit abundance,

and a California Cooperative Oceanic

Fisheries Investigation larval index used to

track spawning output.

Results of the assessment showed that

the bocaccio stock has undergone a severe

decline in abundance (Fig. 1). The population,

both in terms of total age 1+ biomass and

spawning output, was at its maximum at the

beginning of the modeled time period (1969-

96). By 1996, however, total biomass and

spawning output had fallen to 8% and 6% of

their starting values, respectively, even though

a strong 1977 year-class temporarily reversed

the decline. No other federally managed

species of rockfish is thought to be at such a

relatively low level of abundance. In 1996 the

PFMC reduced the bocaccio ABC from 1,700

to 265 mt, and it was further reduced to 230

mt in 1997 (PFMC 1997).

Pacific Ocean Perch. Pacific ocean perch

(a.k.a. POP) is a rockfish species that was last

assessed by Ianelli et al. (1995). They

recognized two separate POP fisheries, i.e. the

foreign fishery, which was responsible for

large-scale removals during the mid-1960s but

persisted until the mid-1970s, and a domestic

fishery that has been relatively stable in

comparison. Fishery-dependent data used in

the stock assessment included age

composition data based on surface and
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 11

Figure 1. Trends in exploitable biomass (solid lines) and spawning output (dashed lines) for

seven west coast rockfish stocks.

broken-and-burned otolith readings, sizefrequency distributions, and a CPUE statistic

developed from commercial catch rates.

Fishery-independent data that were employed

included estimates of biomass from the AFSC

triennial shelf trawl survey and a dedicated

POP survey, in addition to age and size

composition information from both surveys.

Ianelli et al. (1995) showed that the POP

stock experienced a precipitous decline during

the 1960s due to massive foreign removals

(e.g. 33,000 mt in 1967). Total age 5+

biomass and spawning output were at their

maxima at the beginning of the modeled era

(1960-95) and each population indicator

declined to less than 20% by 1975 (Fig. 1).

Proportion of Maximum Value
12 Marine Harvest Refugia

The stock has remained depressed since that

time, with biomass and reproduction currently

estimated to be 13% of their all time highs.

The PFMC has a zero ABC for POP,

although the 1998 HG is 750 mt to allow for

incidental landings of Pacific ocean perch

bycatch from trawl fisheries for canary and

other slope dwelling rockfish (PFMC 1997).

Canary Rockfish. Sampson (1996)

conducted the last stock assessment of canary

rockfish. He used a split-sex implementation

of the age-based version of Stock Synthesis to

model the two commercial trawl fisheries off

Washington and Oregon. The only

supplementary fishery-independent

information that was incorporated in the

assessment was the AFSC triennial shelf

survey estimates of swept-area biomass and

length-frequency data from the survey.

Model specification issues resulted in a

significant source of uncertainty in the

assessment, particularly the assumption of

constant natural mortality rate of recruited

female fish. To adequately portray this

uncertainty, Sampson (1996) provided model

results under two different mortality

scenarios.

Results of the assessment (Fig. 1)

showed that, like other Sebastes species,

canary rockfish have experienced a major longterm decline in abundance over the period

1967-95. The total biomass of age 3+ fish

was greatest in the first year of the population

simulation and had declined to 20% of its apex

by 1995. Similarly, spawning output declined

to 18% of its maximum value in the final year

of the modeled period. Sampson (1996)

concluded that canary rockfish had been

overfished in recent years because removals

exceeded projected catches at the F20% rate.

The current ABC of canary rockfish in the

northern area (i.e. the Columbia and U. S.

Vancouver International North Pacific

Fisheries Commission statistical areas) is

slightly more than 1,000 mt (PFMC 1997).

Yellowtail Rockfish. The stock(s) of

yellowtail rockfish was very recently assessed

by Tagart et al. (1997). Although those

authors used the AD-Model Builder software

to perform calculations (Fournier 1996), their

population dynamics equations, error

structures, and model building philosophy

were identical to those used in the Stock

Synthesis model. The assessment was rather

sophisticated in its treatment of time-varying

selectivity and in the way error estimates

were produced. It was also tiered to

determine the effect of stratifying the analysis

to one, two, or three different stocks.

Primary data in the simulation were landings

and catch-at-age data, but three auxiliary data

sources were incorporated in the model.

These included the AFSC shelf trawl survey

estimate of biomass, a CPUE statistic based

on the analysis of commercial logbook data,

and an index of abundance calculated from the

incidence of yellowtail rockfish in the at-sea

Pacific hake fishery.

The population was simulated over the

period 1967-97 and results of the analysis

showed a steady, long-term decline in

abundance (Fig. 1). The total biomass of age

4+ fish is now thought to be 43% of the alltime high that occurred in 1967, while

spawning output has fallen to 33% of its

maximum. Although these specific results

were forwarded to the GMT and PFMC for

use in setting of the 1998 ABC and HG, the
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 13

authors also developed other models that

suggested even more serious declines in stock

abundance have occurred. For 1998 the ABC

of yellowtail rockfish in the northern area is

4,657 mt (PFMC 1997).

Black Rockfish. Relative to the species

discussed thus far, black rockfish is less

significant in terms of total landings, but it is a

very important recreational species in Oregon

and Washington and displays a more inshore

distribution. With concerns about the stock

expressed by sport fishing operators, the first

assessment of this species was completed by

Wallace and Tagart (1994). In their analysis

they used the age-based version of Stock

Synthesis and applied it to three distinct black

rockfish fisheries, i.e. the trawl, jig, and

recreational. Auxiliary data used in the

analysis included a CPUE statistic from

tagging survey results, tagging survey size

composition data, and a measure of

recreational fishing effort.

The stock assessment indicated that since

1970, black rockfish has been in a general state

of decline (Fig. 1). Over the modeled time

period (1970-94) the total biomass of age 4+

fish has currently declined to 68% of its apex;

reproductive output has fallen even more, to

48% of the maximum. There is no specific

HG for black rockfish and its ABC is

aggregated in to the “remaining rockfish” total

ABC (Rogers et al. 1996).

Chilipepper. Rogers and Bence (1993)

conducted the last stock assessment of

chilipepper. They used the length-based

implementation of Stock Synthesis and

applied it to four discrete fisheries, i.e. trawl,

setnet, hook-and-line, and recreational.

Auxiliary data sources used in the simulation

modeling included AFSC triennial shelf trawl

survey biomass estimates and length

frequency data, as well as a time series of

recreational fishing effort.

Results for chilipepper are quite unlike

the preceding six species. The assessment

indicated that over the relatively short time

horizon of the model (1980-92), the total

biomass of age 4+ chilipepper actually

increased and was at its apex in the last year

of the simulation; spawning output followed

virtually the same temporal pattern (Fig. 1).

Both of these population trends were due

entirely to the recruitment of a very strong

1984 year-class that was estimated to be six

times greater than the mean over the 1980-92

interval.

Conclusions

This brief review of the status of U. S.

west coast rockfish stocks presents a fairly

alarming picture. For example, the spawning

output of bocaccio, Pacific ocean perch,

canary, and widow rockfish are at or below

20% of their maximal levels (Fig. 1).

Moreover, five of the seven species reviewed

show no indication of coming to an

equilibrium under the fishing mortality rates

they have experienced (i.e. bocaccio, widow,

canary, yellowtail, and black rockfish). It is

apparent that, for these rockfish species,

harvests have been largely based on the

“fishing-up” of stocks that had accumulated

their standing stock biomass over a

considerable length of time (see Leaman and

Beamish 1984). This mode of harvest is

equivalent to mining a resource and is clearly

not a sustainable practice in the long run.
14 Marine Harvest Refugia

It is important to note, however, that

significant change is in store for the

management of rockfish by the PFMC. With

the implementation of the new national

Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1997 (Public Law

104-297), there are now specific requirements

to curtail fishing pressure and institute a

rebuilding plan when biomass thresholds are

exceeded. Prior PFMC management of

rockfish was based simply on a constant rate

SPR policy (either F35% or F40%) that was

applied to whatever exploitable biomass was

believed to be available for harvest (Hightower

and Lenarz 1989). The new guidelines require

that if the biomass of a stock falls below BMSY

(i.e. the biomass that produces Maximum

Sustainable Yield), then action must be taken

to return the population to that level.

How those BMSY levels will be defined for

rockfish remains to be determined.

Overfishing of rockfish stocks was previously

defined by the PFMC as catches in excess of

those obtained at an F20% rate. The

connection between SPR and spawning

output is not direct, however, but depends

critically on the compensatory response of

the spawner-recruit curve. For example,

spawning output below 20% of “virgin” may

not be excessive if recruitment compensation

is very high. The dilemma is that rockfish

exhibit very erratic recruitment. That

particular life history trait makes it quite

difficult to determine the compensatory

response without very long time series of data

(Ianelli and Heifetz 1995).

References

Clark, W. G. 1991. Groundfish exploitation

rates based on life history parameters. Can. J.

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48:734-750.

Clark, W. G. 1993. The effect of recruitment

variability on the choice of a target level of

spawning biomass per recruit, pp. 233-246. In

Proceedings of the International Symposium on

Management Strategies for Exploited Fish

Populations, Alaska Sea Grant College Program,

AK-SG-93-02.

Deriso, R. B. 1982. Relationship of fishing

mortality to natural mortality and growth at the

level of maximum sustainable yield. Can. J.

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39:1054-1058.

Fournier, D. 1996. An Introduction to AD

Model Builder for Use in Nonlinear Modeling

and Statistics. Otter Research Ltd., Nanaimo,

British Columbia.

Gunderson, D. R. 1997. Trade-off between

reproductive effort and adult survival in

oviparous and viviparous fishes. Can. J. Fish.

Aquat. Sci. 54:990-998.

Hightower, J. E. and W. H. Lenarz. 1989.

Optimal harvesting policies for the widow

rockfish fishery. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp. 6:83-

91.

Ianelli, J. N. and J. Heifetz. 1995. Decision

analysis of alternative harvest policies for the

Gulf of Alaska Pacific ocean perch fishery.

Fish. Res. 24:35-63.

Ianelli, J. N., D. H. Ito, and M. E. Wilkins.

1995. Status of the Pacific ocean perch

resource in waters off Washington and Oregon

as assessed in 1995. In Status of the Pacific

Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 1995 and

Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches

for 1996. Pacific Fishery Management Council,

2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR

97201.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 15

Leaman, B. M. and R. J. Beamish. 1984.

Ecological and management implications of

longevity in some northeast Pacific

groundfishes. Int. North Pac. Fish. Comm. Bull.

42:85-97.

Methot, R. D. 1990. Synthesis model: an

adaptable framework for analysis of diverse

stock assessment data. Int. North Pac. Fish.

Comm. Bull. 50:259-277.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1982.

Final Fishery Management Plan and

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

for the Washington, Oregon, and California

Groundfish Fishery. Pacific Fishery

Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue,

Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1993.

Pacific coast groundfish plan: Fishery

Management Plan for the California, Oregon

and Washington Groundfish Fishery as amended

through Amendment 7. PFMC, Portland,

Oregon.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1997.

Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery

Through 1997 and Recommended Acceptable

Biological Catches for 1998. Pacific Fishery

Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue,

Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

Pearson, D. E., J. E. Hightower, and J. T. H.

Chan. 1991. Age, growth, and potential yield

for shortbelly rockfish Sebastes jordani. Fish.

Bull., U. S. 89:403-409.

Ralston, S., J. N. Ianelli, R. A. Miller, D. E.

Pearson, D. Thomas, M. E. Wilkins. 1996.

Status of bocaccio in the Conception

/Monterey/Eureka INPFC areas in 1996 and

recommendations for management in 1997, pp.

B1-B48. In Status of the Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery Through 1996 and

Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches

for 1997. Pacific Fishery Management Council,

2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR

97201.

Ralston, S., and D. E. Pearson. 1997. Status of

the widow rockfish stock in 1997, pp. 1-54. In

Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery

Through 1997 and Recommended Acceptable

Biological Catches for 1998. Pacific Fishery

Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue,

Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

Rogers, J. B. and J. R. Bence. 1993. Status of

the chilipepper rockfish stock in 1993. In

Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery

Through 1993 and Recommended Acceptable

Biological Catches for 1994. Pacific Fishery

Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue,

Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

Rogers, J. B., M. E. Wilkins, D. Kamikawa, F.

Wallace, T. Builder, M. Zimmerman, M.

Kander, and B. Culver. 1996. Status of the

remaining rockfish in the Sebastes complex in

1996 and recommendations for management in

1997, pp E1-E59. In Status of the Pacific

Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 1996 and

Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches

for 1997. Pacific Fishery Management Council,

2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR

97201.

Sampson, D. B. 1996. Stock status of canary

rockfish off Oregon and Washington in 1996,

pp. C1-C58. In Status of the Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery Through 1996 and

Recommended Acceptable Biological Catches

for 1997. Pacific Fishery Management Council,

2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR

97201.

Silverthorne, W. 1996. Economic status of the

Washington, Oregon, and California groundfish

fisheries, pp. EC1-EC10. In Status of the

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 1996

and Recommended Acceptable Biological

Catches for 1997. Pacific Fishery Management

Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224,

Portland, OR 97201.
16 Marine Harvest Refugia

Tagart, J. V., J. N. Ianelli, A. Hoffmann, and F.

R. Wallace. 1997. Status of the yellowtail

rockfish resource in 1997, pp. 1-146. In Status

of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery

Through 1997 and Recommended Acceptable

Biological Catches for 1998. Pacific Fishery

Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue,

Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

Wilkins, M. E. 1996. Long term trends in

abundance: results of triennial bottom trawl

surveys of west coast groundfish resources

between 1977 and 1995, pp. F1-F50. In Status

of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery

Through 1996 and Recommended Acceptable

Biological Catches for 1997. Pacific Fishery

Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue,

Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

Wallace, F. R. and J. V. Tagart. 1994. Status of

the coastal black rockfish stocks in Washington

and northern Oregon in 1994. In Status of the

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 1994

and Recommended Acceptable Biological

Catches for 1995. Pacific Fishery Management

Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224,

Portland, OR 97201

Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) on rock outcrop viewed from the Delta submersible at

200 m in Ascension Canyon off the central California coast. Photo by M. Yoklavich
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 17

Experimental Rockfish Management and Implications for Rockfish

Harvest Refugia

Bruce M. Leaman, International Pacific Halibut Commission, Seattle, WA

Introduction

The precipitous declines of rockfish

(genus Sebastes) fisheries off the west coast

of North America during the 1960s and 1970s

prompted remedial action by fishery

management agencies in the United States and

Canada (Lenarz 1987, Stocker and Leaman

1990). Despite stringent controls on harvests

for some species, there was little indication of

rehabilitation during the ensuing two decades.

Recent stock assessments suggest that the

situation for some stocks may have become

even worse. Fishing mortality from solely

domestic sources has been sufficient to both

prevent rehabilitation and cause declines in

previously abundant species. However, the

commercial fishing industry and assessment

biologists in management agencies often have

vastly different views of the status of these

stocks. This divergence is based in part on

differences in indices used to monitor the

status of the stocks by the two groups.

Harvesters rely on their catch per unit of

effort (CPUE) but CPUE is often hyperstable

in the face of stock declines, due to rockfish

aggregation. On the other hand, biologists

may use complex population models that

analyze many different data sets. To bridge

this gap in perception of stock status,

experimental harvesting programs involving

industry and government were conducted off

the west coast of Canada during the 1980s and

1990s. The results of these programs in terms

of stock indices were reported in Leaman and

Stanley (1993). I focus here on the lessons

learned in the design and implementation of

these programs and their implications

concerning marine protected areas for

rockfishes.

The two experiments were initiated on

stocks of Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus,

POP; Fig. 1). Both stocks had been subjected

to large foreign fisheries during the 1960s.

One program (Vancouver Island) generated a

specified overharvest over a limited period,

while the other (Langara Spit) was to be an

unlimited harvest over a specified period,

followed by an equivalent period of no

harvest.

Background

Analyses of the Vancouver Island stock

by several investigators, using a variety of

techniques, showed stock decreases ranging

from 69-82% over the 1965-1977 period

(Gunderson 1981, Kimura 1981, Kimura and

Tagart 1982). Through a bilateral technical

committee, Canada and the U.S. prohibited

directed fishing on this stock in 1977, in an

attempt to initiate rehabilitation. This

regulation was in effect in both countries until

1980.

In 1979, British Columbia harvesters

pressed for a re-opening of this area based on

their acoustic observations of "large"

aggregations of rockfishes. Canada

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)

biologists had no evidence from biological
18 Marine Harvest Refugia

sampling programs to suggest a major change

in stock abundance since 1977 and suggested

that, prior to 1977, the size of aggregations

had been affected by fishing activity.

Rockfishes aggregate naturally (Leaman et al.

1990), particularly when undisturbed by

fishing. The lack of fishing activity on this

stock during 1977-1979 may have contributed

to the observations reported by the fleet.

The Langara Spit stock of POP was also

the object of major foreign fisheries during the

mid 1960s. Although these fisheries were

documented poorly, analyses suggested

approximately 85% of the foreign catches of

rockfishes from the west coast of the Queen

Charlotte Islands originated in the Langara

Spit area. Unlike other POP stocks on the

B.C. coast, this stock was not exploited by

the domestic fleet during the major foreign

fishery. Directed fishing by the domestic fleet

began in 1979 and was restricted by quota

until the fall of 1983. Catches of POP during

this period averaged <250 mt/y.

Experimental Design

To address the impasse in perception of

stock status, DFO proposed, after extensive

internal discussions, an experimental

overharvesting program in cooperation with

industry. The experimental design for both

areas called for comprehensive trawl surveys

before and after the period of overharvesting.

Swept-area surveys for aggregated species

have several sources of potential bias (Byrne

et al. 1981, Smith 1981, Smith 1990).

Although the shortcomings of trawl surveys

for aggregated species were acknowledged, the
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 19

planning team for the experiment believed that

some standardized measurement of relative

abundance would be a valuable adjunct to

fishery statistics and biological samples. For

the Vancouver Island experiment, the period

of overharvesting was proposed as three

years, after which the quota would be

returned to the sustainable level. The

estimated sustainable yield for the Vancouver

Island stock in 1980 was 300 mt (Stocker

1981). The proposed harvest of 500 mt was

67% greater than the estimated sustainable

level.

For the Langara Spit experiment, the

design called for unrestricted fishing bordered

by periods of sustainable or conservative

harvest, to obtain maximum contrast with the

period of high fishing mortality. Therefore,

the planning team agreed that the experiment

would consist of two treatments: 3-5 y of

unrestricted harvest, followed by an

equivalent period of conservative harvest or

closure.

The detailed objectives of both

experiments were:

• to test the validity of trawl survey biomass

estimates;

• to develop estimates of fishing mortality

based on removals;

• to examine the stock-recruitment

relationship relative to other stocks and to

fishing mortality;

• to develop a detailed biological and fishery

statistics database for use in analyses, e.g.

fishing power estimation;

• to validate ageing techniques through the

injection of a large negative anomaly in the

age spectrum of the stock;

• to examine movements as they might be

interpreted from micro-scale distribution of

fishing effort; and

• to involve industry in both research and

management programs.

A number of conditions, under which the

experiments were to be conducted, were

agreed upon and explicitly stated at the

outset. These were:

• trawl surveys would precede and follow the

experiment manipulations;

• industry would supply detailed logbook data

(tow locations, durations and depths,

species compositions, etc.) for their fishing

in the areas; and

• in the case of the Langara experiment, the

fishery would have to be closed for a period

equivalent to the open period, after the

unrestricted fishing portion of the

experiment.

The arrangement between the DFO and

industry as envisioned by the original

experimental concept was to have ongoing

contact between scientists, harvesters, and

stock managers (Fig. 2). Harvesters would
20 Marine Harvest Refugia

impact the stock through fishing activities,

scientists would communicate with

harvesters and assess this impact, and both

would communicate their views to and

consult with stock managers.

Harvesting Interventions

The quota for the Vancouver Island stock

was raised to 500 mt in 1980 and remained at

that level until 1984. Although initially

scheduled to last three years, the

overharvesting experiment was extended an

additional two years because both the 1980

and 1983 qualified catches were below the

target quota (Table 1). All segments of the

planning team agreed with this extension.

Unstandardized catch rates for the Canadian

fleet over the experimental period declined

rapidly. CPUE was standardized by vessel

tonnage class, which is linearly related to

vessel horsepower, hence towing ability. The

standard vessel class was the modal class for

those vessels participating in the fishery.

Estimates of this standardized CPUE also

showed a general decline during the 1979-1985

period (Fig. 3a). Significantly, the variance of

the CPUE also declined during the experiment,

Table 1. Canadian landing statistics for Pacific ocean perch (POP) in the Vancouver Island

experimental fishing area, 1967-1990. Twenty-five percent Qualification Landing data are from those

hauls where at least 25% of the catch was POP. This excludes hauls where POP was not the target.

Total 25% Qualification

YEAR Landings Landings (mt) Effort (h) CPUE (mt/h)

1967 7.02 6.83 14.50 0.471

1968 0.12 - - -

1969 2.49 1.26 12.50 0.101

1970 303.86 273.11 293.20 0.931

1971 218.38 200.82 400.70 0.501

1972 117.25 12.67 14.30 0.886

1973 - - - -

1974 - - - -

1975 5.46 1.46 7.00 0.209

1976 1.29 0.87 1.00 0.870

1977 16.17 8.81 46.30 0.190

1978 53.06 50.95 38.90 1.310

1979 124.86 121.03 85.70 1.412

1980 429.85 395.38 380.90 1.038

1981 547.32 504.96 709.80 0.711

1982 507.97 452.48 555.00 0.815

1983 751.52 325.23 411.10 0.791

1984 551.17 404.10 720.60 0.561

1985 243.11 195.86 692.70 0.283

1986 242.10 140.49 185.10 0.759

1987 542.27 394.80 460.60 0.857

1988 307.46 77.64 228.80 0.339

1989 279.16 146.47 426.00 0.345

1990 289.60 148.28 490.98 0.302
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 21

indicating that the infrequent large hauls of

POP seen early in the experiment were largely

absent by the end.

For the Langara Spit area, the quota was

removed in 1983. Annual landings of total

rockfishes increased steadily for the first three

years of the experiment, to a peak of almost

5000 mt, before declining dramatically in 1987

(Leaman and Stanley 1993). Landings of POP

followed suit with total rockfish landings

(Table 2). Standardized CPUE for POP also

declined dramatically for the fishery over the

course of the experiment (Fig. 3b). However,

the most striking aspect of the Langara Spit

experiment was that the landings far exceeded

even the most optimistic estimate of

exploitable biomass derived from the previous

trawl surveys.

Changes in the stock abundance indices

for the Vancouver Island experiment were

consistent with a significant decline in

biomass. Relative biomass estimates from

both Canadian and U.S. post-experiment

surveys were lower by at least 50%. Catch

rates in the Canadian commercial fishery were

also substantially lower following

experimental harvesting. In addition, the size

frequency of POP in 1985 suggested a total

mortality rate at least four times the optimum

level. Standardized CPUE for Langara POP

declined from 3.34 mt/h in 1984 to 0.89mt/h

in 1990 (Fig. 3b). It accompanied a rise and

fall in average total fishing effort per trip.

Changes in the biological aspects of the

population, including truncation of the age

spectrum and high mortality rates on

recruiting fish, were substantial and have been

presented in greater detail in Leaman and

Stanley (1993).

Table 2. Canadian landing statistics for Pacific ocean perch (POP) in the Langara Spit

experimental fishing area, 1976-1990. Percent qualification is the percentage of POP in catch

necessary for inclusion of data (see caption for Table 1).

Total 25% Qualification

YEAR Landings Landings (mt) Effort (h) CPUE (mt/h)

1976 - - - -

1977 1.42 0.70 2.30 0.304

1978 22.22 6.65 16.80 0.396

1979 227.49 223.83 108.50 2.063

1980 84.56 64.80 39.50 1.641

1981 109.22 53.15 24.10 2.205

1982 342.23 194.18 109.30 1.777

1983 291.98 208.28 193.50 1.076

1984 2173.86 1779.38 980.00 1.816

1985 1921.21 1712.09 1514.50 1.130

1986 2725.37 2558.46 2319.30 1.103

1987 1129.70 1015.88 1119.60 0.907

1988 1088.79 1027.99 1373.60 0.748

1989 1532.50 1401.89 1574.40 0.890

1990 1162.00 1123.65 1336.09 0.841
22 Marine Harvest Refugia

Implementation Problems

The Vancouver Island experiment

exhibited no serious implementation

problems. Cooperation and data capture from

harvesters were both acceptable. For the

Langara Spit landings area, it was apparent

even early in the experiment that the

requirement for accurate reporting by vessels

was not being met. There was strong evidence

of mis-reporting of landings from elsewhere as

originating from the experimental area.

Indeed, industry has subsequently

acknowledged that some data submitted prior

to 1989-1990 were "unreliable".

Some vessel masters attempted to use a

refusal to provide logbook information in

1984 as leverage to obtain concessions on

rockfish quotas in other areas. Faced with

this conflict, researchers recommended

suspension of the experiment because one of

the fundamental goals, data capture, was not

being met (Leaman 1985). Managers also

were concerned about these events but, rather

than terminating the experiment, worked with

industry to develop a compromise. A permit

system was instituted which required detailed

logbook data as a condition of the permit to

fish in the area. However, the success of the

compromise system required higher levels of

surveillance than could be achieved with

available resources.

The beginning of the second phase of the

experimental design, closure, was scheduled

for 1988. However, two factors made it

difficult to implement this phase of the

experiment. First, industry had come to

depend on harvest levels achieved during the

unrestricted fishing phase. Second, some

harvesters were still able to obtain profitable

trips from the area because of the aggregating

behaviour of rockfishes and the lowered

number of participants in the fishery. These

individuals therefore argued for continuation

of the experiment on the basis that little or no

over-exploitation had been demonstrated.

When other harvesters ceased fishing in the

experimental area, they also ceased providing

any data on the experiment. Lastly, the long

lag in response of some stock indices to the
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 23

effects of harvest, because of the late age at

recruitment of rockfishes, meant that not all

indices from the experiment presented a

consistent picture of stock status.

The fishery was kept open for 1988-

1989. The target level of desired effort was

achieved in both years. Analyses of reliable

data from the observer program implemented

during these two years indicated noteworthy

declines in some indices of stock status.

Standardized CPUE for vessels previously

suspected of non-compliance was only 76%

of that for other vessels. These suspect

vessels had reported CPUE well in excess of

other vessels, during the period when observer

verification was not required.

For 1991-1992 there was again debate

about instituting the second phase of the

experiment. Researchers, managers, and the

primary industry advisory body to DFO

recommended closure of the Langara Spit area.

However, economic issues concerning fish

plants and communities benefiting from the

unrestricted harvest levels continued to play a

role in the experiment. Harvesters who had

been part of the original design team made

direct entreaties to both politicians and senior

DFO managers to keep the experimental area

open. The researchers responsible for the

design of the experiment were excluded from

the discussions between these groups and a

decision to extend the unrestricted harvest an

additional two years was made. The original

design now took on the appearance of Fig. 4.

The area was finally closed in 1993.

Discussion

A major result of these experiments is the

finding that cooperative programs with

industry can be frustrated or even destroyed

by the actions of only a few individuals.

When population responses to experimental

manipulations are subtle, even small amounts

of data contamination can significantly

diminish the ability to interpret observations

correctly. It was expected that industry

would value the learning effects of the Langara

Spit relationships of the participants from the

experiment, since it directly addressed their

concerns that researchers underestimated

abundance and productivity. However,

harvesters did not provide quality data

consistently, and cooperating vessel masters

did not appear to pressure non-cooperating

masters to adhere to the experimental

program.

Researchers failed to anticipate that the

Langara Spit experiment would assume an

economic life of its own. Once established,

this experimental fishery came to be regarded

as a necessary part of the groundfish industry.

The landings also had a localized impact

because the majority went to a single port.
24 Marine Harvest Refugia

Several strong lessons have emerged from

these two programs:

1. There should be a clear statement of

objectives at the outset. These objectives

should be endorsed by all levels of

participants.

2. Indices and criteria for evaluation of results

also should be agreed on during the planning

stages. For the experiments described herein,

researchers did not detail how specific changes

in indices would be interpreted, rather they

assumed it would be 'assessment as usual'.

The interpretation that will be placed on

specific types of changes to indices must be

agreed upon at the outset. There should also

be agreement on what actions will be taken in

response to the changes in indices, prior to the

time when these actions are required.

3. Agreement on the forum in which the

results of experiments will be interpreted, as

well as when and by whom evaluation

decisions will made, should be gained at the

outset.

4. There should be frequent reviews with all

participants during the course of the

experiment. The reviews should not only

examine experimental progress but should also

be used to re-confirm objectives, as well as the

design and evaluation criteria.

5. A commitment from all levels of industry

and government to the process and the time

frame of the experiments, and to how the

results may affect the design of future

management programs, should be acquired.

Institutional or industry impatience should

not compromise the proper conduct of

experiments.

6. The ability to monitor stock changes

requires complete and accurate data and,

conversely, is very susceptible to

contamination by incorrect data. Managers

and researchers should understand the limited

ability to perceive changes in a biological

system with high variance, even when data are

fully reliable. All participants should be

aware of the large cost of even small amounts

of illegal harvest. Therefore, planning for such

experiments should anticipate the need for

different data capture methodology (e.g.

observers) or increased enforcement under

conditions of non-compliance, together with

mechanisms to fund these alternatives.

7. Participants should be made aware of

potential results, both biological and

economic, prior to undertaking the

experiments. For one of the experiments we

describe, the economic impacts of removing an

unrestricted fishing program, once instituted,

were greatly underestimated.

Implications for Rockfish Reserves

All of the lessons from our experiments

have direct parallels to any programs for

rockfish harvest reserves. Establishment of

no-take reserves will remove present sources

of information on status of stocks within the

reserves. Researchers must have a means of

monitoring these reserved stocks to

demonstrate whether there are positive

changes to them. More importantly,

originators of the reserves (and their

superiors) will be pressured to demonstrate

that, whatever the positive changes in the
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 25

reserves, there are distributed benefits to

stocks outside the reserves. There will be

rapid and continuous pressure on advocates of

the reserves to provide such demonstration.

Institutional impatience and the tenure of the

individuals who make the original decisions on

reserves can be critical components of

commitment. For these reasons, formal and

documented agreements among parties may be

necessary to long term success. As was the

case for the experiments described here,

decision points should also generate responses

upon which participants had agreed, prior to

the inception of the reserves.

A further consideration is that the

creation of harvest reserves will remove some

proportion of the production basis for present

fisheries. Depending on the size and location

of the reserve, this proportion may be

extremely difficult to estimate. For

rockfishes, in particular, aggregating behaviour

means that productivity may not be a simple

analogue of bottom area. Reserve designers

will need to anticipate potential increases in

the exploitation of the remaining non-reserve

production base, if overall yields are not

adjusted for this removal. This increased

exploitation may create an artificial disparity

between the performance of stocks in the

reserve and those outside. Reserve stocks

may appear to be prospering but this may be

simply an artefact of the increased fishing

mortality outside the reserve.

The experiments described here involved

limited numbers and categories of

participants. The harvesters involved also

had direct economic links to the performance

of the fishery. In the case of reserves, much

more effort needs to be directed at valuation

of non-extractive use, to provide balance to

the economic influence of harvesting.

Incorporation of viewpoints from nonextractive users also will make the planning

process more involved, the objectives more

contentious, and the measures of success more

diverse. This suggests that individual reserves

may each require unique framework

agreements among stakeholders.

The experience of these Canadian fishing

experiments suggests that gaining prior

agreement on decision points may be one of

the key components of successful reserve

implementation.

References

Byrne, C. J., T. R. Azarovitz, and M. P.

Sissenwine. 1981. Factors affecting variability

of research vessel trawl surveys. In Doubleday,

W. G. and D. Rivard (eds.). Bottom trawl

surveys. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

58:258-272.

Gunderson, D. R. 1981. An updated cohort

analysis for Pacific ocean perch stocks off

Washington and Oregon. Pacific Marine

Fisheries Management Council Report,

Portland, Oregon. 29p.

Kimura, D. K. 1981. Standardized measures of

relative abundance based on modeling log CPUE

and their applicability to Pacific ocean perch

(Sebastes alutus). J. Cons. Int. Exp. Mer 39:

211-218.

Kimura, D. K. and J. V. Tagart. 1982. Stock

reduction analysis, another solution to the catch

equation. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39:1467-

1472.

Leaman, B. M. 1985. Slope rockfish. In Tyler,

A. V. and G. A. McFarlane (eds.). Groundfish

stock assessments for the west coast of Canada

in 1984 and recommended yield options for

1985. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

1813:247-342.
26 Marine Harvest Refugia

Leaman, B. M., R. Kieser, P. Withler, and R. D.

Stanley. 1990. W. E. RICKER hydroacoustic

cruise to study rockfish behaviour off northern

Vancouver Island, March 14-23, 1990. Can.

Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2091:46p.

Leaman, B. M. and R. D. Stanley. 1993.

Experimental management programs for two

rockfish stocks off British Columbia, Canada.

pp. 403-418 In S.J. Smith, J.J. Hunt and D.

Rivard [ed.] Risk evaluation and biological

reference points for fisheries management.

Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 120. 442p.

Lenarz, W. H. 1987. A history of California

rockfish fisheries. pp. 35-41 In Proceedings of

the International Rockfish Symposium. Univ.

of Alaska Sea Grant Rep. 87-2.

Smith, S. J. 1981. A comparison of estimators

of location for skewed populations, with

applications to groundfish trawl surveys. In W.

G. Doubleday and D. Rivard (eds.). Bottom

trawl surveys. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

58:154-163.

Smith, S. J. 1990. Use of statistical models for

the estimation of abundance from groundfish

trawl survey data. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

47:894-903.

Stocker, M. (Ed.). 1981. Groundfish stock

assessments off the west coast of Canada in

1981 and recommended total allowable catches

for 1982. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

1626:282p.

Stocker, M. and B. M. Leaman. 1990. Effects

of extended jurisdiction on conservation of

Canada's Pacific coast fisheries. N. Am. J. Fish.

Mgmt. 10:144-153.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 27

Concepts Relevant to the Design and Evaluation of Fishery Reserves

Mark H. Carr, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA

Peter T. Raimondi, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA

Recognizing the Costs of Improperly

Designed or Evaluated Marine

Fishery Reserves

It is generally assumed that any

management plan intended to reduce

exploitation of a biological resource will, at

worst, do no harm and afford the potential for

benefits. Consequently, proper design and

evaluation methods are often considered

supplementary, a non-vital task, that will

only make a plan even more successful. In the

context of marine fishery reserves, this

attitude translates to the perspective that any

reserve is a good reserve and that a design

based on sound ecological and socio-economic

criteria is of only secondary importance.

However, poorly designed or implemented

policies can actually hurt the resource they

were intended to protect or enhance. Thus,

like any other management plan, marine

fishery reserves and their associated resources

can suffer from poor design or improper

evaluation.

In reality, there are costs associated with

any management strategy that can be

magnified by poor design and inadequate or

inaccurate evaluation. The effort and finances

invested in one plan can detract from

alternative and concurrent strategies, some of

which could be more effective. Examples of

tradeoffs among alternative management plans

are well documented for the salmon (Hunter

1991, Meehan 1991, Stouder et al. 1997) and

krill (Nicol and de la Mare 1993) fisheries.

Similarly, reserves may contribute to, but not

be sufficient protection for some marine

resources (Allison et al. 1998). Because

reserves have been argued to most effectively

augment rather than replace other management

strategies (Carr and Reed 1993, Roberts 1997,

Allison et al. 1998), the costs of implementing

reserves may then detract from effort and

finances required of other strategies (e.g.

enforcement). Such costs can be ameliorated

with supplemental resources, but the possible

need for additional resources must be

recognized. Thus, the cost of development of

any management plan must be weighed against

both those costs incurred in the absence of

that policy (i.e. continued loss of resources)

and the relative costs and benefits of

alternative policies. A clear analogy exists

from terrestrial reserves where the costbenefit of movement corridors versus larger

but isolated reserves has been debated

(Simberloff et al. 1992).

More troublesome are the potentially

insidious costs of those reserves that are

ineffective by poor design or that are judged

to be ineffective because of flawed evaluation.

Poorly designed fishery reserves could

provide minimal benefits while giving a false

sense of security to managers and fishers (akin

to a statistical Type II error; accepting a

hypothesis when in fact it is false). In this

case, the reserves could be used to justify

relaxed restrictions in the remaining fishing

grounds and exploited populations could be

subjected to a combination of concentrated

effort and less restrictive regulations. Also

disconcerting is the possibility that properly
28 Marine Harvest Refugia

designed fishery reserves are in fact highly

effective at managing or protecting fisheries,

but early attempts fail to demonstrate this

because these initial reserves are poorly

designed (akin to a Type I error; rejecting a

hypothesis when in fact it is true). Like poor

design, improper evaluation can jeopardize the

future of a reserve program. Well designed

reserves may be highly effective at sustaining

and enhancing fisheries, but flawed methods

of evaluation (e.g. improper response

variables are measured, low statistical power)

can fail to demonstrate their positive effects.

Again, it may be difficult to justify the future

of a reserve program because of a lack of

demonstrable benefit. The worst case

scenario involves the flawed evaluation of

poorly designed reserves, which could lead to

either positive evaluations of an ineffective

reserve system or abandonment of a

potentially valuable management strategy.

Based on these potential costs, design

and evaluation of marine fishery reserves

should be considered a necessary task, not

simply icing on the cake. However, the

concerns raised above and the need for

effective design and evaluation apply equally

well to any (including a competing)

management policy. Furthermore, these

potential costs must be weighed against the

costs born by continuing any current

ineffective management strategy.

Designing Sustainable Protected

Populations and Communities

It is often argued that the greatest

promise for fishery reserves to sustain or

enhance exploited populations is by

exporting larvae to them (Carr and Reed

1993, Quinn et al. 1993, Roberts 1997,

Allison et al. 1998, Sladek Nowlis and

Yoklavich 1998). Indeed, the highly

dispersive larval stage and open

population structure of many demersal

fishes are key to the great potential of

fishery reserves as instruments of fisheries

management. But the importance of larval

recruitment to the replenishment of local

populations can be both the key to

success and the Achilles heel of a

sustainable marine reserve. Just as many

exploited adult populations can be greatly

influenced by, if not entirely reliant upon,

larvae produced elsewhere by other local

populations, so might populations

protected within a reserve be strongly

reliant on recruitment of larvae produced

outside that reserve. As such, continued

or increasing over-exploitation of

unprotected populations can jeopardize

the replenishment of protected

populations within a reserve. Only if a

single reserve is sufficiently large to

encompass the range of dispersal of many

larvae produced by its local populations

will it be self-replenishing and therefore

potentially self-sustaining. Although

there is growing suggestion for some local

replenishment of reef fish populations

(especially on oceanic islands), given the

long planktonic duration and tremendous

dispersal potential of many exploited

species (especially many species of

rockfishes, genus Sebastes, with

planktonic durations of 1-3 months) it

seems unlikely that any single reserve will

be of sufficient spatial extent to be largely

self-sustaining. Moreover, a single

completely self-replenishing reserve will

likely have lower potential to contribute
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 29

to exploited populations because most

larvae would have to be retained in the

reserve, assuming no compensatory

reduction in larval and juvenile mortality.

Therefore, a collection or network of

reserves seems necessary in order to

ensure that reserve populations are both

self-replenishing and self-sustaining. The

spatial design (distribution and number) of

a network should aim for a high likelihood

of connectivity (via larval dispersal)

among reserves, while replenishing

exploited populations outside reserves.

Critical goals of future research should

include a better understanding of, and

capacity to predict, dispersal potential of

targeted species, and understanding the

balance between self replenishment and

reliance on recruitment from exploited

populations necessary to sustain

protected populations.

Sources and Sinks: Not All Habitats and

Local Populations Are Created Equal

The concept of source and sink areas

(sensu Pulliam 1988) has valuable

implications for fishery reserves. First, the

concept raises the important notion that local

populations of reef fishes are likely to differ

in their relative contribution to the

replenishment of themselves and other

populations within an exploited stock. Such

differences arise from variation in habitat

quality, rates of natural (and fishing) mortality

and, therefore, local productivity (i.e. larval

production) among populations, and from

differences in the planktonic fate of larvae

dispersed from a population. Second, when

applied to the open local populations of most

marine organisms, the concept should focus

attention on the fate of larvae dispersed from

a population. However, the importance of

larval fate is only recognized when it is

realized that Pulliam’s original definition of

source and sink areas does not apply directly

to the more open populations typical of most

marine organisms. Pulliam’s model, originally

developed for more closed populations of

terrestrial species, defines sink populations as

those in which within-habitat reproduction is

insufficient to balance local mortality, and

instead are maintained locally by continued

immigration from more-productive “source”

areas or populations nearby. However,

because pelagically dispersed larvae are

transported away from parental populations,

local open populations of many, if not most,

marine organisms are generally thought to

rarely if ever replenish themselves. Of course

this is influenced by the spatial scale at which

one arbitrarily defines a local population and

the extent to which larvae disperse from that

population. For such species, offspring

primarily replenish other locations (i.e.

populations) and the extent to which they do

so relative to recruitment to the parental

location determines that location’s relative

role as a source or sink among a collection of

local locations. Obviously, and fundamentally,

reserves should be located to protect those

populations that contribute greatly to the

replenishment of other populations, both

exploited and protected. Protection of species

in a location that produces larvae with a low

likelihood of recruitment to other locations,

with or without protection, is a serious design

flaw.

Recognizing this revised definition of

source and sink populations for open marine

populations raises several critical questions:
30 Marine Harvest Refugia

(1) how is the relative contribution of a local

population best predicted and evaluated? (2)

given that this contribution is largely based

upon the fate (i.e. likelihood of successful

recruitment) of larvae produced by a candidate

population, how is larval fate best estimated?

and (3) what is the year-to-year variation in

habitat quality and patterns of larval dispersal

(i.e. changes in the relative role of a

population as a source or sink) and how can

such variation be incorporated into the design

(particularly reserve location and distribution)

and evaluation of protected populations?

Evaluating a local population’s contribution to

the replenishment of other populations is

conceptually straightforward. This is

determined by measuring the extent to which

catch-per-unit-effort (as an estimate of

population size) of the fished population

increases or decreases when a candidate local

population increases (from protection), or

decreases (by exploitation). If a reserve is to

function as a management tool, that

population’s contribution should be reflected

in the size or dynamics of the fished

population as that local population’s size is

altered by the level of exploitation. The value

of protecting a potential source population

should be manifested ultimately as a reduced

rate of decline or increase of the fished

population (and increased replenishment of

other protected populations to ensure

sustainability of a reserve network).

However, for long-lived species like rockfish,

this ultimate influence of a reserve is likely to

lag many (at least 5-10) years after protecting

a population. More proximate effects (i.e.

changes in size structure, density and larval

production) could be used to evaluate the

potential contribution of a protected

population, but importantly, these are not

sufficient to evaluate the actual contribution

of a reserve population.

Predicting the potential contribution of a

local population requires some estimate of the

fate of larvae produced by that population.

Knowledge of larval duration, oceanographic

features that influence larval transport and

survival, and regional patterns of current

regimes can and should be used to shed some

light on the potential fate of larvae released

from a local population (Yoklavich et al.

1997). For many reasons, one being year-toyear variation in current regimes, such

estimates are likely to be imprecise. Our lack

of knowledge of several potentially important

factors that influence larval transport

identifies research directions for fisheries

ecologists and the need for integrated research

programs involving (larval) fish ecologists and

nearshore oceanographers. For example, are

the oceanographic features that influence

patterns of larval dispersal of deep water

species the same as those that influence

shallow water species? If not, species

complexes may differ markedly in those

factors that determine source and sink

populations.

Given the difficulties in predicting the

fate of larvae produced by a potential reserve

population, and because the contribution (or

success) of a reserve is ultimately evaluated

by the response of the exploited population,

an adaptive management approach to marine

reserves seems imperative. Only by

establishing reserves based upon available

ecological information and measuring the

response of other populations (both fished

and protected), can the contribution of a

protected population be evaluated. Thus, by
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 31

varying certain criteria (e.g. high vs. low

upwelling regimes) when establishing reserves

(akin to varying levels of an experimental

treatment) and measuring the response of

other populations (fished and protected), we

can both identify valuable reserve sites and

learn how to identify such sites for future

reserves.

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Yoklavich and two

anonymous reviewers for helpful input and

M. Mangel for directing us toward valuable

references. M. Carr and P. Raimondi were

supported in part by Minerals Management

Service grant 14-35-0001-30758 and NSF

grants OCE-9618012 and OCE-9614091.

References

Allison, G.W., J. Lubchenco, and M.H. Carr.

1998. Marine reserves are necessary but

not sufficient for marine conservation.

Ecol. Appl. 8:79-92.

Carr, M.H. and D.C. Reed. 1993. Conceptual

issues relevant to marine harvest refuges:

examples from temperate reef fishes. Can. J.

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 2019-2028.

Hunter, C.J. 1991. Better Trout Habitat. Island

Press, Washington, DC.

Meehan, W.R. (ed) 1991. Influences of forest

and rangeland management on salmonid fishes

and their habitats. American Fisheries Society

Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD.

Nicol, S. and W. de la Mare. 1993. Ecosystem

management and the Antarctic krill. Amer. Sci.

81:36-46.

Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks and

population regulation. Amer. Nat. 132:652-

661.

Quinn, J.F., S. R. Wing and L.W. Botsford.

1993. Harvest refugia in marine invertebrate

fisheries: models and applications to the red sea

urchin, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus. Amer.

Zool. 33: 537-550.

Roberts, C.M. 1997. Connectivity and

management of Caribbean coral reefs. Science

278:1454-1457.

Simberloff, D., J.A. Farr, J. Cox and D.W.

Mehlman. 1992. Movement corridors:

conservation bargains or poor investments?

Cons. Bio. 6:493-504.

Sladek Nowlis, J. and M.M. Yoklavich. 1998.

Design criteria for rockfish harvest refugia from

models of fish transport. In Yoklavich, M.M.

(ed.) 1998. Proceedings of Marine Harvest

Refugia for West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop.

U.S. Dep. Comm. NOAA-NMFS Tech. Memo.

(This volume).

Stouder, D.J., P.A. Bisson and R.J. Naiman (ed).

1997. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems.

Chapman and Hall.

Yoklavich, M.M., R. Starr, J. Steger, H.G.

Greene, F. Schwing and C. Malzone. 1997.

Mapping benthic habitats and ocean currents in

the vicinity of Central California’s Big Creek

Ecological Reserve. U.S. Dep. Comm. NOAA

Tech. Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-245,

52 p.
32 Marine Harvest Refugia

Design Criteria for Rockfish Harvest Refugia from Models Of

Fish Transport

Joshua Sladek Nowlis, NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA

Mary M. Yoklavich, NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Pacific Fisheries

Environmental Laboratory, Pacific Grove, CA

Abstract

We used an existing model in our initial examination of the effects of marine harvest refugia, i.e.

protected areas where fishing is prohibited, on the bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes paucispinis)

population off central and northern California. We incorporated size-specific life history

information into the model, including growth, survival, and fecundity, and examined the long-term

fisheries consequences of refugia. The key assumptions of the model were that larvae dispersed

widely from their areas of origin and adults remained in the areas where they settled. Using the

model based on these assumptions, we predict moderate-to-great potential for enhancement of

bocaccio catch if refugia are established, depending on the magnitude of fishing mortality outside the

protected area. From this model, we also suggest that refugia could decrease variability in annual

catches. In the future, we will expand this study to include rockfish species with different life history

characteristics and to examine in greater detail the effects of adult movements on the model output.

Introduction

Growing theoretical and empirical

evidence supports the use of marine harvest

refugia, i.e. protected areas that are closed to

fishing, as a supplemental management

technique for both fisheries and conservation.

Potential fisheries benefits arise from the

export of adult and larval fishes from the

refuge to surrounding fishing areas, which

theoretically can increase catches if the

augmentation exceeds lost catches from

reduced fishing area. Potential conservation

benefits occur on population and ecosystem

levels. If designed properly, a refuge can

protect self-sustaining populations of

harvested species (Russ 1985, Plan

Development Team 1990, Roberts and

Polunin 1991, 1993, Dugan and Davis 1993,

Rowley 1994, Roberts et al. 1995, Bohnsack

1996, Sladek Nowlis and Roberts, unpubl.

MS). Additionally, the lack of fishing in an

area can prevent physical damage to the

ecosystem from fishing gear (e.g. McAllister

1988) and can minimize ecosystem shifts due

to selective fishing (e.g. Hay 1984, Castilla

and Durán 1985, McClanahan and Shafir

1990, Roberts 1995, McClanahan et al. 1996,

Pauly et al. 1998).

Most studies of marine harvest refugia

have focused on tropical systems, where the

majority of these protected areas exist. There

is strong empirical evidence that some tropical

reef fish species increase in abundance within

refugia (Roberts and Polunin 1991, Dugan and

Davis 1993, Rowley 1994, Bohnsack 1996,

among others). Weaker empirical evidence

suggests that refugia can enhance the

populations in surrounding unprotected

waters (McClanahan and Kaunda-Arara 1996,

Russ and Alcala 1996). Two mechanisms

have been proposed for this augmentation:

spillover, where adults move from the refuge

to fishing areas (Polacheck 1990), and larval
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 33

transport, where adults within the refuge

sustain outside populations through the

dispersal of their offspring (Sladek Nowlis

and Roberts, unpubl. MS).

Modeling the contributions of these two

mechanisms -- adult spillover and larval

transport -- to the enhancement of

unprotected populations offers some useful

insight. Polacheck (1990) modified a model

by Beverton and Holt (1957) to examine

fisheries enhancements via adult spillover

from refugia. This cohort model included

explicit parameters for fishing effort and for

the propensity of the species to move across

the refuge boundary. Because of the cohort

approach, the supply of new recruits was not

affected by the size of the adult population.

Thus, Polacheck could only examine the effect

of larval transport indirectly, through the

spawning stock biomass -- a measure of the

reproductive potential of the population.

This model predicted fisheries enhancements

from the refuge (i.e. greater fishery yields

despite a smaller fishing area) only under

limited circumstances. Enhancements were

more likely at high fishing pressures outside

the refuge and with intermediate rates of

movement by adult fishes. Even under these

conditions, the catch augmentation was

always modest (maximum 8-20%, depending

on the amount of fish movement). From these

analyses, we can conclude that adult spillover

from refugia results in, at best, only moderate

fisheries enhancements.

Sladek Nowlis and Roberts (1997) used

cyclical population models to examine

fisheries augmentation by larval transport

from harvest refugia. In these models,

recruitment in the entire management area was

affected by the population densities in both

the protected and unprotected areas. The

models assumed no adult spillover so as to

focus on the effects of larval transport. This

assumption also seems to fit well with the

growing evidence regarding the limited

movements of coral reef fish (Holland et al.

1993, Holland et al. 1996). In contrast to

models of adult spillover, Sladek Nowlis and

Roberts predicted fisheries enhancements

from harvest refugia under a wide range of

conditions, but specifically any time the

resources are overfished (i.e. fished beyond

the maximum sustainable yield). Moreover,

their models predicted that refugia provide

enormous catch enhancements via larval

transport, particularly when fishing mortality

is high. Polacheck's (1990) findings

complement the result that larval transport is

a more effective mechanism for providing

fisheries enhancements from refugia.

Spawning stock biomass, and thus potential

reproductive output, was greatest in his

models at the lowest rates of adult movement.

Sladek Nowlis and Roberts' (1997

unpubl. MS) study of larval transport focused

specifically on coral reef fishes, whose

mobility is limited and whose populations

receive minimal management. Here we

present preliminary results for the temperate

bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes paucispinis) using

the same model structure. This species has

been economically valuable in both the

commercial and recreational fisheries off

central and northern California for at least the

past two decades. The latest assessment of

the bocaccio rockfish population in this area

indicates a significant decline in biomass, and

current abundance now is less than 10% of

that estimated in 1970 (Ralston et al. 1996).

Like most rockfish species, bocaccio have
34 Marine Harvest Refugia

highly variable annual recruitment, and the last

strong year class occurred in 1977. Initial

fisheries in the early 1970's took advantage of

accumulated biomass of this moderately longlived species (e.g. maximum age is at least 50

yr [Ralston et al. 1996]), and subsequently on

the survivors of the 1977 year class. Bocaccio

are now at the lowest level of abundance of all

federally managed rockfish species, relative to

initial surveys in 1969. Consequently, the

Pacific Fisheries Management Council has

reduced the Acceptable Biological Catch of

bocaccio in 1996 and 1997 (Ralston 1998).

For this species, we predict optimal

refuge proportions, the proportion of the total

managed area closed to fishing, and

corresponding sustainable yields as functions

of fishing mortality. We also investigate how

refugia might impact yearly catch variations.

Finally, we compare our results to historical

records of fishing pressure on bocaccio to

determine the likelihood that refugia might

provide benefits to this fishery. This study is

part of an ongoing investigation with several

goals: (1) to determine the potential

effectiveness of harvest refugia for rockfish;

(2) to assess the effect of adult mobility on

potential refuge benefits; and (3) to examine

the influence of minimum size limits,

particularly above or below the size at first

reproduction, on potential refuge benefits.

Methods

We applied a model developed by Sladek

Nowlis and Roberts (unpubl. MS) to a sizestructured bocaccio rockfish population in

central and northern California. This model

examines long-term fishery yields based on

various values for fishing mortality and refuge

size. We represented fishing mortality by the

parameter u (the rate of exploitation), which is

the proportion of the fish population caught

per year and is related to instantaneous rate of

fishing mortality (F) as u = 1-e-F. Only fish in

the fishing areas were subjected to this

mortality. We represented refuge size by the

parameter s, the proportion of the

management area closed to fishing. We also

used species-specific life history information,

including larval and juvenile survival rate,

adult natural survival rates, von Bertalanffy

growth parameters, and size-specific

fecundities (see Table 1 for all estimated

parameters and their references). Fish had to

reach threshold sizes before they became

reproductive and before they were vulnerable

to the fishery.

The key assumption of the model

involves transport of fishes from the closed

area to nearby fishing areas. We assumed that

adults did not enter or leave the refuge,

whereas the larvae were dispersed widely

across the refuge boundaries, resulting in an

even distribution of newly settled juveniles.

From previous studies (Sladek Nowlis and

Roberts 1997, unpubl. MS), we know that the

quantitative results of these models depend on

the accuracy of all parameter values, as well as

the functional relationship between stock and

recruitment. In contrast, the qualitative

results largely depend on the movement

assumptions and the existence of some form

of a density-dependent relationship between

stock and recruitment.

Results

Results of the model using parameters

from the bocaccio population off central and
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 35

Table 1. Model parameter values, and their sources, for the bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes paucispinis)

population in central and northern California. 1Modified from Yoklavich et al. (1996) and Ralston and

Howard (1995); 2 best guess; 3 Rogers and Pikitch (1989); 4 Wyllie Echeverria (1987); 5 Ralston, et al.

(1996); 6 Annual survival probability = e-M; 7 Thomas and Bence (1992); 8 Wilkins (1980); 9 Phillips

(1964).

1Larval Survival Fecundity Adult Survival

von

Bertalanffy

for Females

Period

0-20 d

21-60 d

61-180 d

180-365 d

Instantaneous

Mortality

0.14

0.08

0.04

0.01124

Survival

Through

Period

0.06081

0.04076

0.00823

2

0.125

No. annual

 spawns = 1

3

Fecundity =

 0.001878 x

(Fork length)4.878193

4

Fork length at 1st

maturity = 26 cm

5M = 0.2

6Annual survival

 probability =

 0.8187

7Total length at

recruitment to

fishery = 40 cm

8L = 87.76 cm

8

k = 0.11

8

t 0 = -1.73 yr

9

c =

 0.0079 kg/cm3

9

x = 3.1067

northern California qualitatively match those

from coral reef fishery species (Sladek Nowlis

and Roberts unpubl. MS). In a deterministic

environment where the conditions remained

constant, sustainable yields without a harvest

refuge increased with annual fishing mortality

until they peaked at the maximum sustainable

yield (Fig. 1). They then fell as rapidly as

they rose. In this latter region of the curve,

where catches fell with increasing fishing

mortality, the fishery can be classified as

overfished. The optimal refuge proportion

was non-zero, indicating that a reduction in

fishing area resulted in higher catches than if

the entire management area had been fished,

whenever the fishery was overfished.

Additionally, the optimal refuge proportion

increased with fishing mortality. Yields with

an optimally-sized refuge remained similar

across a wide range of conditions, from u =

0.10 and no refuge to a heavy fishing

mortality of u = 0.6 or more and a refuge

encompassing approximately 25% of the

managed area. In sum, refugia enhanced

catches whenever the fishery was overfished,

and the optimal refuge size increased with

fishing pressure while the yields remained

similar to the maximum sustainable yields.

In a stochastic environment, where larval

survival varied from year to year, we found

that catch variability generally decreased with

refuge size (Fig. 2). This pattern was

particularly common when fishing mortality

was high and with initial increments in refuge

size. We used the ratio of the standard

deviation to the average annual catch as our

measure of variability. This ratio represents

the catch variability in terms of the mean.

Thus, a ratio of 1 indicated that the standard

deviation in annual catches is equal to the

mean -- an extremely high degree of variation.

Variability in annual catch increased at the

highest refuge proportions for all levels of

fishing because, as the population declines
36 Marine Harvest Refugia

Figure 1. Central and northern California

bocaccio rockfishes yield enhancements from

refugia over a range of annual fishing

mortalities. Long-term sustainable yields (in kg

per year) without harvest refugia (solid lines and

square points), optimal refuge proportions

(ORP) that maximize long-term sustainable

yields (dotted line and diamonds), and yields

with optimally-sized refugia (dashed line and

circles) are graphed against annual fishing

mortality (u).

toward extinction, the catches approach zero

more quickly than the variation in catch. This

is not a trivial result because, if this

phenomenon is realistic, we would expect to

see wildly variable fisheries when they are on

the verge of disaster. Specifically, there might

be a few moderately productive years in an

otherwise collapsing fishery.

Finally, we compared our estimate of the

fishing mortality at which the bocaccio

population would begin to benefit from a

harvest refuge to the history of fishing

mortality for this species, as determined in the

most recent stock assessment (Ralston et al.

1996). Any fishing mortality above u = 0.15

suggests that a refuge would have been useful

for augmenting catches (Fig. 3). That is,

refugia might have enhanced catches

consistently in the central and northern

California population since the late 1970s.

Discussion

The general conclusions of this study

regarding the benefits produced by harvest

refugia to a fishery, and the magnitude of

those benefits, are consistent with those from

coral reef species (Sladek Nowlis and Roberts

unpubl. MS). Specific predictions, such as

how much area to close, are more speciesspecific. According to the best available

parameters, the bocaccio has a higher

population growth rate (i.e. = 1.21) than

most coral reef fishery species previously

Figure 2. Effect of increasing refuge proportion

(the size of the area closed to fishing, relative

to the entire management area) on catch

variability for the bocaccio rockfish population

off central and northern California. Each line

represents a different annual fishing mortality,

varying from 0.2 (solid line, open circles) to 0.8

(dashed line, filled triangles). For each possible

combination of fishing mortality and refuge

proportion, the model was run ten times. The

mean and standard deviation of the catches were

for the next 100 years.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 37

Figure 3. Potential for bocaccio rockfish off

central and northern California to benefit from

refugia. The solid line is the proportion of the

bocaccio population's biomass caught each year

from 1969 to 1996 (from Ralston, et al. 1996),

a quantity approximately equivalent to fishing

mortality (u) as used in the model. The dotted

line is the threshold fishing mortality above

which the population is overfished and would

yield higher catches with refugia.

examined (mostly < 1.16). As a result, the

model predicts that bocaccio populations can

maintain a more productive fishery in the

absence of refugia than those coral reef fishery

species. The population growth potential is

affected by virtually every parameter included

in the model. Consequently, when making

these comparisons across species, particularly

tropical species whose life history is poorly

studied, it is critical to be aware of the model's

sensitivity to small errors in parameter values.

There clearly is room to improve our

parameter estimates for bocaccio rockfish. In

particular, we assumed that stochastic larval

survivorship is normally distributed, when in

reality it is characterized by a few good years

interspersed among many bad ones. Future

modeling efforts will more accurately

incorporate variability in recruitment.

More generally, we can improve the

model by including a transfer rate to represent

the probability that adults move across the

refuge boundary. This transfer rate was not

necessary in earlier models for several reasons,

including analytical simplicity, direct

comparison to Polacheck's (1990) model of

adult transport, and the relatively high site

fidelity of many coral reef fish species and

some rockfish species.

For bocaccio rockfish, however, it is

unrealistic to consider only refugia that have

been designed to minimize adult spillover.

Because bocaccio potentially can move 150

km or more (Hartmann 1987), our current

model's results will only apply to large

management areas (e.g. a significant portion of

the central California coast and Monterey Bay

National Marine Sanctuary). Interestingly,

older bocaccio rockfish seem to be relatively

sedentary and inactive (M. Yoklavich pers.

observation). A model with stage-specific

transfer rates will allow us to design refugia

for managing this species on a more accurate

spatial scale.

At this point in the development of our

model, we also do not account for the

influence of regional oceanography and

associated physical transport on the dispersal

and retention of larval rockfishes and

subsequent distribution of newly settled

juveniles. Patterns in ocean circulation likely

have significant consequences to the survival

of young stages of rockfishes (Ralston and

Howard 1995, Yoklavich et al. 1996), and

therefore to the placement of effective harvest

refugia along the coast. Additionally, because

the distribution of adult bocaccio can be
38 Marine Harvest Refugia

habitat-specific (Yoklavich unpubl. MS), the

amount and quality of benthic habitat need to

be accounted for in updated versions of the

model in order to determine the value of the

refuge.

With a revised model, we also plan to

compare our results and conclusions using

parameters from bocaccio with those from

other rockfish species. We will examine an

inshore species having relatively high site

fidelity, such as the grass rockfish (Sebastes

rastrelliger), as well as an offshore, deepwater

species with relatively high site fidelity, such

as the yelloweye rockfish (S. ruber) or

greenspotted rockfish (S. chlorostictus).

These comparisons should give us additional

insight into the relative effects of movement

propensities, population growth potential,

and other life history traits on refuge benefits.

From our initial findings, we suggest that

harvest refugia can enhance total catches of

bocaccio while dampening annual fluctuations

in catches. The benefits are more likely and of

greater magnitude when refugia are designed to

facilitate larval transport rather than adult

spillover. Thus, a harvest refugia system

might best comprise individual units large

enough to contain a sufficient spawning

population of the target species.

Harvest refugia may provide other

benefits as well, including multi-species

assemblage management, enhanced persistence

of heavily targeted species, reduced

ecosystem damage from fishing, the

maintenance of fishery-favorable genetic

complexes, and increased economic potential

from tourism. This formidable combination of

possible benefits make refugia a management

option that cannot be overlooked.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the University of Puerto

Rico Sea Grant College Program for their

support of this research, NOAA-NMFS Office

of Protected Resources for funding the travel

for Joshua Sladek Nowlis, and to Milton Love

for his valuable assistance with information on

rockfish. We also thank Rebecca Sladek Nowlis

for her helpful comments on drafts of this

manuscript.

References

Beverton, R.J.H. and S.J. Holt. 1957. On the

Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations. U.K.

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food.

Fishery Investigations, Ser. 2, Vol. 29, 533 p.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1996. Maintenance and

recovery of fishery productivity. In N.V.C.

Polunin and C.M.Roberts (eds.). Reef Fisheries.

Chapman and Hall, London. Pp. 283-313.

Castilla, J.C. and L.R. Durán. 1985. Human

exclusion from the rocky intertidal zone of

central Chile: the effects on Concholepas

concholepas (Gastropoda). Oikos 45:391-399.

Dugan, J.E. and G.E. Davis. 1993.

Applications of marine refugia to coastal

fisheries management. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

50:2029-2042.

Hartmann, A.R. 1987. Movements of

scorpionfishes (Scorpaenidae: Sebastes and

Scorpaena) in the southern California Bight.

CA Dept. Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 73:68-79.

Hay, M.E. 1984. Patterns of fish and urchin

grazing on Caribbean coral reefs: are previous

results typical? Ecol. 65:446-454.

Holland, K.N., C.G.Lowe, and B.M. Wetherbee.

1996. Movements and dispersal patterns of

blue trevally (Caranx melampygus) in a

fisheries conservation zone. Fish. Res. 25:279-

292.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 39

Holland, K.N., J.D. Peterson, C.G. Lowe, and

B.M. Wetherbee. 1993. Movements,

distribution and growth rates of the white

goatfish Mulloides flavolineatus in a fisheries

conservation zone. Bull. Mar. Sci. 52:982-992.

McAllister DE. 1988. Environmental,

economic and social costs of coral reef

destruction in the Philippines. Galaxea 7:161-

178.

McClanahan, T.R., A.T.Kamukuru, N.A.

Muthiga, Y.M. Gilagabher, and D. Obura. 1996.

Effect of sea urchin reductions on algae, coral,

and fish populations. Cons. Bio. 10:136-154.

McClanahan, T.R. and B. Kaunda-Arara. 1996.

Fishery recovery in a coral-reef marine park

and its effect on the adjacent fishery. Cons.

Bio. 10:1187-1199.

McClanahan, T.R. and S.H. Shafir. 1990.

Causes and consequences of sea urchin

abundance and diversity in Kenyan coral reef

lagoons. Oecol. 83:362-370.

Pauly D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese

and F.J. Torres. 1998. Fishing down marine

food webs. Science 279:860-863.

Phillips, J.B. 1964. Life history studies on ten

species of rockfish (genus Sebastodes). CA

Dept. Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 126, 70p.

Plan Development Team. 1990. The potential

of marine fishery reserves for reef fish

management in the U.S. Southern Atlantic.

U.S. Dep. Comm. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSSEFC-261, 40p.

Polacheck, T. 1990. Year around closed areas

as a management tool. Nat. Res. Model. 4:327-

354.

Ralston, S. 1998. The status of federally

managed rockfish on the U.S. West Coast. In

Yoklavich, M.M. (ed.) Proceedings of Marine

Harvest Refugia for West Coast Rockfishes: A

Workshop. US Dep. Comm. NOAA-NMFS

Tech. Memo. (This volume).

Ralston, S., J.N. Ianelli, R.A. Miller, D.E.

Pearson, D. Thomas, and M.E. Wilkins. 1996.

Status of bocaccio in the Conception/

Monterey/Eureka INPFC areas in 1996 and

recommendations for management in 1997. In

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1996.

Appendix Volume I: To the Status of the

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Through 1996

and Recommended Acceptable Biological

Catches for 1997: Stock Assessment and

Fishery Evaluation. Appendix B. B1-B48.

Ralston, S. and D.F. Howard. 1995. On the

development of year-class strength and cohort

variability in two northern California

rockfishes. Fish. Bull. 93:710-720.

Roberts, C.M. 1995. Effects of fishing on the

ecosystem structure of coral reefs. Cons. Bio.

9:988-995.

Roberts, C.M., W.J. Ballantine, C.D. Buxton, P.

Dayton, L.B. Crowder, W. Milon, M.K. Orbach,

D. Pauly, J. Trexler, and C.J. Walters. 1995.

Review of the use of marine fishery reserves in

the U.S. southeastern Atlantic. U.S. Dep.

Comm. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC376, 31p.

Roberts, C.M. and N.V.C. Polunin. 1991. Are

marine reserves effective in management of

reef fisheries? Rev. Fish Bio. Fish. 1:65-91.

Roberts, C.M. and N.V.C. Polunin. 1993.

Marine reserves: simple solutions to managing

complex fisheries? Ambio 22:363-368.

Rogers, J.B. and E.K. Pikitch. 1989. Life

history characteristics of commercially

important groundfish species off California,

Oregon, and Washington. U.S.Dep. Comm.

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-166:1-39.

Rowley, R.J. 1994. Marine reserves in fisheries

management. Aquat. Cons.: Mar. Fresh. Eco.

4:233-254.

Russ, G. 1985. Effects of protective

management on coral reef fishes in the central

Philippines. Proceedings of the 5th

International Coral Reef Congress 4:219-224.
40 Marine Harvest Refugia

Russ, G.R.and A.C. Alcala. 1996. Do marine

reserves export adult fish biomass? Evidence

from Apo Island, central Philippines. Mar.

Ecol. Prog. Ser. 132:1-9.

Sladek Nowlis, J. and C.M. Roberts. 1997. You

can have your fish and eat it, too: theoretical

approaches to marine reserve design.

Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef

Symposium 2:1907-1910.

Thomas, D.H. and J.R. Bence. 1992. Bocaccio.

In Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, and C.W. Haugen

CW (eds.) California's Living Marine Resources

and Their Utilization. California Sea Grant Ext.

Pub. UCSGEP-92-12:120-122.

Wilkins, M.E. 1980. Size composition, age

composition, and growth of chilipepper,

Sebastes goodei, and bocaccio, S. paucispinis,

from the 1977 rockfish survey. Mar. Fish. Rev.

42:48-53.

Wyllie Echeverria, T. 1987. Thirty-four

species of California rockfishes: maturity and

seasonality of reproduction. Fish. Bull. 85:229-

250.

Yoklavich, M.M., V.J. Loeb, M. Nishimoto, and

B. Daly. 1996. Nearshore assemblages of larval

rockfishes and their physical environment off

central California during an extended El Nino

event, 1991-1993. Fish. Bull. 94:766-782.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 41

The Influence of Larval Transport and Retention on Recruitment Patterns

and the Design of Harvest Refugia for Rockfish

Lance E. Morgan, University of California, Davis, CA

Louis W. Botsford, University of California, Davis, CA

Abstract

Harvest refugia have been proposed as a supplemental strategy to traditional fisheries management.

Meroplanktonic metapopulations, such as rockfish, sea urchins and crabs, may benefit from harvest

refugia, which protect sedentary adults while allowing for linkage between refugia and replenishment

of harvested areas via larval dispersal. However, design and implementation of refugia are hampered

by a paucity of knowledge of spatial patterns in settlement and recruitment. Theoretical studies

suggest that connectivity between multiple refugia and harvested areas depends critically upon larval

dispersal. Recent work has identified a potential physical oceanographic basis for larval transport of

crabs and sea urchins in the upwelling system of northern California, which may be applicable to

other meroplanktonic species in this system. Here we characterize aspects of the biological and

physical structure of northern California mesoscale circulation that influence the transport of

meroplankton, and discuss their relevance to harvest refugia. These circulation features suggest that

harvest refugia for nearshore rockfish species should be replicated at a scale comparable to the

distance between discrete larval retention zones during the upwelling season.

Introduction

Harvest refugia (areas of no fishing) have

been proposed as a strategy to maintain or

recover fish stocks worldwide (Davis 1989,

Bohnsack 1990, Polunin 1990, Roberts and

Polunin 1991, Carr and Reed 1992, Rowley

1994, Ballantine 1996, Holland and Brazee

1996). Two benefits of no take refugia are

often suggested: 1) they provide an area of

high density, large sized, highly fecund

individuals that serves as a natural hatchery,

and 2) they provide a source of adults to

fished areas through “spillover” by

immigrating out of the refugia. Thus spatial

management offers a buffer against

uncertainty in present management techniques

by maintaining sufficient numbers of

individuals and spawning stock to repopulate

areas subjected to intensive harvest pressure.

Here we focus on the first of these

advantages, the role of larval dispersal in

linking adult populations.

Researchers continue to study the

difficult problems of understanding the

influence of coastal circulation on the

dispersal pathways of marine organisms

(Possingham and Roughgarden 1990, Wing et

al. 1995a, b, 1998, Botsford 1998, Botsford et

al. 1994, 1998). The spatial extent of the adult

populations and the rate at which they receive

larvae from other areas influence the long-term

population dynamics (Botsford et al. 1994).

Through studying the temporal and spatial

patterns of dispersal, retention, transport and

settlement of larvae we can gain insight into

the local population dynamics. The

importance of larval transport is not just the

influence on the number of recruits entering

the population, but also on the pathways

larvae travel between release and settlement.

Keough and Black (1996) outline data required

for predicting the pattern and scale of larval
42 Marine Harvest Refugia

dispersal including, 1) knowledge of the

relationship between local factors and the

number of larvae exported from the local

population, 2) an understanding of the

hydrodynamic processes that transport

propagules, 3) knowledge of the relative

contribution of larval biology to dispersal, and

4) an understanding of the relationship

between fertilization, larval density,

settlement and recruitment/ population

dynamics. Mapping the patterns of

connectivity between adult sources of

propagules and sites of larval settlement is

critical to the design of management strategies

(Roberts 1997). Identification of larval

sources and the linkages between local

populations is fundamental to designing

harvest refugia aimed at maintaining and

restoring depleted stocks.

The intensive harvesting of several

species in California (i.e. red sea urchin,

abalone and Dungeness crab) has led to

proposals for spatial management or harvest

refugia to recover these stocks and sustain

fisheries (Botsford et al. 1993, Quinn et al.

1993, Tegner 1993). Following depletion of

offshore groundfish fisheries there has been a

recent surge in growth of the nearshore livefish fishery, which targets several species of

rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Many species of

rockfish are long-lived, shallow-dwelling reef

fish that are highly vulnerable to the live-fish

fishery.

Here we briefly describe ongoing work to

identify the spatial pattern of recruitment in

meroplanktonic species in northern California

and their relationship to physical circulation

patterns. We use this work as a basis to

discuss some general themes related to the

design of harvest refugia in upwelling

systems.

Larval Transport in the California

Current

For the past two decades, increased

awareness and understanding of mesoscale

variability in coastal circulation off northern

California have drawn attention to its

implications for meroplanktonic larvae.

During the upwelling season in April through

July (Largier et al. 1993), the presence of

strong offshore flows and an equatorward jet

led to the question of how species with a

planktonic stage during these months could

persist (Parrish et al. 1981). The probable

answer to this question lies in the potential

for retention of larvae in alongshore frontal

zones (Richardson and Pearcy 1977, Shenker

1988) and areas to the south of promontories,

termed "upwelling shadows" (Fig. 1; Graham

et al. 1992, Graham and Largier 1997), and in

subsequent transport of these larvae by flow

reversals, both cross-shelf and alongshore,

during periods of relaxation from upwelling

winds (Farrell et al. 1991, Roughgarden et al.

1991, Wing et al. 1995a, b).

The pattern of upwelling varies along the

coast due to the combined effects of coastal

bathymetry and the shoreline on wind

velocities. For example, the prevailing winds

are usually stronger on the windward side of

Point Reyes than on the leeward side. This

results in the equatorward jet of cold, nutrient

rich water, separating from the coast and

flowing offshore, while a warm gyre develops

behind the Point entraining outflow from San

Francisco bay. Meroplanktonic larvae are

concentrated in this cyclonic eddy, which
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 43

Figure 1. Schematic view of coastal circulation that could retain larvae during

active upwelling. Larvae would be transported from these zones to nearshore

juvenile habitat during upwelling relaxation.

serves as a retention zone (Wing et al. in

press). Only when the winds that drive

upwelling occasionally relax, does the warm

water within this retention zone flow

poleward (Send et al. 1987). During these

relaxation periods larvae are transported

northward, past Point Reyes. Temperature

time series and AVHRR satellite images

provide evidence for a warm current flowing

northward during these wind relaxations

(Wing et al. 1995 a, b).

The work of Wing et al. (1995 a, b) has

focused on the alongshore variation in

transport and settlement of several species of

meroplankton, especially crabs. Settlement of

crab species along the coast north of Point

Reyes occurs primarily during relaxation from

upwelling conditions, when warm water flows

poleward from the retention zone in the Gulf

of the Farallones (Wing et al. 1995 a, b).

Planktonic larval distributions and

hydrography near Point Reyes during
44 Marine Harvest Refugia

upwelling suggest concentrations of crab and

rockfish larvae are retained in the source of the

relaxation flow to the south of Point Reyes

(Wing et al. in press). However, a direct link

has not yet been made between this transport

mechanism and adult abundance.

Different meroplanktonic species were

associated with the different features in

this region (Wing et al. in press).

Concentrations of crab larvae were higher

south of Point Reyes while concentrations of

rockfish larvae were greatest along the outer

edge of the upwelling shadow. An upwelling

plume off Point Reyes and an "upwelling

shadow", indicated by warmer water in the

northern Gulf of the Farallones, were evident

in 1994 and 1995, as were frontal regions

marked by boundaries between four water

masses; 1) newly upwelled, 2) coastal Gulf, 3)

oceanic and 4) San Francisco Bay outflow.

The spatial distribution of recruitment

for purple sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus

purpuratus (Ebert and Russell 1988) and red

sea urchins, S. franciscanus, (Morgan 1997) is

also influenced by local circulation patterns.

Miller and Emlet (1997) found that sea urchin

settlement in Oregon coincided with periods

of increased sea surface temperature. Morgan

(1997) developed a recruitment index from

size distribution data, and found that regions

predicted to be subjected to more frequent

upwelling relaxation flow had relatively more

small individuals in the population. Sites that

were in regions that only rarely came into

contact with these flows had little recent

recruitment. This work suggests that there are

at least two spatial and temporal scales

important to regional recruitment in this

upwelling system: 1) relatively large, episodic

interannual recruitment events, which may

occur at long intervals but maintain the

species over the entire range, and 2) intraannual spatial patterns that relate to local

metapopulation dynamics. Large, episodic

inter-annual recruitment has been reported for

sea urchins in northern California by several

authors (Ebert 1983, Ebert et al. 1994, Wing

et al. 1995a,b, Miller and Emlet 1997).

The development of an upwelling

shadow in the northern part of Monterey Bay

has been identified as a dynamic response to

active upwelling. This feature persists during

periods of upwelling, but slowly degrades and

breaks up after prolonged relaxations in

upwelling (on the order of a week). Graham

et al. (1992) characterized this region of

Monterey Bay and identified the upwelling

shadow by warmer water and a distinct

zooplankton community, different from the

zooplankton found in the colder upwelled

water. They suggested that the recirculation

of this warm water feature is very important

to the dispersal and recruitment of larvae

(Graham and Largier 1997).

Similar patterns of flow reversal during

breaks in upwelling winds have been described

in Monterey Bay (Farrell et al. 1991,

Roughgarden et al. 1991). Roughgarden et al.

(1991) found that barnacle larvae were

retained in offshore fronts associated with

active upwelling. During periods of wind

relaxation, they observed a cessation of

upwelling and movement of this front towards

shore. Prolonged onshore and cross shelf

transport during relaxation coincided with the

observation of settlement pulses in the

intertidal region of Monterey Bay (Farrell et

al. 1991).

Larvae may also be entrained into anticyclonic eddies, found offshore of upwelling
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 45

jets such as Pt. Arena (Largier et al. 1993,

Washburn et al. 1993). At this location a

warm core anti-cyclonic eddy develops

offshore behind the cold upwelling jet and

persists for several months during the

upwelling season (Washburn et al. 1993). It is

likely that this feature can passively aggregate

larvae during periods of upwelling.

Observations of AVHRR satellite images

during relaxations in the upwelling winds

show this warm eddy feature expanding

across the shelf moving onshore north of

Point Arena, flowing poleward (see for

example Fig. 1, p. 88 in Morgan 1997).

Applicability to Rockfish

Rockfish of the genus Sebastes are also

meroplanktonic species, thus physical

transport via coastal circulation is a significant

factor in the life history of these species.

Rockfish parturition occurs in the late fall to

early spring in this region so that at the time

of the spring transition rockfish larvae and

juveniles are subjected to transport by these

upwelling jets and relaxations prior to

returning to their adult habitats (WyllieEcheverria 1987). Peak settlement of rockfish

occurs from May to June, 3 to 6 months after

being released into the plankton (Kendall and

Lenarz 1987, Moser and Boehlert 1991).

Multiple years of sampling have identified a

link between the abundance of pelagic

juveniles and later cohort strength (Ralston

and Howard 1995). Temporal coherence of

strong recruitment events at two sites

separated by over 350 km for two species of

rockfish suggests that large scale

oceanographic events are important to

recruitment (Ralston and Howard 1995).

Interannual variation in juvenile rockfish

abundance related to upwelling strength has

been identified (Ainley et al. 1993, Yoklavich

et al. 1996). Larson et al. (1994) note that,

“ . . . spatial and temporal variation in

upwelling could have important effects on

both year class strength and the geographical

structure of rockfish populations (p. 176).”

The association between pelagic larval

and juvenile rockfish and hydrography has

been explored (Lenarz et al. 1991, Larson et

al. 1994, Yoklavich et al. 1996, Wing et al. in

press). In central California, larval rockfish

have been distributed well offshore, near an

upwelling front, suggesting offshore advection

during upwelling (Larson et al. 1994). Pelagic

juveniles were usually found inshore of this

region, and Larson et al. (1994) suggested that

transport during upwelling relaxation was one

mechanism that might influence their

distribution, although they stressed that this

mechanism was not necessarily the primary

means responsible for successful settlement of

juveniles. Yoklavich et al. (1996) also

proposed that the region of active upwelling

near Pt. Año Nuevo might serve as a source of

larval rockfish for other areas through onshore

transport during periods of wind relaxation.

Wing et al. (in press) found pelagic juveniles

offshore at the edge of the upwelling front in

northern California, but also found larger

individuals nearer to shore. It is likely that

onshore transport of larval and juvenile

rockfish occurs in a similar manner to other

meroplankton species in this system, but

further work is needed to explore the spatial

patterns in juvenile settlement.

Adult populations with dispersing larvae

in northern California are maintained by

transport of propagules from upwelling

shadows or similar retention features (Wing et
46 Marine Harvest Refugia

al. 1995a, Graham and Largier 1997). The

high concentrations of rockfish in the Gulf of

the Farallones (Wing et al. 1998), or offshore

of Pt. Año Nuevo (Larson et al. 1994,

Yoklavich et al. 1996) make these areas

important sources for larvae that will

eventually settle into coastal populations.

Whether these larvae move northward (Wing

et al. 1995a), or onshore (Larson et al. 1994,

Yoklavich et al. 1996), via transport during

upwelling relaxation is a characteristic of local

circulation. These retention zones may serve

as important conduits for larval transport

from their offshore planktonic habitat to

nearshore nursery habitats (Wing et al. 1998).

Retention sites have considerable ecological

importance because they supply propagules

to coastal populations (e.g. the membervagrant hypothesis of Sinclair 1988).

To summarize, there is now a partial

mechanistic understanding of nearshore

circulation during the upwelling season, which

may lead to spatial patterns of larval

settlement for meroplanktonic species. The

spatial variability in settlement of crabs, as

well as the relative strength of red sea urchin

cohorts, is predictable at the scale of

individual upwelling jets and retention zones.

The redistribution of larvae depends on

individual species behavioral abilities to orient

themselves with different mesoscale features.

Periodic relaxations from upwelling winds

provide windows during which larvae and

juveniles of meroplanktonic species are able to

successfully recruit to adult populations.

Relevance to Harvest Refugia Design

Carr and Reed (1992) suggest that the

pattern of larval replenishment will influence

the number, size and distance between refugia.

We have suggested that the combined process

of concentrating larvae in retention features

during active upwelling, and the subsequent

return and redistribution to adult populations

during upwelling relaxation is a consistent

pattern in central and northern California

upwelling systems (represented schematically

in Fig. 1). This suggestion is a variation on

the more general models of Carr and Reed

(1992), which detail several alternative means

by which larvae may link metapopulations.

Our model supports the idea that one or more

source populations contribute to a regional

larval pool (retention zone), which then

redistributes larvae in a specific manner

according to the nature of the upwelling

relaxation flow.

This pattern of larval retention and

redistribution can provide information on

whether potential marine refuge sites will

replenish fisheries (Wing et al. in press).

Rowley (1994) points out that larval

replenishment is likely to enhance or rebuild

fisheries only under certain conditions,

specifically when: (1) larvae produced in the

refugia are a significant addition to regional

production; (2) larvae are transported to

appropriate habitats; (3) increases in larval

production result in increased settlement, and

(4) larval settlement is limiting. Under these

criteria, refugia should be evaluated such that

they provide for large production of larvae of

target species, and contribute to the regional

population at a level sufficient to sustain a

targeted harvest rate.

Future attempts to design harvest refugia

will need to map specific current regimes and

adult habitat in order to have an understanding

of how local factors may influence larval

dispersal (e.g. Yoklavich et al. 1997). Our
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 47

general review of larval transport in northern

California suggests that the unique features

associated with individual upwelling centers,

(i.e. headland regions with an offshore jet and

retention zone), are an appropriate spatial

scale at which to address larval dispersal. The

mesoscale circulation features associated with

these centers likely constitute semi-closed

metapopulations that produce, retain and redistribute larvae. The question of which

populations would be most important as a

source (e.g. Pulliam 1988) is not addressed by

this review and will require further study.

Our recommendation for a conservative

harvest refugia strategy would be to replicate

a series of refugia in each upwelling region

corresponding to a discrete upwelling jet and

retention zone so as to make no assumption

regarding locations of source populations.

These general concepts will need to

incorporate specific regional variations on the

theme of retention and re-distribution of

larvae, and the inter-annual persistence of

retention zones.

References

Ainley, D. G., W. J. Sydeman, R. H. Parrish and

W. H. Lenarz. 1993. Oceanic factors influencing

distribution of young rockfish (Sebastes) in

central California: a predators perspective.

CalCOFI 34:133-139.

Ballantine, W. J. 1996. No-take marine reserve

networks support fisheries. Second World

Fisheries Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 1996.

Bohnsack, J. A. 1990. The potential of marine

fishery reserves for reef fish management in the

U.S. southern Atlantic. U.S. Dept. Comm. NOAA

Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-261.

Botsford, L. W. 1998. Coastal circulation and

recruitment to California current invertebrate

populations. ICES International Symposium,

Recruitment Dynamics of Exploited Marine

Populations: Physical-Biological Interactions,

Baltimore, MD, October 1997. (in press)

Botsford, L. W., C. L. Moloney, A. Hastings, J.

L. Largier, T. M. Powell, K. Higgins and J. F.

Quinn. 1994. The influence of spatially and

temporally varying oceanographic conditions

on meroplanktonic metapopulations. Deep Sea

Res. II, 41: 107-145.

Botsford, L. W., J. F. Quinn, S. R. Wing and J.

G. Brittnacher. 1993. Rotating spatial harvest

of a benthic invertebrate, the red sea urchin,

Strongylocentrotus franciscanus. In G. Kruse, D.

M. Eggers, R. J. Marasco, C. Pautzke and T. J.

Quinn II (eds.), Proc. Int. Symp. Manage. Strat.

Exploit. Fish Pops., Alaska Sea Grant College

Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks. pp.

409-428.

Botsford, L. W., S. R. Wing and J. L. Largier.

1998. Population dynamic implications of

larval dispersal in meroplanktonic populations.

Benguela Dynamics Symposium, Capetown,

South Africa, November 1996. (in press)

Carr, M. H. and D. C. Reed. 1992. Conceptual

issues relevant to marine harvest refuges:

examples from temperate reef fishes. Can. J.

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 2019-2028.

Davis, G.E. 1989. Designated harvest refugia:

the next stage in marine fishery management in

California. CalCOFI Rep. 30: 53-58.

Ebert, T.A. 1983. Recruitment in echinoderms.

In M. Jangoux and J.M. Lawrence (eds.),

Echinoderm Studies 1, p. 169-203. Blakeema,

Rotterdam.

Ebert, T. A. and M. P. Russell. 1988.

Latitudinal variation in size structure of the

west coast purple sea urchin: correlation with

headlands. Limnol. Ocean.. 33: 286-294.
48 Marine Harvest Refugia

Ebert, T. A., S. C. Schroeter, J. D. Dixon and P.

Kalvass. 1994. Settlement patterns of red and

purple sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus

franciscanus and S. purpuratus) in California,

USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 111: 41-52.

Farrell, T. M., D. Bracher and J. Roughgarden.

1991. Cross-shelf transport causes recruitment

to intertidal populations in central California.

Limnol. Ocean. 36: 279-288.

Graham, W. M., J. G. Field and D. C. Potts.

1992. Persistent upwelling shadows and their

influence on zooplankton distributions. Mar.

Biol. 114: 562-570.

Graham, W. M. and J. L. Largier. 1997. An

upwelling shadow in northern Monterey Bay.

Cont. Shelf Res. 17: 509-532.

Holland, D. S. and R. J. Brazee. 1996. Marine

reserves for fisheries management. Mar. Res.

Econ. 11: 157-171.

Kendall, A. W., Jr. and W. H. Lenarz. 1987.

Status of early life history studies of northeast

Pacific Rockfishes. In Proc. Int. Rockfish

Symp. Univ. of Alaska Sea Grant, pp. 99-128.

Keough, M. J. and K. P. Black. 1996. Predicting

the scale of marine impacts. In Detecting

Ecological Impacts: Concepts and Patterns in

Coastal Habitats. R.J. Schmitt and C.W.

Osenberg (eds.), Academic Press, New York pp.

199-234.

Largier, J. L., B. A. Magnell and C. D. Winant.

1993. Subtidal circulation over the northern

California shelf. J. Geophys. Res. 98: 18147-

18180.

Larson, R. J., W. H. Lenarz and S. Ralston.

1994. The distribution of pelagic juvenile

rockfish of the genus Sebastes in the upwelling

region off central California. CalCOFI 35: 175-

221.

Lenarz, W.H., R.J. Larson and S. Ralston. 1991.

Depth distribution of late larvae and pelagic

juveniles of some fished of the California

current. CalCOFI 32: 41-46.

Miller, B. A. and R. B. Emlet. 1997. Influence

of nearshore hydrodynamics on larval

abundance and settlement or sea urchins

Strongylocentrotus franciscanus and S.

purpuratus in the Oregon upwelling zone. Mar.

Ecol. Prog. Ser. 148: 83-94.

Morgan, L. E. 1997. Spatial variability in

growth, mortality and recruitment in the

northern California red sea urchin fishery.

Doctoral Dissertation, University of California,

Davis. 128 pp.

Moser, H. G. and G. W. Boehlert. 1991.

Ecology of pelagic larvae and juveniles of the

genus Sebastes. Env. Biol. Fish. 30: 203 224.

Parrish, R. H., C. S. Nelson and A. Bakun. 1981.

Transport mechanisms and reproductive success

of fishes in the California current. Biol. Ocean.

1: 175-203.

Polunin, N.V.C. 1990. Marine regulated areas:

an expanded approach for the tropics. Res.

Manage. Optim. 7: 283-299.

Possingham, H.P. and J. Roughgarden. 1990.

Spatial population dynamics of a marine

organism with a complex life cycle. Ecol. 71:

973-985.

Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks and

population regulation. Am. Nat. 132: 652-661.

Quinn, J.F., S.R. Wing and L.W. Botsford.

1993. Harvest refugia in marine invertebrate

fisheries: models and applications to the red sea

urchin, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus. Amer.

Zool. 33: 537-550.

Ralston, S. and D. F. Howard. 1995. On the

development of year-class strength and cohort

variability in two northern California

rockfishes. Fish. Bull. 93:710-720.

Richardson, S. L. and W. G. Pearcy. 1977.

Coastal and oceanic fish larvae in an area of

upwelling off Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Fish. Bull.

75: 125-145.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 49

Roberts, C. 1997. Connectivity and

management of Caribbean coral reefs. Sci. 278:

1454-1457.

Roberts, C.M. and N.V.C. Polunin. 1991. Are

marine reserves effective in management of

reef fisheries? Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 1: 65-91.

Roughgarden, J., J.T. Pennington, D. Stoner, S.

Alexander and K. Miller. 1991. Collisions of

upwelling fronts with the intertidal zone: the

cause of recruitment pulses in barnacle

populations of central California. Acta Ecol.

12: 35-51.

Rowley, R.J. 1994. Marine reserves in fisheries

management. Aquat. Cons. Mar. Fresh. Eco. 4:

233-254.

Send, U., R.C. Beardsley and C.D. Winant.

1987. Relaxation from upwelling in the coastal

ocean dynamics experiment. J. Geophys. Res.

92: 1683-1698.

Sinclair, M. 1988. Marine Populations. An

essay on population regulation and speciation.

Washington Sea Grant Program. Univ.

Washington Press, Seattle and London. 252 pp.

Shenker, J.M. 1988. Oceanographic

associations of neustonic larval and juvenile

fishes and Dungeness crab megalopae off

Oregon. Fish. Bull. 86: 299-317.

Tegner, M.J. 1993. Southern California

abalones: can stocks be rebuilt using marine

harvest refugia? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50:

2010-2018.

Washburn, L., M. S. Swenson, J. L. Largier, P.

M. Kosro and S. R. Ramp. 1993. Cross-shelf

sediment transport by an anticyclonic eddy off

northern California. Sci. 261: 1560-1564.

Wing, S.R., L.W. Botsford, S.V. Ralston and J.L.

Largier. Meroplankton distribution and

circultation in a coastal retention zone of the

northern California upwelling system. Limnol.

Ocean. (in press)

Wing, S. R., L.W. Botsford and J.F. Quinn. The

impact of coastal circulation on the spatial

distribution of invertebrate recruitment, with

implications for management. Can. J. Fish.

Aquat. Sci. (in press)

Wing, S. R., J.L. Largier and L. W. Botsford.

1998. Coastal retention and onshore transport

of meroplankton near capes in eastern boundary

currents; examples from the California current.

Benguela Dynamics Symposium, Capetown,

South Africa, November 1996. (in press)

Wing, S. R., J. L. Largier, L. W. Botsford and J.

F. Quinn. 1995a. Settlement and transport of

benthic invertebrates in an intermittent

upwelling region. Limnol. Ocean. 40: 316-329.

Wing, S. R., L.W. Botsford, J. L. Largier and L.

E. Morgan. 1995b. Spatial variability in

settlement of benthic invertebrates in an

intermittent upwelling system. Mar. Ecol.

Prog. Ser. 128: 199-211.

Wyllie-Echeverria, T. 1987. Thirty-four

species of California rockfishes: maturity and

seasonality of reproduction. Fish. Bull. 85: 229-

250.

Yoklavich, M. M., V. J. Loeb, M. Nishimoto

and B. Daly. 1996. Nearshore assemblages of

larval rockfish and their physical environment

off central California during an extended El

Niño event, 1991-1993. Fish. Bull. 94:766-

782.

Yoklavich, M. M., R. Starr, J. Steger, H. G.

Greene, F. Schwing and C. Malzone. 1997.

Mapping benthic habitat and ocean currents in

the vicinity of central California’s Big Creek

Ecological Reserve. U.S. Dept Comm. NOAA

Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-245. 52 pp
50 Marine Harvest Refugia

Design Principles for Rockfish Reserves on the U.S. West Coast

Richard M. Starr, University of California Sea Grant Extension Program, Moss Landing, CA

Abstract

The decline in rockfish populations on the U.S. West Coast has created an increased interest in the

use of marine reserves for augmenting the management of marine fisheries. Marine reserves

theoretically have many intrinsic values, but their projected benefits are directly related to the size,

shape, and location of the reserves. Although many uncertainties exist, information is available with

which to design reserves for rockfishes. In this paper, I discuss an approach to development of

reserves that uses existing information, acknowledges regional biotic differences and environmental

uncertainty, and facilitates the development of goal oriented reserves. A precautionary approach to

the placement of reserves suggests that a system of marine protected areas with reserves of different

sizes and distributed across bioregions and upwelling cells will increase the chances of accomplishing

reserve goals and objectives. Given the level of uncertainty in the timing, distribution, and magnitude

of important biological and physical processes, however, a reserve system should be designed to

incorporate principles of adaptive management. One efficient way to locate a reserve is to include as

many species groups as possible by encompassing a diversity of rockfish habitats and depth ranges.

The number of factors that influence the success of a reserve system and our ability to differentiate

benefits caused by a reserve from interannual variation suggests, however, that future reserves will be

greatly larger than almost all existing ones.

Introduction

Recent stock assessments indicate there

has been a consistent decline in the size of

many eastern Pacific rockfish populations

since the late 1970’s (e.g. Pacific Fishery

Management Council 1995, Ralston 1998).

These reduced populations have been

reflected in diminished catches of rockfishes; a

situation similar to that of declining harvests

from many of the world’s most productive

fishing grounds (FAO 1992). Many of the

west coast rockfish populations have

experienced not only diminished abundance,

but also decreased average lengths and weights

(Pearson and Ralston 1990). The decline in

population abundance is related both to poor

recruitment and extensive fishing effort, but

the decline of other biological parameters is

indicative of a negative response of fish

populations to high harvest rates.

The dramatic reduction in rockfish

populations has resulted in an increased

interest in fishery issues, not only by fishery

management agencies, but by the general

public as well. Currently, many conservation

organizations, ecologists, and public officials

are suggesting marine protected areas (MPAs)

as a means to augment traditional fishery

management techniques (Rowley 1994,

McArdle 1997, Allison et al. 1998).

Increasingly, fishery managers are also

considering MPAs as tools that may be used

to help sustain the ocean's resources (e.g.

Bohnsack 1993, Dugan and Davis 1993,

Auster and Malatesta 1994, Lauck et al.

1998).

MPAs theoretically can benefit many

marine species and habitats, and have the

potential to benefit commercial fisheries as

well. Properly designed MPAs can increase

the diversity and abundance of species in an
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 51

area, protect critical habitats, and protect

species at critical stages in their life history

(Agardy 1994, Rowley 1994, Allison et al.

1998). The expected benefits to marine

environments and human communities can

only be realized, however, if goals and

objectives of proposed MPAs are clearly

defined (Starr and Johnson 1997).

Improperly designed MPAs potentially can

result in decreased protection for many

rockfish populations (Carr and Reed 1993,

Carr and Raimondi 1998). In this paper, I

describe a way in which existing information

that describes coastal oceanographic processes

and rockfish life histories, distributions,

densities, and habitats can be used to design

and locate MPAs for the purpose of

improving fishery management of rockfishes.

MPA Design:

Species Groups, Bioregions, Coastal

Circulation. For a system of reserves that is

designed to protect large segments of an

ecosystem, it is sufficient to protect a broad

array of representative species. An important

step in designing a system of MPAs for

rockfish management, however, is to define

the species targeted for protection. For the

design of harvest refugia exclusively to

improve fishery management of rockfishes,

the selection of species or species groups to

be protected is a primary consideration,

because more than 60 species of rockfishes

inhabit coastal waters of the U.S. West Coast

(Love 1991). Species selection is complicated

by the fact that rockfishes occupy many

different habitats and are targeted in both

commercial and recreational fisheries (Leet et

al. 1992, Starr et al. 1998, Lea et al. in press).

Given the large number of rockfish species,

one approach to selecting species for

protection is to lump rockfishes into groups

based on spatial distribution or ecological

guilds. Once species are grouped, marine

reserves that protect those groups of species

can be distributed among biogeographic

regions, along latitudinal and depth clines, and

across habitat types.

The California Department of Fish and

Game developed one method for grouping

rockfishes. For management purposes, they

divide rockfishes into three groups for

analysis of recreational fisheries: nearshore

(<100 m), mixed depth, and deep (>100 m)

rockfishes (Sullivan 1995). Sufficient

information is also available to lump many

rockfishes into ecological groups that

incorporate several life history traits or

habitat preferences, such as those described in

Table 1. These groups were based on the

preferred depth range of adult rockfishes,

habitat associations, life histories, and

preferred location in the water column (Pearcy

et al. 1989, Love et al. 1990, Stein et al. 1992,

Lea et al. in press).

An important design principle for marine

reserves is that a system of reserves should

contain representative habitats (Carr et al.

1998). Terrestrial scientists and managers

have been using a zoogeographic approach to

protect representative habitats for several

decades (Wheeler 1996). The first element of

this approach is to define bioregions. Five

bioregions are believed to exist off the western

coast of the U.S. The boundaries of these

bioregions are not explicit, but may be broadly

defined by Cape Flattery, WA to Cape

Blanco, OR; Cape Blanco to Cape

Mendocino, CA; Cape Mendocino to
52 Marine Harvest Refugia

Table 1. Groupings of selected rockfish species for the purpose of designing harvest refugia

(information from Pearcy et al. 1989, Love et al. 1990, Stein et al. 1992, Lea et al. in press).

Species Common Name Habitat

Deep Benthic (>100 m)

Hard Bottom

S. chlorostictus greenspotted int. depth, hard or mixed bottom

S. constellatus starry int. depth, rock

S. helvomaculatus rosethorn deep mixed, varied habitats

S. levis cowcod deep rock

S. nigrocinctus tiger deep rock

S. ruberrimus yelloweye deep rock

Deep Benthic-Soft or

Mixed Bottom

S. crameri darkblotched deep, mud/rock interface

S. diploproa splitnose deep soft bottom

S. elongatus greenstriped int. to deep mud/rock interface

S. saxicola stripetail int. to deep soft bottom

S. semicinctus halfbanded int. to deep soft/mixed bottom

S. wilsoni pygmy int. to deep mixed/rock bottoms

S. zacentrus sharpchin deep mud/cobble bottoms

Shallow Benthic (<100 m)

S. atrovirens kelp shallow rock

S. auriculatus brown shallow rock

S. carnatus gopher shallow rock

S. caurinus copper shallow rock

S. chrysomelas black-and-yellow shallow rock

S. miniatus vermilion shallow to deep rock

S. nebulosus china shallow rock

S. rastrelliger grass shallow, low relief rock

S. rosaceus rosy shallow to int. mixed rock

S. serriceps tree shallow rock

Deep semipelagic

S. entomelas widow pelagic over deep rock

S. flavidus yellowtail pelagic over deep rock

S. goodei chilipepper deep rock, mud or sand

S. hopkinsi squarespot int. to deep mixed bottoms

S. jordani shortbelly pelagic, range of habitats

S. paucispinis bocaccio solitary or schooling

S. pinniger canary solitary or schooling

S. rufus bank solitary or schooling

Shallow semipelagic

S. melanops black schooling fish near kelp

S. mystinus blue schooling fish near kelp

S. serranoides olive schooling fish near kelp
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 53

Monterey Canyon, CA; Monterey Canyon to

Point Conception, CA; and Point Conception

to Punta Eugenia, Mexico (Barry and Foster

1997). A comprehensive system of MPAs

for rockfishes would include harvest refugia in

each of these bioregions. A comprehensive

system of MPAs could also include a

continuum of reserve management practices in

these bioregions ranging from limited harvest

(e.g. of highly migratory species) to a

complete ban on harvest and nonconsumptive recreational use.

After bioregions are defined, terrestrial

resource managers define and map

representative and key habitats in each

bioregion, identify species-habitat

associations within each habitat and bioregion,

define linkages between reserves (e.g.

corridors), and then work to preserve

representative habitats and associated

corridors in each bioregion (Dethier 1992).

This concept is sound, but the “open” nature

of most marine populations and their reliance

upon variable ocean conditions requires a

slightly modified approach to selecting reserve

locations. In addition to species distribution,

home range, and habitat data used in the

selection of terrestrial reserves, appropriate

selection of marine reserve sites requires

additional information about distributions and

densities of large fishes, major currents, and

spatial and temporal patterns of larval

movement and juvenile settlement (see also

Morgan and Botsford 1998).

Major physical processes need to be

identified that will link MPAs into a network

of representative habitats and species. For

example, current regimes need to be described

and mapped throughout each bioregion to

assess the value of a reserve in providing

larvae for recruitment in and outside of the

reserve. This understanding of large scale

physical processes will allow managers to

locate reserves in areas that provide the best

chance to protect representative habitats, key

species, and recruitment processes in each

bioregion. It will also be helpful in estimating

expected benefits from each type of MPA.

Some references that describe broad scale

circulation patterns on the U.S. West Coast

include Hickey (1989), Largier et al. (1993),

and GLOBEC (1994).

MPAs should be located in all major

upwelling cells as well as in all bioregions

because upwelling greatly influences the

distribution of species on the western coast of

the United States. There are about five major

upwelling centers off California and Oregon

(Fig. 1), and upwelling plumes transport

water offshore at almost all headlands, which

are spaced approximately every 100 km along

the California coast. Although there is some

exchange between adjacent plumes, most of

the upwelled water exists in quasi-enclosed

cells with eddies that transport water back

towards shore (Largier et al. 1993, Washburn

et al. 1993, Yoklavich et al. 1997). Water

circulation associated with these upwelling

cells is a key feature in the survival and

dispersal of many marine larvae (e.g. Parrish

et al. 1981, Ainley et al. 1993, Botsford et al.

1994, Wing et al. 1995, and Morgan and

Botsford 1998).

Reserve Location. Rockfishes occupy a

variety of habitats, but are most typically

found in areas with a diversity of rocky

habitats (Table 1; Pearcy et al. 1989,
54 Marine Harvest Refugia

Figure 1. Major upwelling locations on the

U.S. west coast as indicated by surface

chlorophyll content (GLOBEC 1994).

O'Connell and Carlile 1993, Stein et al. 1992,

Starr et al. 1996, Yoklavich et al. 1997).

Thus, maps of complex bottom types that

highlight rocky areas will help define

appropriate locations for reserves. Some

broad scale information about water depths

and bottom types from the U.S. National

Ocean Service is available and can be used as a

first cut at defining habitat types. Additional

information about bottom types is available

from site-specific research cruises that

collected swath bathymetry to study the

ocean floor. More detailed maps of selected

parts of the ocean bottom, such as those

provided by sidescan sonar, can also provide

preliminary definition of rockfish habitats

(e.g. Yoklavich et al. 1997). In the absence of

complete maps of coastal subtidal habitats,

one way of proposing locations of MPAs is

to examine the distribution of rocky shorelines

and predict that subtidal rocky habitats occur

nearby. Data from specific research projects,

and anecdotal data provided by fishers can be

also used as a basis for locating nearshore

rockfish habitats that would be suitable

reserves.

An important design principle for a

system of MPAs is that the system should be

self-sustaining (Ballantine 1997a,b). Two

clear objectives for establishing self-sustaining

marine reserves are to protect areas that are

important sources of spawning biomass and

to protect areas that will receive recruits and

thus be future sources of spawning potential.

In the first objective of protecting areas that

serve as source populations (Pulliam 1988),

protection should occur both for areas that

historically contained high fish abundance and

for areas that currently contain high fish

abundance (Carr et al. 1998). Historically

productive fishing areas, which are now overexploited are likely to show a positive, but

slow response to protective measures. Areas

that currently contain high fish abundance

may show a more immediate response to

protection by increasing spawning biomass.

Discussions with fishers and fishery

managers will help in the identification of
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 55

areas that historically contained high fish

abundance, but are currently depleted due to

fishing. Protecting historically abundant areas

alone is insufficient for rockfish management,

however, because the relatively long life span

and sporadic recruitment of many rockfishes

indicate that it will take a long time after

harvest ceases for large spawning animals to

repopulate those areas. The biological

characteristics of longevity and sporadic

recruitment of rockfishes also suggest that the

concept of a rotation of open and closed areas

will probably not work for rockfishes as it has

for faster growing, more sedentary animals in

other parts of the world.

In the short term (e.g. next 25-50 yr),

selecting an area with currently high rockfish

densities to serve as a source population will

thus be more effective than selecting areas that

historically contained high densities. With

respect to the identification of current source

locations, information is available with which

to identify concentrations of important fish

species. Fox and Starr (1996) described

methods of plotting isopleths of catch rates to

map locations of high fish density (Fig. 2).

Isopleths of fish size can be similarly plotted

using length and weight data obtained on

research cruises, an important consideration

given the disproportional increase in fecundity

with increase in size of rockfishes (Love et al.

1990).

One complicating factor in determining an

appropriate location for protection of a source

population is that we cannot be certain that all

areas with high fish abundance actually serve

as source populations. Most juvenile

rockfishes are planktonic for lengthy periods

of time (Moser and Boehlert 1991), making it

difficult to determine which adults produced a

successful year-class. Julian et al. (Western

Groundfish Conference, Feb. 1998, unpubl.

abstract) recently suggested that the majority

of individuals in a cohort of larval fish may

have similar genetic structures, suggesting that

year-class strength may be greatly influenced

by only a few sources. If this concept proves

to be true, it will be even more difficult to

identify specific metapopulations to protect,

especially given the interannual variation in

environmental factors that influence larval

survival.

Research on larval distributions of

rockfishes suggests that recruitment processes

are both spatially and temporally variable.

Ralston and Howard (1995) described the

strong interannual relationship between

upwelling and larval survival of rockfishes.

They showed that larval survival is low when

sea surface temperatures are unusually warm

or cold and that year-class strength is high

when sea surface temperatures are

intermediate. Yoklavich et al. (1996) also

described spatial variability of larvae and

identified a possible mechanism for survival

by suggesting that juvenile rockfishes are

carried offshore in upwelling jets, thus

avoiding predation. Several researchers have

postulated the existence of larval retention

zones that replenish nearshore areas during

periods of upwelling relaxation (e.g. Quinn et

al. 1993, Wing et al. 1995, Morgan and

Botsford 1998). The circulation caused by

periods of upwelling relaxation provides a

possible mechanism for juveniles to return to

nearshore habitats as they grow.

A moderate level of upwelling is good for

survival of rockfish larvae, but too much

upwelling is detrimental (Ralston and Howard
56 Marine Harvest Refugia

Figure 2. Example of how NMFS research cruise data and commercial fishery logbook data can be used to

identify locations of high fish density, as defined by isopleths of CPUE (from Fox and Starr 1996).

1995). It follows then, that during intense

upwelling episodes, when there is strong

alongshore and offshore flow, larvae produced

by adults living near headlands are likely to be

swept too far offshore to survive.

Conversely, in years with weaker upwelling,

larvae produced too early or too late to

become entrained in upwelling jets, or by

adults living far from headlands, are likely to

remain in the nearshore zone and experience

high predation. Thus, each year there may be

an optimum time of parturition and distance

of spawning adults from an upwelling jet to

maximize the likelihood of survival of larvae

and juveniles. The optimum location for

spawning adults and time of parturition will

vary annually as the strength and timing of

upwelling events vary. This temporal and

spatial variation in upwelling events provides

a difficulty in locating a single reserve to

enhance rockfish recruitment processes,

because there is currently insufficient

information to predict where and when an

optimum time or location of parturition may

be. Given this uncertainty, a precautionary

approach to protect viable source populations

would be to distribute a series of reserves
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 57

along the coast that are located at various

distances from headlands.

Similarly, there is currently little

information that would enable us to determine

if a reserve is a potential future source of

larvae, or if it will be a sink. Also, given the

longevity of most rockfishes, a single reserve

may serve either as a source or a sink for a

few short time periods (e.g. 1-5 yr) in any

longer time period (e.g. 50 yr). Thus, to

maximize the opportunities of locating

reserves in an appropriate location, a system

of MPAs should contain several reserves that

are located and designed with consideration

for oceanographic currents to maximize

chances of larvae and juveniles moving

offshore and inshore, respectively (Fig. 3).

In all cases, the design and setting of

MPAs should account for the habitat type

and quality both inside and outside the

reserve. It makes little sense to protect an

area from fishing, for example, if the water

quality inside and adjacent to the reserve is

poor. Similarly, if an objective of the MPA is

to improve fishing outside the reserve, it is

important that suitable habitat is available

within and adjacent to the reserve for

emigration of juvenile and adult fishes as

densities increase.

Reserve Size. The size and shape of a

reserve will directly influence the

effectiveness of a MPA (DeMartini 1993).

As a corollary, the goals and objectives of the

MPA will influence the appropriate size of

the reserve. A productive MPA system may

include large reserves that protect a

substantial portion (e.g. 20-50%) of the

spawning stock biomass of a species, reserves

that supplement fishery management by

protecting representative habitats (e.g. 10-

20% of typical habitats), and reserves that

protect critical or unique habitats, areas, or

species (Carr et al. 1998).

For conservation of rockfishes, a system

of reserves will be less effective if fish

consistently move outside the reserve

boundaries. Tag returns indicate that many of

the nearshore rockfish species typically found

Figure 3. Seasonal circulation patterns of the

California current system (GLOBEC 1994).

in kelp beds move less than 2 km, although a

few of the nearshore species have been shown

to move hundreds of kilometers (Lea et al. in

press). Little is known about the movements

of most of the deeper water rockfishes, but

some species have shown movements on the

order of tens of kilometers (Hartmann 1987,
58 Marine Harvest Refugia

Pearcy 1992), and a few species have

exhibited movements on the order of hundreds

of kilometers (Mathews and Barker 1983,

Stanley et al. 1994). Based on morphology

and ecology, the semi-pelagic species are

thought to be more mobile.

The home range and movement patterns

of rockfishes, the complexity, size, and

patchy distribution of rockfish habitats, the

uncertainty of optimum larval source

locations, and social factors all influence the

sizes of reserves needed to accomplish MPA

objectives. Also, the size of any reserve

should be large enough to facilitate

enforcement and to limit deleterious edge

effects caused by fishing adjacent to the

reserve. Although optimum size is dependent

upon many factors, clearly the size of

effective MPAs will be greatly larger than

virtually all existing harvest refugia. In

addition to the biological reasons for having

larger reserves, the practical considerations of

enforcing regulations and managing a marine

reserve indicate that the single-large or severalsmall debate should be decided in favor of

fewer, larger reserves.

Given the current uncertainties in our

understanding of reserve processes, one

strategy for the development of a system of

marine reserves would be to create a series of

reserves that contained 20-50 km of coastline,

and extended to the westward edge of the

continental shelf across a mosaic of habitats.

In central California, rocky shorelines average

about 0.3 km long and comprise about 45% of

the shoreline habitat types (Research Planning

Inc. 1994). Thus, a reserve spanning 20-50

km of coastline would be large enough to

incorporate the typical movements of most

rockfishes, encompass a variety of habitats,

and probably be large enough to limit edge

effects. A series of reserves this size spaced

at intervals away from headlands would also

maximize chances of having one of the

reserves in the system contain a

metapopulation that produces recruits to the

MPA system.

Shape. Shape is extremely important when

evaluating the differences between reserves

designed for recreational and commercial

fisheries. Most recreationally harvested

species live in nearshore habitats, primarily

shallow water kelp beds or rocky habitats.

For these species, a long narrow MPA

encompassing nearshore habitats may be

appropriate for the objective of increasing

species composition or relative abundance in

the reserve. It would certainly be appropriate

to protect key habitats such as nearshore kelp

beds when considering a Heritage Reserve (e.g.

Reserve A, Fig. 4). A long narrow MPA

would not, however, effectively protect deep

water rockfishes typically caught in

commercial fisheries. A reserve that spanned

a smaller portion of the coast, but extended

well offshore would provide more protection

for both recreational species and the

commercially harvested species in deep water,

and provide greater opportunity for the

spillover effect to occur (e.g. Reserve B, Fig.

4). A reserve designed as a swath extending

from the shoreline to the edge of the

continental slope would have a greater chance

of capturing and retaining larval or juvenile

rockfishes. Such a design would also ensure

that the reserve has an opportunity to

accommodate the ontogenetic shift of some

rockfishes to deeper habitats as they mature,
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 59

an event that may not occur in the case of

Reserve C (Fig. 4).

In some locations, habitat complexity as

a function of area could decrease with distance

from shore. In these areas, a reserve shape

that covers an increasing area with distance

offshore (Reserve D, Fig. 4) may be a more

appropriate design than Reserve B (Fig. 4).

MPAs that augment fishery management

should thus be individually designed and be

based largely on the distribution of habitats

and species that are selected for protection.

Reserve shape should ultimately be

determined on a case by case basis using a

combination of information about

bathymetry, habitat complexity, and species

distribution and relative abundance.

Summary

The identification of appropriate goals

and objectives for various species groups and

reserves is key to developing a comprehensive

system of networked MPAs. Although many

Figure 4. Schematic depicting some design considerations for marine reserves. Reserve A protects

key habitat but is not in path of major currents; Reserve B is placed in the path of a major current

and includes habitats in several depth zones; Reserve C is in a partially closed system and thus

immigration and emigration will be limited; and Reserve D is at a boundary between upwelling zones

and the fate of larvae and juveniles is unknown.
60 Marine Harvest Refugia

uncertainties exist, information is available

with which to design MPAs to augment

fishery management practices for rockfishes.

Given the level of uncertainty in the timing,

distribution, and magnitude of important

biological and physical processes, a reserve

system should be designed to incorporate

principles of adaptive management. The

number of factors that influence the success of

a MPA and our ability to differentiate

benefits caused by a reserve from interannual

variation suggests, however, that future

reserves will be greatly larger than almost all

existing MPAs.

The complexity of issues related to the

creation of effective MPAs indicates that

reserves will need to be individually designed,

but should fit into a connected network. A

precautionary approach to the placement of

MPAs suggests that a system of MPAs with

reserves of different sizes and distributed

throughout the U.S. west coast bioregions and

upwelling cells will increase the chances of

accomplishing MPA objectives. Specific

locations of marine reserves can be established

after species distribution, fish density,

habitats and currents are broadly mapped.

One efficient way to locate a reserve is to

include as many species groups as possible by

encompassing a diversity of rockfish habitats

and depth ranges. An example of an

appropriate shape of a reserve would be one

that occurs as a swath from a rocky shore out

to the edge of the continental slope and across

complex habitats such as at the head of a

submarine canyon or a seamount.

References

Agardy, M.T. 1994. Advances in marine

conservation: the role of marine protected

areas. TREE 9(7): 267-270.

Ainley, D.G.. W.J. Sydeman, R.H. Parrish, and

W.H. Lenarz. 1993. Oceanic factors

influencing distribution of young rockfish

(Sebastes) in Central California: a predator’s

perspective. CalCOFI 34:133-139.

Allison, G.W., J. Lubchenco, and M.H. Carr.

1998. Marine reserves are necessary but not

sufficient for marine conservation. Ecol. Appl.

8:79-92.

Auster, P.J. and R.J. Malatesta. 1994.

Assessing the role of non-extractive reserves

for enhancing harvested populations in

temperate and boreal marine systems. In J.

Lien, N. Shackell, and J.H.M. Willison (eds.),

Marine Protected Areas and Sustainable

Fisheries. Science and Management of

Protected Areas Association, Wolfville, Nova

Scotia.

Ballantine, W.J. 1997a. ‘No-take’ marine

reserve networks support fisheries. pp. 702-

706 In D.A. Hancock, D.C. Smith, A. Grant,

and J.P. Beumer (eds.). Developing and

Sustaining World Fisheries Resources: The State

and management. 2nd World fisheries congress,

Brisbane, Australia, 797 pp.

Ballantine, W.J. 1997b. Design principles for

systems of ‘no-take’marine reserves. Paper for

workshop: The Design and monitoring of

Marine Reserves at Fisheries Center, University

of British columbia, Vancouver, Feb 1997.

(unpubl.)

Barry, W.J. and J.W. Foster. 1997. California

Underwater Parks and Reserves Planning and

Management. pp. 25-36 In Marine protected

areas of California. A summary of a

conference session. D.A. McArdle (ed).

University of California Sea Grant publication.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1993. Marine reserves: they

enhance fisheries, reduce conflicts, and protect

resources. Oceanus, Fall. pp. 63-71.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 61

Botsford, L.W., C.L. Moloney, A. Hastings, J.L.

Largier, T.M. Powell, K. Higgins, and J.F.

Quinn. 1994. The influence of spatially and

temporally varying oceanographic conditions

on meroplanktonic metapopulations. Deep-Sea

Res. (II:Top. Stud. Oceanogr) 41(1): 107-145.

Carr, M.H. and D.C. Reed. 1993. Conceptual

issues relevant to marine harvest refuges:

examples from temperate reef fishes. Can. J.

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 2019-2028.

Carr, M.H. and P.T. Raimondi. 1998.

Concepts relevant to the design and evaluation

of harvest reserves. In Yoklavich, M.M. (ed).

Marine Harvest Refugia for West Coast

Rockfish: A Workshop. U.S. Dept. Comm.

NOAA/NMFS Tech. Memo. (This volume).

Carr, M.H., T. Hourigan, D. Ito, D. McArdle, L.

Morgan, W. Palsson, R. Parrish, S. Ralston, P.

Reilly, J. Sladek Nowlis, R. Starr. 1998.

Working group on design considerations. In

Yoklavich, M.M. (ed). Marine Harvest Refugia

for West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop. U.S.

Dept. Comm. NOAA/NMFS Tech. Memo.

(This volume).

DeMartini, E.E. 1993. Modeling the potential

of fishery reserves for managing pacific coral

reef reserves. U.S. Fish. Bull. 91: 414-427.

Dethier, M.N. 1992. Classifying marine and

estuarine natural communities: an alternative to

the Cowardin system. Nat. Areas J. 12(2): 91-

100.

Dugan, J.E. and G.E. Davis. 1993. Application

of marine refugia to coastal fisheries

management. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 1-14.

FAO. 1992. Review of the State of World

Fishery Resources Part I. The Marine

Resources. Food and Agricultural Organization

of the United Nations Fisheries Circular No.

710. Rome, Italy.

Fox, D.S. and R.M. Starr. 1996. Comparison

of commercial fishery and research catch data.

Can J Fish Aquat. Sci. 53: 2681-2694.

GLOBEC. 1994. Eastern Boundary Current

Program, A science plan for the California

Current. U.S. Global Ocean Ecosystems

Dynamics Report No. 11. U.S. GLOBEC

Scientific Steering Coordinating Office.

Berkeley, CA.

Hartmann, A.R. 1987. Movement of

scorpionfishes (Scorpaenidae: Sebastes and

Scorpaena) in the Southern California bight.

California Department of Fish and Game, Fish.

Bull. 73:68-79.

Hickey, B.M. 1989. Patterns and processes of

circulation over the continental shelf off

Washington. pp. 41-45 in Coastal

Oceanography of Washington and Oregon.

M.R. Landry and B.M. Hickey (eds). Elsevier,

New York.

Largier, J.L., B.A. Magnell, and C.D. Winant.

1993. Subtidal circulation over the northern

California shelf. J. Geophys. Res. 98:18147-

18180.

Lauck, T., C.W. Clark, M. Mangel, and G. R.

Munro. 1998. Implementing the precautionary

principle in fisheries management through

marine reserves. Ecol. App. 8(1): 572-578.

Lea, R.N., R.D. McAllister, and D.A.

VenTresca. In press. Biological aspects of

nearshore rockfishes of the genus Sebastes with

notes on ecologically related sportfishes off

central California. California Department of

Fish and Game, Fish Bull. No. 177.

Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, and C. W. Haugen.

1992. California's living marine resources.

University of California Sea Grant. Davis, CA.

257 pp.

Love, M.S., P. Morris, M. McCrae, and R.

Collins. 1990. Life history aspects of 19

rockfish species (Scorpaenidae: Sebastes) from

the Southern California Bight. U.S. Dept.

Comm. NOAA/NMFS Tech. Rep. No. 87. 38 p.
62 Marine Harvest Refugia

Love, M.S. 1991. Probably more than you

ever wanted to know about the fishes of the

Pacific coast. Really Big Press, Santa Barbara,

CA. 215 pp.

Mathews, S.B. and M.W. Barker. 1983.

Movements of rockfish (Sebastes) tagged in

northern Puget Sound, Washington. Fish. Bull.

82(1):916-922.

McArdle, D.A. 1997. California Marine

Protected Areas. California Sea Grant College

System, Pub. No. T-039.

Morgan, L.E. and L.W. Botsford. 1998. The

influence of larval transport and retention

zones on recruitment patterns and the design of

harvest refugia for rockfish. In Yoklavich,

M.M. (ed). Marine Harvest Refugia for West

Coast Rockfish: A Workshop. NOAA/NMFS

Tech. Memo. (This volume).

Moser, H.G. and G.W. Boehlert. 1991.

Ecology of pelagic larvae and juveniles of the

genus Sebastes. Env. Biol. Fish. 30: 203-224.

O'Connell, V.M., and D.W. Carlile. 1993.

Habitat-specific density of adult yelloweye

rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus in the eastern Gulf

of Alaska. U.S. Fish. Bull. 91:304-309.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1995.

Status of the Pacific coast groundfish fishery

through 1995 and recommended acceptable

biological catches for 1996: stock assessment

and fishery evaluation. Pacific Fishery

Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Ave.,

Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

Parrish, R.H., C.S. Nelson, and A. Bakun. 1981.

Transport mechanisms and reproductive success

of fishes in the California current. Biol. Ocean.

No 1, pp. 175-203.

Pearcy, W.G. 1992. Movements of

acoustically-tagged yellowtail rockfish Sebastes

flavidus on Heceta Bank, Oregon. Fish. Bull.

90:726-735.

Pearcy, W.G., D.L. Stein,, M.A. Hixon, E.K.

Pikitch, W.H. Barss, and R.M. Starr. 1989.

Submersible observations of deep-reef fishes of

Heceta Bank, Oregon. U.S. Fish. Bull. 87:955-

965.

Pearson, D.E. and S. Ralston. 1990. Trends in

landings, species composition, length-frequency

distributions, and sex ratios of 11 rockfish

species (Genus Sebastes) from central and

northern California ports (1978-88). U.S.

Dept. Comm. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAATM-NMFS-SWFC-145, 65 pp.

Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and

population regulation. Amer. Nat. 132:652-

661.

Quinn, J.F., Wing, S.R. and L.W. Botsford.

1993. Harvest refugia in marine invertebrate

fisheries: models and applications to the red sea

urchin, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus. Amer.

Zool. 33: 537-550.

Ralston, S. and D.F. Howard. 1995. On the

development of year-class strength and cohort

variability in two northern California

rockfishes. Fish. Bull. 93:710-720.

Ralston, S. 1998. The status of federally

managed rockfish on the U.S. West Coast. In

Yoklavich, M.M. (ed). Marine Harvest Refugia

for West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop.

NOAA/NMFS Tech. Memo. (This volume).

Research Planning, Inc. 1994. Sensitivity of

coastal environments and wildlife to spilled oil:

central California. NOAA Office of Ocean

Resources Conservation Assessment. Seattle,

WA.

Rowley, R.J. 1994. Marine reserves in fisheries

management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine

and Freshwater Ecosystems 4: 233-254.

Stanley, R.D., B.M. Leaman, L. Haldorson, and

V.M. O'Connell. 1994. Movements of tagged

adult yellowtail rockfish, Sebastes flavidus, off

the west coast of North America. Fish. Bull.

92:655-663.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 63

Starr, R. M., D.S. Fox, M.A. Hixon, B.N.

Tissot, G.E. Johnson, and W.H. Barss. 1996.

Comparison of submersible and acoustic

estimates of fish density on a rocky bank. Fish.

Bull. Vol 94: 113-123.

Starr, R.M. and K.A. Johnson. 1997. Goal

Oriented Marine Reserves to Enhance Fisheries.

pp. 68-78 In Marine protected areas of

California. A summary of a conference

session. D.A. McArdle (ed). University of

California Sea Grant publication.

Starr, R.M., K.A. Johnson, E.A. Laman, G.M.

Cailliet. 1998. A Synopsis of Fisheries in the

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

California Sea Grant College System Publication

No. T-042. 101 pp.

Stein, D.L., B.N. Tissot, M.A. Hixon, and W.

Barss. 1992. Fish-habitat associations on a

deep reef at the edge of the Oregon continental

shelf. Fish. Bull. 90:540-551.

Sullivan, C.M. 1995. Grouping of fishing

locations using similarities in species

composition for the Monterey Bay area

commercial passenger fishing vessel fishery,

1987-1992. . Calif. Dept. Fish, Mar. Res. Tech.

Rep. No. 59. 37 pp.

Washburn, L., M.S. Swenson, J.L. Largier, P.M.

Kosro, and S.R. Ramp. 1993. Cross-shelf

sediment transport by an anticyclonic eddy off

northern California. Science (Wash.), vol. 261,

no. 5128, pp. 1560-1564

Wheeler, D.P. 1996. Ecosystem Management:

An Organizing Principle for Land Use. In Land

Use in America. H. L. Diamond and P.F.

Noonan (eds). Island Press: Washington D.C.

Wing, S.R., L.W. Botsford, J.L. Largier, and

L.E. Morgan. 1995. Spatial variability in

settlement of benthic invertebrates in an

intermittent upwelling system. Mar. Ecol.

Prog. Ser. 128:199-211.

Yoklavich, M.M., V.J. Loeb, M. Nishimoto, and

B. Daly. 1996. Nearshore assemblages of larval

rockfishes and their physical environment off

Central California during an extended El Nino

event, 1991-1993. Fish. Bull. 94(4): 766-782.

Yoklavich, M., R. Starr, J. Steger, H.G. Greene,

F. Schwing, and C. Malzone. 1997. Mapping

benthic habitats and ocean currents in the

vicinity of Central California's Big Creek

Ecological Reserve. U.S. Dept. Comm. NOAA

Tech. Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-245.

52 pp.
64 Marine Harvest Refugia

Monitoring the Response of Rockfishes to Protected Areas

Wayne A. Palsson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, WA

Introduction

No-take refuges have been suggested as a

potential tool for fisheries and ecosystem

management, especially for populations of

fishes prone to overexploitation. Their

efficacy primarily has been demonstrated in

tropical and southern temperate systems

where fish size, density, reproduction and

fishery yield have increased with duration of

protection or in comparison to nearby fished

areas (Roberts and Polunin 1991, Dugan and

Davis 1993). For rockfishes (genus Sebastes)

and other fish resources living in association

with rocky outcrops in northern latitudes, few

no-take refuges exist and few studies have

been conducted to monitor population or

ecosystem responses to the absence of

fishing. In addition, rockfish present a

challenge to refuge monitoring because they

are long-lived, outcrop-dwelling, and often

inhabit areas difficult to sample. Regardless,

in implementing any system of no-take

refuges for fishery management purposes,

monitoring must be conducted to measure the

population and fishery responses to

protection and assure that the goals and

objectives of the no-take refuges are achieved.

Historic patterns of stock indicators have

indicated that rockfish populations in

Washington State’s Puget Sound have

experienced long-term declines in abundance

(Palsson et al. 1997), and recent information

suggests that some species of rockfish are at

less than 10% of their historic reproductive

output. Declining stock trends have

continued despite enacting traditional

restrictions on commercial and recreational

fisheries. Because of this, alternative

management strategies have been sought to

rebuild rockfish populations and have led to

an investigation of no-take refuges as a

fisheries management tool. Monitoring

activities within two existing no-take refuges

began in 1992 and were first summarized and

reported in 1995 (Palsson and Pacunski

1995). Comparisons of these no-fished areas

to comparable fished areas strongly indicate

that overfishing is the primary cause of the

declines in abundance, decreases in average

size, and size truncation of larger rockfish in

Puget Sound.

Four permanent no-take refuges

containing subtidal waters have been created

within Puget Sound (defined here as the inland

marine waters of Washington including Puget

Sound, the Straits of Juan de Fuca and

Georgia, the San Juan Archipelago, and Hood

Canal). These refuges were established for the

general purpose of conservation without

specific goals and objectives. Although

regulations for most of these refuges do not

prevent the harvest of salmon and

invertebrates and non-game fishes,

bottomfishing for sport or commercial

purposes is not allowed. These refuges are

small, ranging from 0.002 km2 (0.2 ha) to 5.49

km2 (549 ha). The Edmonds Underwater Park

(EUP) was created in 1970, San Juan Marine

Preserves in 1990, Sund Rocks in Hood Canal
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 65

in 1994, and Titlow Beach near Tacoma,

Washington in 1994.

This paper will describe the methods

used to monitor the response of rockfishes to

no-take refuges in Puget Sound. These

methods were used to test density, size, and

reproductive output differences between

fished rock areas and no-take refuges. The

methods and results will be compared to other

refuge and monitoring studies for rockfish and

a comprehensive monitoring system for

rockfish populations in marine refuges will be

presented.

Methods

In order to monitor some of the Puget

Sound refuges and fished sites, a visual census

technique developed by Matthews (1990a)

using scuba diving was adapted to examine the

relative site usage of rockfish. A more

detailed description of the strip transect

method can be found in Palsson and Pacunski

(1995) but is summarized here.

Seven sites were selected where

permanent transects were established. Five of

these sites were located in central Puget Sound

near Seattle. Of these five sites, four were

fished (Port Blakely, Blake Island, Boeing

Creek, and Orchard Rocks) and also censused

by Matthews (1990a). The other site was the

no-take refuge at EUP, which was established

27 years ago. Two additional sites were

monitored in the San Juan Archipelago: one at

a fished site on the east side of Turn Island,

and one at Shady Cove located within the sixyear old no-take refuges of the San Juan

Marine Preserves. Three individual transect

lines, each 30 m in length, were located at each

site. Every attempt was made to locate each

line in a high relief microhabitat with

comparable complexity and substrate among

all sites. All transect lines except at EUP

were made of lead line and were permanently

embedded along the bottom. Buoys or other

permanent features were used at EUP and

temporary tape measures were set out at each

time of sampling.

Sampling at the San Juan sites was

conducted during the spring and fall of 1992

and continued during subsequent springs until

1997. Refuge and fished sites were sampled

as paired treatments usually within a 24 h

period and during similar daytime and tidal

periods. Many paired observations were

made during the first two years of study, but

only a few were conducted during subsequent

years. During sampling, two divers swam on

either side of each transect line and identified,

counted, and measured each rockfish within

1.5 m of the transect line. All crevices were

examined with the aid of an underwater light.

Data were recorded on waterproof paper at

the time of observation. Individual fish were

measured to the nearest 10 cm interval with

the aid of a plastic staff graduated with 10 cm

marks. The accuracy of this measurement

system was verified on a number of occasions

by measuring fish underwater, spearing them,

and confirming the measurement on the

surface. Observations in Central Puget Sound

were initiated during the fall of 1993 and

during the following fall of 1994, but only one

observation was made at each site. Sampling

was increased at these sites during 1995 and

1996 when one observation was made at each

site per month for the months of April, May,

June, October, November, and December.

Primary data analysis was patterned after

the analysis of variance conducted by
66 Marine Harvest Refugia

Matthews (1990a). Fish density for each

transect was treated as an independent

observation and subjected to a square root

transformation (Zar 1984) to normalize

variances. These data were then subjected to

a one-way analysis of variance to test for

differences among sites. Data were pooled

among all years. Analyses were conducted

separately for central Puget Sound sites and

the San Juan Islands. If a difference was

detected, a Tukey multiple range comparison

was conducted to determine which

comparisons differed. To evaluate the effect

of fishing on each species, each species was

categorized by the relative occurrence in the

recreational catch.

Reproductive potential was determined

by estimating the number of eggs that would

be produced given densities and length

frequency distributions from central Puget

Sound fished and no-take refuge sites. Length

frequencies were multiplied by egg production

at length estimates from DeLacy et al. (1964).

Total reproductive potential was estimated by

multiplying the length effect by the rockfish

densities averaged for each fished and reserve

treatment group.

Results

The densities for five species of rockfish

differed among sites in every central Puget

Sound comparison (ANOVA, P<0.0001).

Multiple range comparisons found that the

highest densities of heavily fished copper

rockfish (Sebastes caurinus) and black

rockfish (S. melanops) were found at EUP,

and the lowest densities were found at the

fished sites (Table 1). The highest densities

of the heavily fished quillback rockfish (S.

maliger) were at the Boeing Creek site, and

EUP had intermediate densities. Lightly

fished brown rockfish (S. auriculatus) and

Puget Sound rockfish (S. emphaeus), which

are rarely caught by fishers, were in highest

densities at some of the fished sites. For the

heavily fished species and black rockfish in

central Puget Sound, EUP always had the 

Table 1. Mean densities (fish/transect) of rockfish from Puget Sound fished and no-take refuge sites.

Central Puget Sound San Juan Islands 

Port

Blakely

Blake

Island

Boeing

Creek

Orchard

Rocks

Edmonds

Park

Turn

Island

Shady Cove

Species Fishing

Intensity

fished fished fished fished no-take fished no-take

Copper Heavy 4.2 1.8 2.4 0.6 30.7 7.2 13.6

Quillback Heavy 1.1 2.1 35.8 0 17.3 0 1.0

Brown Light 0.9 5.7 4.2 7.3 0.1 0 0

Black Medium 0.3 0.04 0.6 0.2 1.9 0.9 0

Puget Sound None 0.1 0.2 86.7 0 0.1 141 154

Large (>=40cm)

Copper Heavy 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 26.1 1.1 1.4

Quillback Heavy 0 0.1 0 0 6.8 0 0

Brown Light 0 0.1 0 0.7 0 0 0

Black Medium 0.1 0 0 0.2 1.9 0.2 0

 * Shaded cells indicate greatest Tukey contrast at 0.05 level of significance.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 67

greatest densities of large individuals (greater

than or equal to 40 cm).

Comparison between the San Juan Island

sites revealed that copper rockfish densities

were greater at the Shady Cove refuge

compared to the Turn Island fished site;

however, densities of large rockfish did not

differ between the fished and unfished sites.

Quillback and brown rockfish were too

infrequent to evaluate, but more and larger

black rockfish were found at the fished Turn

Island site. Puget Sound rockfish densities

were essentially equal between the sites.

For central Puget Sound, the average size

of quillback rockfish was 29.5 cm in the longterm EUP refuge, which differed from the

fished areas where they averaged 20.4 cm (Fig.

1, t-test, P<0.0001). Fifty centimeter

individuals were observed in the refuge but

this size category was absent at the fished

sites. Copper rockfish averaged 42.9 cm at

EUP, which differed from the mean size of

29.1 cm observed at fished sites (Fig. 2, t-test,

P<0.0001). At EUP, copper rockfish

measuring 40 cm and 50 cm were the most

common sizes observed at EUP compared to

Figure 1. Length frequency distributions of

quillback rockfish from central Puget Sound

fished and no-take refuge sites.

Figure 2. Length frequency distributions of

copper rockfish from central Puget Sound fished

and no-take refuge sites.

20 cm and 30 cm at the central Puget Sound

fished sites (Fig. 2).

The reproductive potential at EUP

exceeded the potential at the average fished

site in Puget Sound by a ratio of fifty-five to

one (Fig. 3). The difference due to the length

frequency distributions between no-take and

fished sites accounted for a four fold increase

in egg production, while the difference due to

densities accounted for almost a fifteen fold

increase in egg production.

Discussion

The results from monitoring seven sites

in Puget Sound demonstrate clear density and

size responses by heavily fished rockfishes to

no-take refuges. These contrasts have proven

useful in assessing the impact that fishing has

had on rockfish populations. Compared with

other fishery data, these monitoring results

confirm size truncation, decreased population

abundance, and a reproductive potential that

is less than 10% that of historical levels. High

site fidelity and small home ranges (Matthews
68 Marine Harvest Refugia

Figure 3. Reproductive potential of copper

rockfish from central Puget Sound fished and

no-take refuge sites.

1990 b,c) make copper, quillback, and brown

rockfishes suitable candidates for a

management regime that includes the use of

no-take refuges to assure population stability

and prevent overfishing. An extensive system

of no-take reserves currently is being

considered in Puget Sound as a viable

management tool to reverse declines in

rockfish and other fish populations on rocky

outcrops.

The results from Puget Sound are similar

to the few studies of rockfish responses to

no-take or natural refuges. Paddack (1996)

found that larger rockfish occurred in several

no-take refuges in central California and that

increased sizes corresponded to duration of

protection. The older EUP in Puget Sound

had both extreme size differences as well as

drastic density differences compared to the

younger refuge at Shady Cove. Instead of a

fifteen-fold difference in copper rockfish

abundance as observed in central Puget Sound,

the San Juan refuge only had a two-fold

increase in density compared to the fished site

and after seven years of protection did not

show a size response. The differences in

density and sizes contributed to a vast

difference in the reproductive output in the

older refuge compared to the fished sites.

Paddack (1996) observed a two- to three-fold

increase in the reproductive potential of

rockfish at older refuges in central California

compared to their fished sites. This result is

similar to the four-fold increase we observed

by just considering size effects alone.

Other refuge studies have shown longterm effects of protection and the effects of

fishing on rockfish. Gunderson’s (1997)

study of offshore rockfish populations found

that relative densities were unchanged in

natural refuges after 24 years compared to

declines in nearby fished areas and in overall

populations. Greater densities of rockfish

also appear in natural, deepwater refuges in

Monterey Bay that are not observed in

shallower habitats more subject to fishing

pressure (Yoklavich 1997).

There are a number of possible biological

responses that may occur in marine refuges as

a result of protection afforded by harvest

restrictions. Puget Sound monitoring efforts

tested for changes in size distributions and

abundance, which are the most common

investigated responses in refuges (summarized

by Roberts and Polunin 1991 and Dugan and

Davis 1993). The reproductive response also

was estimated for copper rockfish and similar

studies have documented increased

reproductive effort from refuges (Roberts and

Polunin 1991, Palsson and Pacunski 1995,

Paddack 1996). Other responses that have

been measured include the fishery response.

The catch rates of fishers were surveyed near

refuge borders and Alcala and Russ (1990)
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 69

found increased fishery yields as a result of

the refuge. Other monitoring activities may

not relate to abundance changes or fishery

responses but may include determining the

response of community parameters (species

richness and diversity), behavior (e.g.

migration and movement), genetic diversity, or

other variables depending upon the design and

purpose of the refuge.

A variety of techniques and methods

might be used to monitor rockfish and other

fish populations in no-take refuges. Two

studies specifically on rockfishes have used

visual census techniques with scuba diving

(Palsson and Pacunski 1995, Paddack 1996).

This sampling mode also has been employed

by a number of studies evaluating the refuge

impacts on species other than rockfish (Bell

1983, McCormick and Choat 1987, Buxton

and Smale 1989, Alcala and Russ 1990, Cole

et al. 1990, McClanahan and Shafir 1990,

Rakitin and Kramer 1996). Other monitoring

techniques have included pot surveys (Ratikin

and Kramer 1996) and catch rates as relative

population indicators (Bennett and Attwood

1991, Gunderson 1997). Studies have

measured size responses by directly

measuring fish in water with rulers (Palsson

and Pacunski 1995, Paddack 1996), by

measuring lengths from catches (Bennett and

Attwood 1991, Ratikin and Kramer 1996,

Gunderson 1997), or by visual estimation

(McCormick and Choat 1987, Buxton and

Smale 1989). Age responses have been

measured by Gunderson (1997). There are

many other responses that could be monitored

including home ranges and site fidelity, genetic

diversity, predator-prey interactions, and

system productivity.

Size and abundance responses continue

to be the most direct refuge variables to

monitor, but the ability to monitor these and

other responses for rockfishes depends upon

the available survey and sampling techniques.

Fishery-independent or direct surveys of

rockfishes have been difficult to develop

because rockfish often inhabit rocky outcrops

that are difficult to sample with nets and other

conventional techniques. Trawl surveys have

been used along the west coast to estimate the

density and abundance of rockfish (Lauth et

al. 1997), but trawl survey results for rockfish

are often questioned because of poor net

performance over rocky bottoms. Pelagic

rockfishes have been surveyed with scientific

echosounders (Matthews et al. 1989, Boettner

and Burton 1990, Starr et al. 1996), but broad

scale surveys have not been regularly

conducted in part because of a problem in

identifying species composition. Scuba

surveys have been conducted in the nearshore

environment where densities and sizes have

been estimated (Larson 1980, Matthews

1990a, Palsson and Pacunski 1995, Paddack

1996); however, many rockfish inhabit deep

habitats that are beyond the reach of

conventional scuba techniques.

The development of in situ technology

has increased the variety and applications of

direct survey methods. An underwater

television camera mounted on a remote

operated vehicle (ROV) has been used to

estimate rockfish abundance (Adams et al.

1995) and has promise for some species.

Submersibles have been used in a number of

successful applications to estimate rockfish

densities in relation to their habitat (Richards

1986, Richards and Schnute 1986, Pearcy et

al. 1989, Krieger 1993, O’Connell and Carlile
70 Marine Harvest Refugia

1993, Starr et al. 1996, Yoklavich 1997).

Other undersea methods have been used to

study rockfish and may be relevant to

monitoring their response in no-take refuges.

These include tagging studies using

conventional and sonic tags (Mathews and

Barker 1983, Matthews 1990b,c, Pearcy

1992). Many of these tools are limited by the

time and money needed for their use and the

untested effects on fish behavior during their

use.

On a broader scale, rockfish stocks have

been assessed with fishery dependent

techniques such as catch-at-age and dynamic

pool models (Tagart 1991, Ralston 1998). In

particular, these assessments estimate

spawning stock biomass, which may be used

as an overall measure of the success of no-take

refuges to regional productivity. Catch rates

also can be used as relative indicators of

population abundance (Gunderson 1997,

Palsson et al. 1997).

The selection of a monitoring method and

study design will influence the ability to infer

population changes. Visual assessment

techniques can underestimate numbers of

cryptic species in kelp forests (Davis and

Anderson 1989) and some rockfish were

likely overlooked during the Puget Sound

surveys. Unpublished data from our other

scuba studies in Puget Sound indicate that

approximately one third of all individual

rockfish are hiding in crevices, and this

observation may limit using other direct

survey equipment such as video cameras,

submersibles, and echosounders.

The monitoring of rockfish populations

in Puget Sound was conducted by scuba strip

transects placed at permanent locations. The

selection of permanent transects may have

improved the precision of density estimates

especially in before/after or duration studies

but may have complicated the comparative

analysis among sites. Sedentary rockfishes

are highly site specific (Matthews 1990b,c)

and likely prefer certain microhabitats. If

permanent or random transects do not reflect

the same mix of microhabitats among

treatment groups, differences in densities may

confound survey results. Paddack (1996)

surveyed randomly-selected and permanent

transects to test for density differences among

refuge and fished sites, but the variability was

too great to discern density differences. Had

permanent transects been exclusively selected

and controlled for microhabitat differences

among sites, density differences may have

been detected. In selecting Puget Sound

transect locations, every attempt was made to

achieve a similar composition of

microhabitats. Currently we are evaluating

the relationship between rockfish abundance

and microhabitat selection, and these results

will be used to evaluate the influence of

microhabitats on the results.

An ideal study design to monitor the

response of rockfishes in no-take refuges was

described by Carr and Reed (1993). They

identified that refuge responses should be

measured before and after refuge

establishment and at the same time compared

among refuge and non-refuge treatments. The

results from monitoring the response of

rockfish populations in Puget Sound refuges

suggest the following additional sampling

strategies. After implementing a no-take

refuge, monitoring abundance, size, and other

responses might best be accomplished with

fixed transects that would minimize the

variability due to microhabitat differences.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 71

Sampling events in this scenario would be

randomly selected over time and independent

from each other. In contrast, to test for

among site differences between fished and

refuge treatments, transects should be

randomly selected within each microhabitat at

the time of each sampling event. In addition,

the survey results should be frequently

evaluated to determine the statistical power to

detect differences and to optimize sampling

strategies.

Monitoring programs are critical to the

successful implementation of no-take refuges

in a fishery or ecosystem management

scheme. Without outlining clear and

measurable goals followed by a monitoring

program to test that those goals are being

fulfilled, managers cannot be assured the notake refuges are serving as fishery buffers,

maintaining biodiversity or achieving other

intended benefits. For the Puget Sound

comparisons, some species such as brown

rockfish had higher densities of large and small

fish at fished sites and densities of Puget

Sound rockfish were equal among treatments

or greater at fished sites. Negative responses

to no-take refuges could include competitive

interactions precluding one species or another,

increased and density-dependent predation,

higher disease rates, and poor siting or habitat

quality resulting in population sinks

(Matthews 1990a). Without a comprehensive

monitoring program, the attraction versus

production debate plaguing artificial reef

programs (Grossman et al. 1997) could

certainly plague the implementation of notake reserves for fishery management. The

results of monitoring efforts in Puget Sound to

date have provided a baseline of existing

conditions and insight for an improved and

comprehensive monitoring program to be

implemented with an expanded system of notake reserves being planned for Puget Sound.

References

Adams, P.B., J.L. Butler, C.H. Baxter, T.E.

Laidig, K.A. Dahlin, and W.W. Wakefield.

1995. Population estimates of Pacific coast

groundfishes from video transects and sweptarea trawls. Fish. Bull. 93: 446-455.

Alcala, A.C. and G.R. Russ. 1990. A direct test

of the effects of protective management on

abundance and yield of tropical marine reserves.

J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer 46:40-47.

Bell, J.D. 1983. Effects of depth and marine

reserve fishing restrictions on the structure of a

rocky reef fish assemblage in the north-western

Mediterranean sea. J. App. Ecol. 20: 357-369.

Bennett, B.A. and C.G. Attwood. 1991.

Evidence for recovery of a surf-zone fish

assemblage following the establishment of a

marine reserve on the southern coast of South

Africa. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 75:173-181.

Boettner, J.F. and S.F. Burton. 1990.

Hydroacoustic stock assessment study of

Washington coastal black rockfish of

Washington State. Wash. Dept. of Fish. Tech.

Rep. No. 108, 75 p.

Buxton, C.D. and M.J. Smale. 1989.

Abundance and distribution patterns of three

temperate marine reef fish (Teleostei: Sparidae)

in exploited and unexploited areas off the

southern Cape coast. J. App. Ecol. 26: 441-

451.

Carr, M.H. and D.C. Reed. 1993. Conceptual

issues relevant to marine harvest refuges:

Examples from temperate reef fishes. Can. J.

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 2019-2028.
72 Marine Harvest Refugia

Cole, R.G., T.M. Ayling, and R .G. Creese.

1990. Effects of marine reserve protection at

Goat Island, northern New Zealand. N.Z. J

Mar. Fresh. Res. 24: 197-210.

Davis, G.E. and T.W. Anderson. 1989.

Population estimation of four kelp forest fishes

and an evaluation of three in situ assessment

techniques. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44: 1138-1151.

DeLacey, A.C., C.R. Hitz, and R.L. Dryfoos.

1964. Maturation, gestation, and birth of

rockfish (Sebastodes) from Washington and

adjacent waters. Wash. Dept. Fish. Res. Papers

2 (3): 51-67.

Dugan, J.E. and G.E. Davis. 1993.

Applications of marine refugia to coastal

fisheries management. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci

50: 2029-2042.

Grossman, G.D., G.P. Jones, and W.J. Seaman,

Jr. 1997. Do artificial reefs increase regional

fish production? A review of existing data.

Fisheries 22: 17-23.

Gunderson, D.R. 1997. Spatial patterns in the

dynamics of slope rockfish stocks and their

implications for management. Fish. Bull.

95:219-230.

Krieger, K.J. 1993. Distribution and abundance

of rockfish determined from a submersible and

by bottom trawling. Fish. Bull. 91:87-96.

Larson, R.J. 1980. Competition, habitat

selection, and the bathymetric segregation of

two rockfish (Sebastes) species. Ecol. Mono.

50: 221-239.

Lauth, R.R., M.E. Wilkins, and P.A. Raymore,

Jr. 1997. Results of trawl surveys of groundfish

resources of the west coast upper continental

slope from 1989-1993. U.S. Dept. Comm.

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-79.

Mathews, S.B. and M.W. Barker. 1983.

Movements of rockfish (Sebastes) tagged in

northern Puget Sound. Fish. Bull. 82: 916-922.

Matthews, K.R. 1990a. A comparative study

of habitat use by young-of-the-year, subadult,

and adult rockfishes on four habitat types in

central Puget Sound. Fish. Bull. 88:223-2393.

Matthews, K.R. 1990b. An experimental study

of the habitat preferences and movement

patterns of copper, quillback, and brown

rockfishes (Sebastes spp.). Env. Bio. Fish.

29:161-178.

Matthews, K.R. 1990c. A telemetric study of

the home ranges and homing routes of copper

and quillback rockfish on shallow rocky reefs.

Can. J. Zool. 68: 2243-2250.

Matthews, K.R., J.R. Candy, L.J. Richards, R.

Kieser, and C.M. Hand. 1989. Exploratory

fishing and hydroacoustic observations of

rockfish off Brooks Peninsula, Vancouver

Island, from the MV Velma C and CSS John P.

Tully, March 13-23, 1989. Can. Man. Rep.

Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2029, 101 p.

McClanahan, T.R. and S.H. Shafir. Causes and

consequences of sea urchin abundance and

diversity in Kenyan coral reef lagoons.

Oecologia 83:362-370.

McCormick, M.I. and J.H. Choat. 1987.

Estimating total abundance of a large

temperate-reef fish using visual strip-transects.

Mar. Bio. 96: 469-478.

O’Connell, V.M. and D.W. Carlile. 1993.

Habitat-specific density of adult yelloweye

rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus in the eastern Gulf

of Alaska. Fish. Bull. 91: 304-309.

Paddack, M.J. 1996. The influence of marine

reserves upon rockfish populations in central

California kelp forests. Master’s Thesis.

University of California, Santa Cruz. 40 p.

Palsson, W.A. and R.E. Pacunski. 1995. The

response of rocky reef fishes to harvest refugia

in Puget Sound. In Puget Sound Research ‘95,

Vol. 1, pages 224-234. Puget Sound Water

Quality Authority, Olympia, Washington.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 73

Palsson, W.A., J.C. Hoeman, G.G. Bargmann,

and D.E. Day. 1997. 1995 status of Puget

Sound bottomfish stocks (revised). Wash. Dept.

Fish Wildlife Rept. No. MRD97-03, 98 p.

Pearcy, W.G. 1992. Movements of

acoustically-tagged yellowtail rockfish Sebastes

flavidus on Heceta Bank, Oregon. Fish. Bull.

90: 726-735.

Pearcy, W.A., D.L. Stein, M.A. Hixon, E.K.

Pikitch, W.H. Barss, and R.M. Starr. 1989.

Submersible observations of deep-reef fishes of

Heceta Bank, Oregon. Fish. Bull. 87:955-965.

Rakitin, A. and D.L. Kramer. 1996. Effect of

a marine reserve on the distribution of coral

reef fishes in Barbados. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

131: 97-113.

Ralston, S. 1998. The status of federally

managed rockfish on the U.S. West Coast. In

M.M. Yoklavich (ed). Marine Harvest Refugia

for West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop. U.S.

Dept. Comm. NOAA/NMFS Tech. Memo.

(This volume).

Richards, L.J. 1986. Depth and habitat

distributions of three species of rockfish

(Sebastes) in British Columbia: observations

from the submersible PISCES IV. Env. Biol.

Fish. 17: 13-21.

Richards, L.J. and J.T. Schnute. 1986. An

experimental and statistical approach to the

question: Is CPUE an index of abundace?. Can.

J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43: 1214-1227.

Roberts, C.M. and N.V.C. Polunin. 1991. Are

marine reserves effective in management of

reef fisheries? Rev. Fish Bio. Fish. 1: 65-91.

Starr, R.M., D.S. Fox, M.A. Hixon, B.N. Tissot,

G.E. Johnson, and W.H. Barss. 1996.

Comparison of submersible-survey and

hydroacoustic-survey estimates of fish density

on a rocky bank. Fish. Bull. 94:113-123.

Tagart, J.V. 1991. Population dynamics of

yellowtail rockfish (Sebastes flavidus) stocks in

the northern California to southwest Vancouver

Island region. PhD. Dissertation, University of

Washington, Seattle. 323 p.

Yoklavich, M.M. 1997. Applications of sidescan sonar and in situ submersible survey

techniques to marine fisheries habitat research.

p. 140-141. In G.W. Boehlet and J.D.

Schumacher, eds. Changing oceans and

changing fisheries: environmental data for

fisheries research and management. U.S. Dept.

Comm. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFSC-239. 146 p.

Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis.

Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

718 p.
74 Marine Harvest Refugia

The Role of Law Enforcement in the Creation and Management

of Marine Reserves

Eugene Proulx, NMFS, Southeast Office of Enforcement, St. Petersburg, FL

All users of the marine environment are

effected by the creation of a marine reserve.

The establishment of a reserve changes the

activities of all persons who would come into

contact with that reserve. In truth, a marine

reserve is an effort to effect a cross-cutting

change in human behavior with respect to a

very small piece of the environment. It is

very impressive to look upon a new addition

to a NOAA nautical chart and to see depicted

with dotted blue lines a particular geographic

area designated for special behavioral

modifications on the part of its human users.

For example, "Note D" of chart 11400

describes the Florida Middle Ground. This

note explains "the following restrictions apply:

fishing the coral is prohibited except as

authorized by a permit issued under 50CFR638.4. Bottom longlines, traps, pots and

bottom trawls may not be fished within the

area". After reading this explanation, the

casual reviewer would assume that this

prohibition has succeeded in its goal in

restricting those listed fishing activities.

Actually, nothing could be further from the

truth. The historical record of compliance in

the Florida Middle Ground, an area roughly

equal in size to Monterey Bay, California, is

abysmal. Bottom trawling vessels routinely

are detected fishing unlawfully in the area and,

despite severe penalties and loss of catch,

compliance has never been achieved in the 15

years that the area has been protected.

The effort to protect the Florida Middle

Ground, however, is not completely without

success. The level of activity within the area

would be intense if it were not for the existing

regulations. The resources identified within

the Florida Middle Ground would be

nonexistent without the protection afforded

by the prohibitions. The degree of success

that is attained is attributable directly to the

level of enforcement commitment placed on

keeping the area closed. Aerial patrols and

surface patrols to keep a police presence is

the classic methodology for enforcing

regulations associated with any form of

marine reserve. Achieving a physical presence

within any closed area is always difficult.

Enforcement seeks to be present in the closed

area often enough to deter violations. When

violations are detected, enforcement then

looks toward severe penalties and sanctions to

further decrease incentive to conduct unlawful

fishing activities. This classic formula for

maintaining a closed area has never succeeded.

Eventually enforcement resources are taxed

beyond their ability to keep a physical

presence within the closed area and

complaints of little or no law enforcement

begin to surface in front of managers

responsible for maintaining such closed areas.

Enforcement resources are expensive and

assumptions of the level of resources needed

to achieve compliance within any marine

protected area are almost always incorrect.

When it comes to knowing how much

enforcement is necessary, managers wishing to

achieve a closed area are often willing to

accept anything in order to place the concept
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 75

firmly within the existing Code of Federal

Regulations. There are false assumptions that

the lawful users will provide sufficient

policing to keep poachers from accessing the

designated area. There are false assumptions

that "other agencies" will contribute to the

success of enforcement efforts. There are

false assumptions about the frequency with

which aerial and surface patrols will transit

the area. There is almost always shock and

amazement when existing enforcement

resources request significant increases in the

numbers of employees, vessels and aircraft.

A detailed and peer-reviewed threat

analysis is necessary before the consideration

and creation of a marine reserve.

•The threat analysis should identify all

potential incursions into the marine

reserve by persons seeking to

circumvent, disobey or ignore the

proposed regulations.

•The threat analysis needs to reflect that

there are determined, willful violators

who do not “buy into” the concept of the

closed area.

•The threat analysis needs to identify

cultural variations in perceptions of the

use of the marine environment.

•The threat analysis needs to consider all

the possible sources of catastrophic

incursion and seek to eliminate the

motivation for these incursions.

The results of the threat analysis need to be

circulated among potential user groups, who

will provide the reaction to the proposed

regulations. Most of all, the completed threat

analysis must be used to allow enforcement to

realistically predict what the likelihood of

compliance will be for the regulations enacting

the marine reserve.

In the United States, various forms of

marine reserves, closed areas, or Habitat Areas

of Particular Concerns (HAPCs) have been

enacted with regularity since the Magnuson

Fishery Conservation and Management Act

came into effect March 1977. In practice, the

reaction to the regulations enacting a closed

area is always different and more clever than

what was expected or predicted by managers

and enforcers. A long and needlessly

inefficient game is played by poachers,

enforcers, and managers in order to achieve the

goals of the closed area. Creation of a marine

reserve allowing little or no harvest will likely

precipitate an even stronger reaction than

those experienced in the creation of closed

areas. The level of enforcement resources,

particularly traditional enforcement resources

such as officers, boats and planes, is usually

recalculated in an emergency setting by

enforcement managers desperate to curtail

frequent and blatant violations within the

closed areas. Almost entirely absent from

these considerations is any effort to apply

nontraditional enforcement mechanisms. For

example, if managers truly wish to establish

an area where bottom trawling is completely

prohibited, the means to compliance could

propose a nontraditional solution such as the

placement of cement tetrahedrons as an

effective barrier around the marine reserve.

My suggestion is that if the opposition to the

placement of such permanent barriers is

strong, then the prohibition to trawling should

be reconsidered because it is not likely that

sufficient enforcement resources will ever
76 Marine Harvest Refugia

exist to completely close any area to this

activity.

Creation of rockfish refugia along the

Pacific coast will require nontraditional

enforcement approaches combined with an

appropriate background level of traditional

enforcement to have a realistic probability of

successful implementation. Even matters as

simple as routine patrol must be closely

examined with regard to the likelihood of

implementation under the usual budgetary

restraints. Most people are very familiar with

the success of river-keeper and bay-keeper

programs on the Hudson River and portions

of Chesapeake Bay. Routine presence by

marked non-enforcement units can have a

positive effect in deterring incursions as long

as fully equipped and accredited law

enforcement officers are in sufficient number

to respond to the scene when actual violations

are detected. In the documentation for a

recent conference on the creation of the

Oculina Bank marine reserve off the east coast

of Florida, enforcement agencies were asked,

“if we create a marine fishery reserve, how

best can it be enforced with the resources we

have?" The only recommendation being

considered in the initial document was the

traditional deterrents of increasing penalties

for violators within the proposed marine

reserve. I submit that this option can be

portrayed most commonly as the “head

hunting syndrome.” Violations will occur at

an increasing rate, complaints will increase to

a point where sufficient enforcement

resources are focused on the problem, and

after a certain amount of time, a violator will

be caught while poaching within the marine

reserve. The premise becomes that if this one

person is severely punished it will deter all of

the violations. My experience is that this has

never worked. Determined poachers view

heavy fines and penalties as an occasional cost

of doing business and only rarely do the

enforcement action and subsequent criminal or

administrative penalty succeed in entirely

removing the poacher from the fishery. The

high level of recidivism among determined

poachers is a well-known and established

behavioral pattern. Each and every natural

resource enforcement organization along the

coastal United States knows who the top

poachers are within their areas of jurisdiction.

Indeed, each natural resource officer

frequently knows all the significant poachers

within his or her individual districts.

Successful enforcement programs that will

achieve the goals of a marine reserve must

acknowledge that dedicated, hard-to-deter

poachers will continue to operate unlawfully

within the marine reserve at every

opportunity.

Enforcement programs dedicated to the

protection of a marine reserve cannot survive

or accomplish their goal with overwhelming

public opposition. Generally, in natural

resource law enforcement, when there is

overwhelming opposition to any regulation,

the court system reacts to those cases that are

brought under that regulation by supporting

the public and dismissing the cases. The court

systems provide balance between regulation

and over-regulation. Enforcement programs

focused on the effective implementation of

regulations enacting marine reserves of the

future must be innovative and must have

strong public support.

Those populations of users closest to the

closed area are most heavily impacted by the

creation of a marine reserve. “Not in my
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 77

backyard” is a very common cry from the

local citizenry. Creation and management of

the marine reserve cannot assume that the

correct response to local opposition is strong

enforcement. Strong enforcement of a

strongly opposed regulatory regime usually

results in letters from congressmen and

senators and lawsuits from opposing nongovernmental organizations. Successful

enforcement programs related to marine

reserves must emphasize community oriented

policing techniques and strongly emphasize

educational aspects of marine reserve

regulations. Enforcement has a role in

teaching all user groups exactly what the

benefits of the marine reserve will be. If a tenyear-old grade-schooler learns from his or her

father that the marine reserve is taking food

from his plate, this child quickly will begin

his or her own campaign of lifelong poaching

activities. If the educational program

integrates a large enforcement component into

the outreach efforts, young minds can often be

brought to support the concept of the marine

reserve and help to influence their parents’

opinions.

Lastly, managers must not be afraid to

postpone enacting regulations for a marine

reserve when there is clearly no possibility of

attaining the minimal funding necessary for

enforcement. In the charge given to the

conference on Oculina Bank as referenced

above, the correct conclusion might be that it

is not possible to provide enforcement with

existing resources. Enforcement of marine

reserves must not be either overwhelmed or

under-funded.
78 Marine Harvest Refugia

Evaluating Marine Harvest Refugia: An Economic Perspective

Cynthia Thomson, NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA

I. Introduction

Evaluating the economic effects of a

harvest refuge will be complicated by

uncertainties regarding 1) the biological effects

of the refuge; 2) difficulties in predicting how

potentially affected parties are likely to

respond to the refuge; 3) shortcomings of

models used to estimate economic effects; 4)

lack of appropriate data; and 5) lack of

experience with this novel approach to fishery

management. This paper discusses some of

the complexities involved in such economic

evaluation in order to better anticipate the

types of analyses and information needed.

Section II provides a general introduction to

methodologies and concepts relevant to the

evaluation. Section III discusses some of the

economic issues specific to refuges. Section

IV provides brief concluding remarks.

II. Conceptual Overview of Economic

Evaluation Techniques

Cost-benefit Analysis: One tool for

evaluating the economic effects of a harvest

refuge is cost-benefit analysis. Because this

type of analysis typically takes the

perspective of society (i.e. the nation) as a

whole, the scope of costs and benefits and the

approach to measuring them will differ

somewhat from the manner in which these

terms are understood and employed by

private firms. An important concept in costbenefit analysis is the notion that society, by

choosing one particular use of its scarce

resources, incurs an “opportunity cost” in

terms of the foregone benefits that those

resources would have generated in some

alternative use. Thus, for instance, in terms of

evaluating a refuge, the opportunity cost of

the refuge would be measured by the net

economic benefits (benefits minus costs)

associated with the status quo management

regime that the refuge is intended to replace.

Two separate and additive sources of

social benefit commonly considered in costbenefit analysis are consumer surplus and

economic rent:

(1) Consumer surplus--the net economic

benefit provided by a good or service to

the public-at-large--is the difference

between the maximum dollar amount each

person is willing to pay for a good and

the amount actually spent on the market

to acquire it, summed across all

consumers. For any particular good,

willingness-to-pay (WTP) varies among

individual consumers, due to differences

in preferences, incomes and the amount

of the good already consumed.1 Because

society attaches value to non-market as

_________________

1 WTP declines as the amount consumed increases, with consumption ceasing altogether once an

individual has become sufficiently satiated that his WTP falls below the market price.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 79

well as market goods, non-market

activities such as sport fishing2 also are

legitimate sources of consumer surplus.

Consumer surplus also applies to nonconsumptive environmental goods. For

instance, it is referred to as “nonconsumptive use value” for activities

such as wildlife viewing and as “non-use

value” for goods and services (such as

healthy ecosystems) that are valued

regardless of whether a person expects to

ever benefit from using or seeing them.

(2) Economic rent pertains to benefits

generated by “factors of production,”

that is, labor, land, capital and businesses

that contribute to the production of

goods and services provided to

consumers. Economic rent is measured

by the difference between what a factor

earns in its current use and the minimum

amount of compensation necessary to

motivate the owner of that factor to keep

it in that use. Because a factor is likely

to leave its current use only if earnings

fall below what it would earn in its next

best alternative use, this minimum

compensation would be the factor’s

“opportunity cost,” i.e. the economic

opportunity foregone by remaining in the

current use.

The use of cost-benefit analysis to

evaluate a refuge would involve predicting

immediate and long term responses of

potentially affected parties to the refuge,

relative to the status quo. These responses

would then be translated into estimates of

costs--costs directly attributable to the refuge

(e.g. monitoring, enforcement) as well as

opportunity costs (i.e. net benefits foregone

by giving up the status quo)--and benefits

(consumer surplus and economic rent

generated by the refuge). A cost-benefit ratio

describing aggregate costs relative to aggregate

benefits would be used to summarize the

results, with a ratio value less than one

indicating a net economic gain to society

associated with the refuge, and a value greater

than one indicating otherwise. While a costbenefit ratio is useful for summarizing the

overall outcome once individual gains and

losses associated with the refuge are weighed

against each other, it masks the specific

effects of the refuge on individual segments of

society. To address such distributional

concerns, a breakdown of aggregate costs and

benefits over time and among various

segments of society would likely also be

included in the analysis.

Economic Impact Analysis: Economic

impact analysis focuses on the distribution of

economic activity--as measured by market

output, employment and household and

business income--within a particular

geographic area (e.g. city, state) designated by

the analyst. Impact analysis could be used to

evaluate changes in economic activity

associated with a harvest refuge, both in terms

of direct effects on the economy within the

_________________

2 Unlike market goods, which are purchased via a single market transaction at a given price, a sport fishing

trip is created by combining non-market resources (e.g. time spent travelling to the fishing site) with one or more

market goods (e.g. gasoline, bait).
80 Marine Harvest Refugia

designated area and so-called “multiplier”

effects, which occur as direct effects ripple

through other economic sectors within the

same area. The nature and magnitude of

multiplier effects vary according to

characteristics of the economy and tend to

dissipate more rapidly in smaller, less diverse

economies that rely heavily on goods and

services imported from outside their

boundaries.

The use of impact analysis for evaluating

a harvest refuge would involve predicting the

direct effects of the refuge within the

boundaries of the economy, then estimating

the multiplier effects resulting therefrom. The

required predictions would address not only

the extent of direct reductions or expansions

in output, income and employment associated

with the refuge, but also whether reductions in

one sector of the economy might be offset by

expansions in other sectors, and vice versa.

The extent of such substitutions would

depend, for instance, on whether commercial

fishermen displaced by the refuge take up

alternative fishing or non-fishing activities

within or outside of the local economy, or

whether increases in ecotourism associated

with the refuge represent an addition to or

displacement from other leisure activities

already occurring within the economy.

Because of its focus on market

transactions, impact analysis disregards goods

and services that may be desired by society

but do not generate output, income or

employment (e.g. environmental amenities

that provide non-use value). Furthermore,

while impact analysis provides information

regarding the volume of money that changes

hands in the economy, it says nothing about

how efficiently that money is used in

providing goods and services to consumers.

Because goods are subject to multiple

transactions as they move through the

economy and are counted in each transaction

according to the full market price rather than

the value added at each level of the market, the

output effects estimated by impact analysis

typically reflect a significant amount of

monetary double-counting. Despite these

limitations, impact analysis likely will have

considerable appeal to persons concerned

about the effects of a refuge on local economic

activity.

III. Application to Harvest Refugia

In order to systematically evaluate the

economic effects of a harvest refuge, it is

important to know: (1) the specific objectives

intended to be met by the refuge, (2) the

specific management alternatives to be

evaluated, (3) the dynamics and current status

of resources likely to be affected by the

proposed refuge, and (4) current human uses

of the proposed refuge area (e.g. commercial

and sport fishing, nonfishing recreation such

as boating and diving). Management options

should include, at minimum, a “status quo”

alternative and a refuge alternative. If various

types of refuges (differing significantly in

terms of size, shape, location, etc.) are to be

considered, more than one refuge alternative

may be specified. The alternative(s) to be

considered may include refuges in combination

with traditional management rather than

mutually exclusive practices.

Because the economic analysis is

intertemporal, the status quo is defined to

include not only the current status of

resources and their use but also how these
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 81

likely would change over time, based on the

customary types of management measures

(e.g. quotas, trip limits) that would continue

to be used in the absence of the refuge. While

these projections may take the form of linear

extrapolations from past trends, this approach

may or may not suffice, depending on the

particular fish stocks being considered for

refuge protection.3

The scope of the economic analysis will

be significantly affected by the types of uses

to be restricted within the refuge and the

effect of such restrictions not only within but

also outside the refuge. Thus, for instance,

economic effects on sport and commercial

fisheries would be evaluated in the context of

the likely response of fishermen and fishery

managers to such closure. While curtailment of

fishing within the refuge may be accompanied

by a loosening of customary harvest

restrictions outside the refuge, this will not

necessarily occur immediately or even over

the long-term--depending on what fishery

managers expect in terms of biological and

fishery benefits from the refuge and how they

respond to the opinions expressed by the

fishing industry and other interest groups.

Moreover, new management issues may arise

in areas outside the refuge if, for instance,

outside stocks experience undue fishing

pressure or significant social conflict develops

as a result of the influx of vessels from the

refuge. Also, depending on the extent to

which current stock assessments are based on

fishery-dependent data and how much of such

data would be lost by closure of the refuge to

fishing, the effects of such data loss on the

reliability of stock assessments also may need

to be considered.

Economic effects on fishing activities

outside the harvest refuge may take a variety

of forms. For instance, vessels that

customarily fished in the refuge may incur

additional costs to travel to more distant

fishing grounds or to relocate to a port outside

the refuge. Processing plants in the vicinity of

the refuge may experience reduced revenues,

relocate or shut down altogether. Spillover

effects may also occur if increased congestion

on fishing grounds outside the refuge causes

operating costs to increase for all vessels on

those grounds, not just those displaced from

the refuge.

Issues of equity and fairness may arise,

because a harvest refuge may affect fishermen

differently, depending on the extent of their

prior reliance on the fishery within the refuge

and their ability to divert their activities to

areas outside the refuge. For instance, a refuge

in nearshore waters may have a

disproportionate effect on smaller fishing

vessels, because larger boats may be better

able to divert fishing effort to more distant

areas. A refuge over one type of ocean

bottom may have a disproportionate effect on

vessels that employ gear typically used on

that type of seafloor, particularly if access to

other areas with the same type of bottom is

limited. A single refuge may have a greater

effect on fishermen who customarily operate

_________________________

3 Given the declining trends in a number of West coast fish stocks, growing awareness of the limitations of

current stock assessment techniques and the “precautionary” approach to management prescribed by the new

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996), fishery

managers may be inclined to take a more conservative approach to resource use than would be indicated by a linear

extrapolation. Perhaps one indication of this is the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s imposition of unusually

conservative harvest restrictions on the groundfish fishery in 1998.
82 Marine Harvest Refugia

in that vicinity than a system of refuges with

a broader geographic distribution.

While a harvest refuge may cause shortand long-term economic disruptions in a

fishery, it may also provide long-term gains to

the fishery, for example higher yields, reduced

variability of yields, and reduced probability

of fishery closure due to overfishing. If the

refuge is designed to protect some subset of

resident fish species but fishing activity for all

species is prohibited in the refuge, the refuge

may provide some incidental protection for

these other species as well. On the other

hand, a prohibition on fishing for all species

within the refuge (not just species the refuge

is designed to protect) will result in economic

dislocation for all fishermen who customarily

operate within the refuge and exacerbate

spillover effects on fisheries outside the

refuge, because all fishing effort would be

diverted to outside areas. Non-fishing

activities such as recreational boating or diving

may also be excluded from the refuge if, for

instance, they are thought to adversely affect

resources or habitat within the refuge or

perhaps even for non-biological reasons (e.g.

simplifying enforcement, ensuring “equitable”

exclusion from the refuge). To the extent that

such non-fishing exclusions occur, economic

consequences for those activities would have

to be investigated as well.

In addition to any fishery benefits

associated with a harvest refuge, the public-atlarge may reap benefits in the form of non-use

value--the value attached by the public to

marine resource enhancement within the

refuge that is independent of their present or

future use of those resources. Nonconsumptive use value may also be enhanced

if, for instance, increased resource abundance

or biodiversity in the area of the refuge causes

the value of ecotourism-related activities to

increase.

While a harvest refuge may result in cost

savings in terms of lesser reliance on

traditional management measures within the

refuge, some form of traditional regulation,

monitoring and enforcement likely will

continue to be needed on fishing grounds

outside the refuge. Additionally, costs

associated with establishing the refuge may be

significant, depending on the technical

complexities associated with refuge design, the

regulatory requirements associated with refuge

implementation and the extent of public

controversy. Resources will also be needed

for long-term monitoring and validation of

refuge benefits and for enforcement of

restrictions on access to the refuge.

Informal public surveillance may mitigate

some of the enforcement costs associated with

a harvest refuge. However, the probability of

this occurring and the risks associated with

wrongly assuming that such surveillance will

in fact occur should be carefully evaluated.

The extent of enforcement costs also will be

affected by the nature of the refuge

regulations. If the regulations prohibit access

to the refuge by all vessels, a vessel’s mere

presence in the refuge will be sufficient

grounds for citation. If only fishing vessels

are denied access, an enforceable means of

distinguishing fishing vessels from other

vessels (e.g. presence of fishing gear on board)

must be devised. If the prohibition is on

harvesting fish within the refuge, a vessel will

likely have to be caught in the act of

harvesting, because fish already on board may

have been harvested outside the refuge. While

prohibiting access to the refuge may be more
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 83

effective from an enforcement perspective

than prohibiting fishing, it may also be more

burdensome for fishing vessels (and perhaps

also non-fishing vessels) if they must spend

extra travel time detouring around the refuge

while engaged in activities outside the refuge.

Refuge size and location will have a bearing on

this issue as well, because a large refuge in a

heavily used area will likely impose greater

inconvenience on vessels than a smaller refuge

in a remote location. The incremental

enforcement cost of the refuge relative to the

status quo also will depend on whether at-sea

surveillance is expected to be conducted in the

vicinity of the refuge for reasons independent

of the refuge, or whether such surveillance

would have to be initiated specifically because

of the refuge.

IV. Conclusions

The economic effects of a harvest refuge

will be affected by the policy objectives it is

intended to meet, the size and location of the

refuge, and the types of uses to be prohibited

within its boundaries. Thus, consideration of

the potential range of economic effects is best

initiated during early development stages of

the refuge rather than after the fact. Such

forethought will better enable policy makers

to anticipate potential sources of support and

opposition to the refuge and increase the

likelihood of an economically as well as

biologically positive outcome.

The information requirements for

conducting an economic evaluation of a refuge

are extensive. Given the uncertainties

involved, the analysis may end up providing

very approximate and incomplete estimates of

economic effects. However, even an

approximate evaluation likely is better than

none at all, because it provides a framework

for conceptualizing the issues involved and a

systematic way of informing policy makers

regarding the range of potential economic

effects and the extent to which they can be

documented and quantified.
84 Marine Harvest Refugia

Marine Harvest Refugia: An International Policy Perspective

Thomas F. Hourigan, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD

Interest in fishery reserves, marine

harvest refugia, and marine protected areas as

fishery management tools has grown quickly

over the last decade. This is an international

phenomenon, and one in which developing

countries have played a leading role. The

largest number of marine harvest refugia have

been set up on coral reefs. These have

generally been promoted from two different

perspectives: (1) as marine protected areas for

tourism (e.g. in Belize); and (2) as part of

development projects devolving management

responsibilities to local communities (e.g. in

the Philippines and Sri Lanka).

Most of these early experiments have

been characterized by:

• Initial resistance by fishers that are

excluded from traditional fishing areas;

• Significant, and often dramatic increases

in numbers and size of fish or other

harvested resources within refugia;

• Often anecdotal increases in harvests

outside refugia;

• Poor documentation of baselines and

changes in biological assemblages and

fishery catches.

Despite this lack of documentation, results

have been perceived as positive enough to

result in:

• Local community support for refugia

(e.g. the Philippines);

• International donor agency (e.g. U.S.

Agency for International Development,

Global Environment Facility) support

shifting from small-scale experiments of

the late ‘80s to much larger-scale national

initiatives (although still with a reluctance

to support needed monitoring activities);

• Inclusion of refuges in fishery “best

practices” (e.g. FAOs Code of Conduct

for Responsible Fisheries) especially for

new or still-developing fisheries and

artisanal fisheries; and

• The beginning of a much more ambitious

dialogue about the next generation of

marine protected areas.

The global biodiversity conservation

movement has accelerated interest in marine

protected areas and harvest refugia. This

stems from the view that such areas are the

fishery management tool most likely to

conserve biological communities and their

processes in addition to target fishery species.

This approach has been championed by both

environmental and community-based

nongovernmental organizations, as well as,

more recently by the scientific community.

This is reflected in several World

Conservation Union (IUCN) resolutions and

the conclusions of the International Group of

Experts on Marine and Coastal Protected

Areas (1995). At the First Symposium on

Marine Conservation Biology, over 400

marine scientist and conservation biologists –

including most of the top names in the field –

endorsed a “Call for Action” on marine

biodiversity conservation. Included in this

call was:

“Increase the number and

effectiveness of marine protected

 areas so that 20% of

Exclusive Economic Zones
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 85

and High Seas are protected from

threats by the year 2020.”

The Parties to the Convention on

Biological Diversity (currently 173 countries

and the European Community) have also

responded to the interest in marine harvest

refugia. The three objectives of the

Convention are: (1) the conservation of

biological diversity; (2) the sustainable use of

its components; and (3) the fair and equitable

sharing of the benefits arising out of the

utilization of genetic resources. The

Conference of Parties to the Convention

specifically identified the need for Parties to

establish marine protected areas, and in May,

1998, directed both Parties and the Secretariat

of the Convention to facilitate research and

monitoring activities related to the value and

the effects of marine and coastal protected

areas or similarly restricted management areas

-- such as no-take harvest refugia -- on

sustainable use of marine and coastal living

resources. These issues will form part of the

Convention's program of work on marine and

coastal biodiversity.

Group of greenspotted rockfish (Sebastes chlorostictus) viewed from the Delta submersible

at 150 m in Soquel Canyon, Monterey Bay, CA. Photo by M. Yoklavich
86 Marine Harvest Refugia

Marine Reserves – An Environmentalist’s Perspective

Rodney M. Fujita, Environmental Defense Fund, Oakland, CA

Marine Reserves Serve Many Purposes

Marine reserves, defined as areas in

which fishing is banned and all other extractive

human activities are minimized, serve many

purposes. First and foremost, areas of the sea

should be set aside and protected from as

many anthropogenic threats as possible,

simply because such areas have an inherent

value (existence value), and because future

generations deserve to inherit some portion of

the natural ecosystems that exists today.

If what has been learned in aquatic

ecosystems is any guide, then the protection

of representative pieces of all major habitat

types within coherent networks of protected

areas will be the best way to protect

biodiversity at all levels (from populations to

ecosystems) in the sea. Coherent networks

protect both a number of individual protected

areas and the essential physical and ecological

processes that create and maintain

ecosystems, such as sediment transport

characteristics, migrations of organisms, and

fluxes of nutrients and energy. Effective

protection of biodiversity can also have the

practical benefit of preventing or reducing

constraints placed on fishing to protect

depleted populations. In some extreme cases,

such as Pacific salmon listed under state and

federal endangered species acts, such

constraints can close fisheries entirely.

Marine reserves also provide places in

which to study marine ecosystems without

the confounding effects of human activities,

and to begin to apply the definition of a

"healthy" marine ecosystem. An operational

definition of ecosystem health (for example,

the identification of the most important

attributes of ecosystem structure and

function, and quantitative thresholds for each

of these attributes) will be essential for

establishing standards and targets for

protecting marine ecosystems. Research on

relatively undisturbed marine ecosystems

would also be expected to yield insights into

life history, population dynamics, ecological

energetics, nutrient cycling, and other

structural and functional attributes – insights

that could significantly improve fisheries

management.

Education is another important function

of marine reserves. Both school children and

adults deserve to have places in which they

can observe how relatively unimpaired marine

ecosystems look and function. This can be

accomplished through field trips, the

transmission of video images from deepwater

ecosystems, and the communication of

research results by aquariums, natural history

museums, and curricula.

Marine reserves in accessible, nearshore

areas would be expected to protect and

increase tourism-based economic activities,

since many people are attracted to places of

natural beauty that are designated as parks or

reserves.

While the emphasis of the Workshop on

Marine Harvest Refugia for Rockfishes is on

the potential of marine reserves as a fisheries

management tool, it is important to bear in

mind the other purposes of marine reserves.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 87

The stated purposes of a marine reserve

largely will define whether or not the reserve

is judged successful. The need for scientific

work, and the ultimate design of a marine

reserve or a network of marine reserves, will

also depend to a large extent on the purposes.

Defining Success

Much of the debate over whether society

should proceed rapidly with the establishment

of marine reserves (without much ecological

analysis), versus a go-slow approach based on

research and design, seems to be fueled by a

lack of clarity about purposes.

A marine reserve that includes a

spectacular stretch of coast, kelp forests, and

rocky outcrops accessible to divers could be

"successful" in achieving many of the

purposes listed above, even if no fishery

benefits accrue. Likewise, a deepwater

reserve in which scientists can study

community and population structure, and

ecosystem processes without the confounding

effects of fishing could be successful in terms

of defining ecological baselines and fostering

research, even if fishery yields are not

enhanced. The placement and design of such

reserves require careful thought and analysis,

but perhaps not as much as a marine reserve

aimed at increasing fishery yield.

Marine reserves with the express

purpose of enhancing fisheries yield are

probably more likely to fail in the absence of

careful design than are other types of marine

reserves. For example, placement of reserves

may also be crucial to ensure fishery

enhancement, because some areas may serve

as sources of larvae or young fish, while

others may serve as sinks. If a fishery is

limited by the number of spawning adults, and

if the marine reserve network does not protect

enough spawners, the network would fail to

restore the fishery. If a fishery is limited by

pre-recruit survival, a marine reserve might be

established to protect nursery areas from

damage by fishing gear and fishing mortality;

but fishery yields would not be enhanced

unless the reserve was carefully designed to

protect only the nursery areas, not areas to

which recruits would be expected to migrate.

Similarly, fishery yields would be enhanced if

adults migrated outside the boundaries of the

reserve network. The extent of such migration

would likely be influenced by the size of

individual marine reserves and by the ratio of

reserve area to perimeter, as well as by the

extent to which particular species move.

Perhaps the most robust purpose of a

marine reserve designed primarily as a

fisheries management tool is to provide

insurance against fishery management failures.

Fishery management is very often based on

uncertain estimates of fish abundance that are

derived from infrequently conducted surveys,

and on uncertain estimates of fishing mortality

and effort (subject to the vagaries of weather,

the market, and fishermen's reports). These

data are fed into models using many uncertain

parameters. Scientists then compare

projected abundance and fishing mortality

with estimates of the mortality rates and

abundance levels that would support

maximum sustainable yield. However, these

estimates are in themselves based on uncertain

relationships between spawning potential and

recruitment or on uncertain estimates of

natural mortality, compounding the

uncertainty. Thus, fishery management

protects fish projected to exist, based on

uncertain data and models. Well designed and
88 Marine Harvest Refugia

managed marine reserves would protect real

fish and real ecosystems even if fishery

management completely fails, or results in

fishing mortality that is greater than projected.

Recommendations

• Whenever discussing marine reserves,

clearly articulate the purposes to avoid

confusion and unproductive arguments.

• Marine reserves chosen on the basis of

natural beauty, proximity to research and

educational facilities, or inclusion of

recognizable habitat-types or communities

(e.g. kelp forests, rocky outcrops, etc.) can be

successful in providing research and

educational opportunities, establishing

baselines for ecosystem health to guide

policy, providing a sense of marine

"wilderness" that many people value, and

directly protecting biodiversity, even if they

do not enhance fishery yields.

• Marine reserves intended as fishery

management tools need to be carefully

designed to address specific factors germane

to enhancing fishery yields, or to protecting

spawning potential.

• Establish more marine reserves in the

short term, to serve as the basis for research

that will guide the establishment of marine

reserves in the future. There are limits to how

well a marine reserve or a network of marine

reserves can be designed in the near-absence of

practical experience, which is the situation

now.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 89

Marine Reserves: Lessons from Florida

James A. Bohnsack, NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL

Abstract

The successes and failures of three Florida marine reserves are examined relative to design criteria

proposed by Ballantine (1997a, b). The oldest no-take reserves in the United States are estuarine

reserves created in 1962 in the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. In 1994 the South Atlantic

Fishery Management Council established a reserve to protect fish and coral ecosystems in the

Oculina Banks on the East Coast. In 1997 the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary established

the first planned network of no-take marine reserves in North America. Results show that success

and public support are more likely if key design principles are followed. Lessons from these case

histories should be useful in California and elsewhere.

Introduction

Florida is typical of many coastal areas

facing a crisis in fisheries management due to

expanding fishery demands and declining

resources. Due to a variety of biological and

social factors, traditional fishery management

practices have often failed to maintain

sustainable fisheries and protect biodiversity

(Bohnsack and Ault 1996, Roberts 1997).

Because of these failures, networks of `notake' marine reserves, areas protected from all

extractive activities, have been recommended

to protect biodiversity, maintain sustainable

fisheries, and restore depleted aquatic

ecosystems (Plan Development Team 1990,

Bohnsack 1996). Spatial protection using notake marine reserves is a habitat and

ecosystem based management approach

ideally suited to the ecology of most marine

organisms (Bohnsack 1993, 1994, Roberts

1997). Reserves can potentially treat

problems of serial depletion of more

vulnerable species and detrimental genetic

selection, as well as growth and recruitment

overfishing (PDT 1990). Besides providing

fishery benefits, marine reserves protect

marine ecosystems, improve nonconsumptive recreational opportunities,

diversify the coastal economy, increase

scientific understanding of resource dynamics,

and facilitate social appreciation and

protection of marine resources (Ballantine

1997a).

Because marine reserves are a relatively

new management approach, standard design

criteria are still being developed and evaluated.

Ballantine (1997a,b) proposed several design

criteria (Table 1). Permanent marine reserves

should include all representative habitats and

have a no-take rule except for limited

collecting for research and education

purposes. Individual sites should be

replicated and in a network design with the

goal of being self sustaining. Public access

involving non-consumptive activities should

be encouraged. Ballantine also suggested

protecting a minimum of 10% of each habitat.

This paper discusses the successes and

failures of three Florida marine reserves in

relation to these criteria.
90 Marine Harvest Refugia

Table 1. Essential design criteria for marine reserves. Modified from Ballantine (1997a, 1997b).

1. Biogeographic representation. Include representation of all marine habitats in every

biological region. The general pattern of 'no-take’ areas is determined by marine

topography.

2. No-take. Acceptability and practicality are highly dependent on the `no-take' rule.

3. Permanent protection.

4. Replication. Replication is essential.

5. Network Design. Networks are necessary to provide emergent properties and to provide

connectiveness between reserves. System efficiency and stability depend on supportive

interactions between reserves.

6. Self-sustaining. The minimum level of protection is that which is self-sustainable.

7. Size and Total Area. The area required to provide direct benefits needs to be at least

10% of the total areas and 20-30% for optimum benefits to be realized. Reserves should

be larger and further apart when moving from inshore to offshore.

8. Provide public access. Public support depends on access for greater understanding and

appreciation.

9. Create independently of regulations required to treat problems created by

exploitive activities. Reserves should be created to protect the ecosystem and not solve

specific problems. No-take reserves are additional measures to fisheries management.

10. The regional arrangement is partly deterministic and partly an optimization. The

precise location of 'no-take' areas is not deterministic and must be based on general guiding

principles. A basic reason for establishing reserves is because of our ignorance, not

because of our knowledge.

Background

Florida has many marine protected areas.

In 1934, the first marine protected area in the

Southeastern United States was established in

the Dry Tortugas, Florida (Davis 1981). Since

then, numerous levels of resource protection

have been applied to specific areas. Some

areas protect single species from harvest for

fishery purposes such as pink shrimp

(Penaeus duorarum) in the Tortugas

sanctuary off southwestern Florida (Klima et

al. 1986) and spiny lobster (Panulirus argus)

in Dry Tortugas National Park, Everglades

National Park, and Biscayne Bay Lobster

Sanctuary (Davis and Dodrill 1980, 1989).

Some areas limit types of fishing, such as

commercial fishing in Everglades and Dry

Tortugas National Parks. Others have banned

certain fishing gears (e.g. spear fishing, fish

traps, or trawling). Very few areas have

limited recreational fishing. Only three

attempts have been made to protect all

species or particular habitats with fishing

bans.

Results

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge.

Beginning in 1962, approximately 40 km2,

22% of aquatic areas, in the Merritt Island
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 91

National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR) were

closed to fishing and public access for security

needs of the Kennedy Space Center at Cape

Canaveral (Fig. 1). This action

unintentionally created two no-take estuarine

reserves. After two decades, the effects of

closure on larger fish species was examined by

Funicelli et al. (1988) and Johnson et al.

(unpubl. data, National Marine Fisheries

Service, 75 Virginia Beach Dr., Miami, FL

33149). Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE),

diversity, and fish sizes of economically

important commercial and recreational species

were significantly greater in two unfished

areas (Banana Creek and North Banana River)

than in nearby fished areas of Mosquito

Lagoon, Indian River and South Banana Creek.

Compared to fished areas, CPUE

(standardized to remove habitat and

environmental influences) was 2.5 times

higher for total gamefish and for individual

species: spotted seatrout (2.4x), red drum

Figure 1. Location of marine reserves at Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge and Oculina Banks.
92 Marine Harvest Refugia

(6.3x), black drum (12.8x), snook (5.3x), and

striped mullet (2.6x) (Johnson et al., unpubl.

data). Tagging studies documented the export

of individuals from reserves to surrounding

fished areas. Also, the condition and large

size of fishes suggested that breeding

populations existed in protected areas for

some species.

Oculina Bank Reserve. The first

recommendation to establish no-take marine

reserves to deal with fishery problems

occurred in 1990 when the South Atlantic

Fishery Management Council's (SAFMC)

Snapper-Grouper Plan Development Team

recommended closing up to 20-30% of the

shelf in order to protect at least 20% of the

spawning potential of the reef fish complex

(PDT 1990). Their report was later endorsed

by an independent peer-review panel (Roberts

et al. 1995). In response, the SAFMC

experimentally closed for 10 yr the Oculina

Banks off the east coast of Florida in 1995 to

all trawling, bottom fishing, and anchoring,

although drift surface fishing and trolling for

pelagic species were allowed. The Oculina

Banks had been documented as an important

grouper spawning site (Gilmore and Jones

1992) and was designated a Habitat of

Particular Concern (HPAC) in 1984 because

of extensive growth of Oculina coral. The

closed area was 6.4 km x 45 km (4 x 28 mi) at

approximately 87 m (270 ft) depth, 29 km (18

mi) off the Florida east coast (Fig. 1).

Although still early in the experimental

period, the Oculina reserve has had several

documented problems that may minimize its

effectiveness. First, much of the coral habitat

had been destroyed, apparently from shrimp

or scallop trawls (C. Koenig and C. Grimes,

NMFS/SEFSC Panama City, FL, unpublished

data) and may no longer be attractive to

fishes. Second, there were numerous

complaints about lack of awareness,

compliance and enforcement of regulations. In

1996, experimental concrete structures were

placed in the reserve with attached living

Oculina to determine if habitat recovery could

be enhanced by seeding (C. Koenig and C.

Grimes, NMFS/SEFSC, Panama City, FL,

unpublished data). When re-examined a year

later by remote video, the transplants were

living and had grown, suggesting that seeding

could be used to recover damaged habitat.

However, the structures were fouled with

fishing line and gear, indicating a lack of

compliance with the bottom fishing

prohibition. Based partly on these

observations, the SAFMC in 1997 expanded

protection to prohibit all fishing in the

reserve.

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

In 1990 the U.S. Congress designated the

9,515 km2 Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary (FKNMS; Fig. 2). The NOAA

sanctuary specifically excluded areas under

jurisdiction of the National Park Service

(Everglades, Biscayne, and Dry Tortugas

National Parks). A draft management plan

was developed based on scientific advice,

public involvement, and cooperative Florida

and federal efforts (Bohnsack 1997). An

important, but contentious element of the

plan was the proposed creation of 26 ‘notake’ zones. The National Marine Fisheries

Service's (NMFS) Southeast Fisheries Science

Center had recommended closing at least 10-

15% of the Sanctuary to be able to provide

and detect significant fishery benefits. Based
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 93

on compromises and public input, the

resulting draft plan reduced the total no-take

area to approximately 6% of the Sanctuary

(Department of Commerce 1994).

No-take zones in the draft management

plan included three large "Replenishment

Reserves" (later renamed Ecological Reserves),

19 small (mean 0.82 km2, range 0.16 – 3.27)

"Sanctuary Preservation Areas" (SPAs), and

four small "special use" research zones (mean

1.15 km2, range 0.68-1.77). The research

zones had limited access and were intended, in

part, for research to assess the effects of

diving activities. The SPAs protected one

habitat from extractive activities, the

intensively used, high relief coral reef at many

popular diving locations. The three large

ecological reserves included representative

areas with multiple habitats in the Upper

Keys, Lower Keys, and the Tortugas. Each

extended as a band, several km wide, from

shore to offshore areas. Each was intended to

be large enough to have some potential

ecological integrity. The largest reserve (377

km2) was placed most upcurrent in the

Tortugas because this was considered a

potentially important source area for larvae

dispersed by the Florida and loop currents.

The second largest (79 km2) was proposed at

Carysfort Reef, Key Largo, an area of high

biodiversity in the John Pennekamp Coral

Reef State Park and the Key Largo National

Marine Sanctuary. The smallest ecological

reserve (31 km2) included rich inshore and

offshore reef habitats at Western Sambos Reef

in the Lower Keys.

After public comment, the no-take areas

in the final plan were reduced to less than 1%

of the Sanctuary, mainly by the elimination of

the two largest ecological reserves

(Department of Commerce 1996). Reasons

for dropping these two reserves are

enlightening. The largest was rejected, in part,

because of a perceived lack of habitat

information and opposition to its large size.

More important, however, was opposition

because of the lack of coordination between

NOAA who manages the FKNMS and the

National Park Service who manages Dry

Tortugas National Park. The Sanctuary

Advisory Council recognized that for a

reserve to be effective, the two agencies must

coordinate their efforts and include habitats in

both areas. Despite the initial rejection, the

final plan calls for creating a new ecological

reserve in the Tortugas region within two

years after implementing the management plan

and after additional planning and coordination

(Department of Commerce, 1996). This

effort was initiated in 1998 by FKNMS.

The Key Largo Ecological Reserve was

rejected partly because of influential local

political opposition and the perception that

there was sufficient protection already under

regulations of Everglades National Park,

Biscayne National Park, John Pennekamp

Coral Reef State Park, and the Key Largo

National Marine Sanctuary. A major focal

point for opposition was that this was the

only proposed "ecological reserve" that made

exemptions of the 'no-take' rule:

commercialspiny lobster fishing would be

continued and catch and release fishing would

be allowed in shallow nearshore areas. Many

recognized that these exemptions for an

"ecological reserve" were contradictory to the

intendedpurpose of providing areas in natural

balance. Allowing fishing for spiny
94 Marine Harvest Refugia

Figure 2. Location of sanctuary protected areas (SPAs) and the Sambos ecological reserve in

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

lobster was especially troublesome because

spiny lobster was potentially an important

benthic keystone species.

On July 1, 1997, the Western Sambos

Reef Ecological Reserve, together with 18

SPAs and the four special-use research zones,

became effective. These provide a total of 46

km2 as no-take marine reserves. An additional

four SPAs (3.07 km2) were modified to allow

catch and release trolling. Direct observations

so far indicate excellent compliance with the

closures due to the presence of buoys marking

zone boundaries and an intensive public

awareness campaign. Frequently, experienced

users provide self-enforcement by alerting

novice users to the rules on the water.

Although it is too soon to determine biological

impacts, one obvious change occurred even

during the first summer. Spiny lobster were

frequently seen in SPAs and the ecological

reserve in August and September after the

fishing season opened in early August. In

prior years, spiny lobster were rarely seen

after the first week of the season.

Discussion

Successes. The two unique 'no-take'

estuarine reserves at MINWR were extremely

successful in protecting biodiversity and

benefiting populations of exploited species

inside protected areas. Research

demonstrated that the reserves benefited

fisheries by exporting juvenile and adult fishes
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 95

to surrounding fishing grounds. Much of this

success can be attributed to excellent

compliance and strict enforcement.

The Oculina Bank reserve represents an

important first step by a fishery management

agency to attempt to seriously evaluate the

value of permanent closed areas to fisheries

management. Also, preliminary experiments

suggest that although the Oculina habitat has

been heavily damaged from fishing, coral

transplants may accelerate habitat restoration.

The FKNMS now has the first planned

network of no-take marine reserves

established in continental North America.

This represents a major step forward in our

philosophy for protecting and managing

marine resources. Acceptance of the no-take

concept in FKNMS was facilitated by

widespread public education and

involvement, and the fact that the 'no-take'

provision applied to all consumptive users

(Bohnsack 1997). Replicated reserves were

publicly supported for goals of ecosystem

protection and when consistent with the notake principle. Agreement to establish

reserves was facilitated by involving broader

community interests besides fishing interests

(Bohnsack 1997).

The Sambos ecological reserve is the first

marine reserve in the U.S. designed to include

multiple habitats. Although the two largest

ecological reserves were dropped from the

final plan, provisions were made to add one in

the Tortugas within two years. This

provision is a success in that it shows public

support and recognition of the importance of

having a well-designed reserve in the region.

Failures. Although it is too soon to

determine the eventual biological impacts of

the Oculina Bank, the early problems arose

from allowing some types of fishing. This

reserve so far represents a scientifically

confounded experiment because the habitat is

severely damaged, there is evidence of

widespread poaching, and there is only one

non-replicated reserve for comparative

purposes. The remoteness of the site, lack of

public awareness and enforcement, and the

failure to make the site completely 'no-take'

has facilitated poaching and confusion for the

public. In addition, the depth and current

conditions make monitoring and research

extremely difficult and expensive. Although

important, the Oculina habitat is only a small

part of the reef ecosystem in the southeastern

U.S. The provision of waiting 10 yr before

implementing other such zones could be

considered a failure in taking a precautionary

approach to management. In late 1997, the

SAFMC voted to prohibit all fishing in the

Oculina reserve and to add a surrounding 2 mi

(3 km) no-trawl buffer zone to ease the

difficulty of enforcement. These actions

should increase ecosystem protection,

enforcement capability, and public

compliance.

Despite success in establishing marine

reserves in FKNMS, considerable skepticism

and opposition was mounted by fishing

interests who wanted complete proof of

effectiveness before giving support. This

opposition resulted in considerably less

protected area than was recommended by

scientific advice. Some objectors demanded

proof that fishing caused damage before they

would accept ‘no-take’ areas, conveniently

ignoring the fact that undisturbed areas are

necessary to demonstrate such damage.
96 Marine Harvest Refugia

One failure in the FKNMS was that the

no-take protection tended to be applied only

to the most charismatic habitat: high-relief

coral reefs. Except for the one ecological

reserve, similar protection was not applied to

other habitats. Clearly there is a need for

further research and public education about

the importance of protecting other habitats.

The lack of protection for reef habitats below

the 18 m contour was also a notable

shortcoming of the present plan.

The rejection of the two largest proposed

ecological reserves will prevent sufficient

protection to measure and demonstrate any

significant fishery benefits. Although the

remaining protected areas are anticipated to

provide many ecological, scientific, and

educational benefits, they are unlikely to

provide significant fishery benefits because

too little habitat was included. In rejecting the

Tortugas ecological reserve, the Sanctuary

Advisory Council recognized that any

successful reserve would require inclusion of

areas inside the Dry Tortugas National Park

and participation by the National Park

Service. Rejection of the Key Largo reserve

was especially unfortunate because that region

had the highest biodiversity, received the most

intense use, and probably needed increased

protection, despite the number of surrounding

parks.

The decision to include some fishing in

the proposed Key Largo reserve was done in

the spirit of compromise assuming that some

increased protection would be better than

none. Some of us mistakenly thought that it

would eventually be corrected in future

revisions to the Sanctuary Management Plan.

Instead, the logical inconsistency of allowing

some fishing was a basis for rejecting the zone

entirely. Violation of the key no-take design

rule made rejection easier.

Design Criteria. The conformity of marine

reserves to Ballantine's design criteria varied

considerably between sites and may help

explain some of the successes and failures

(Table 2). Ballantine considered the no-take

rule particularly important, which may help

explain the better results at MINWR and

FKNMS than at the Oculina Banks. Only

MINWR and FKNMS have replicated sites

and only the FKNMS reserves are

geographically dispersed. The ecological

reserves in FKNMS and the closed areas in

MINWR protect a variety of habitats. Size of

protected areas varies considerably between

sites. The total protected area is still a small

fraction of the region although possibly

significant in size for Oculina and high relief

coral habitats.

Ballantine (1997a,b) considered public

access essential for developing public

appreciation and understanding of marine

reserves and conservation efforts. The

experience at MINWR supports this claim.

Although the MINWR reserves are a

biological success, lack of public access,

largely due to security issues, has prevented

any significant public appreciation or

awareness of protection benefits. Also, the

scientific community has been largely unaware

of effects because the scientific research is

only now in the process of being published.

Ballantine noted that placing no-take

zones within easy public access facilitates

compliance and enforcement. In support of

this premise, easy public access to FKNMS

protected zones appears to enhance

compliance while the remote location of the

Oculina reserve has led to problems with
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 97

Table 2. Comparison of Florida reserves with regard to Ballantine’s design criteria.

Design Criteria

Merritt Island

Wildlife Refuge

Oculina Banks FKNMS

Sanctuary

Protected Area

FKNMS

Ecological

Reserve

Geographically

Dispersed

No No Yes No

Representative

Habitat

Estuarine Oculina Coral Reefs Coral Reef

Seascape

No-Take Rules Yes No Yes Yes

Permanent Protection Yes

(since 1962)

Yes

(10 yr review)

Yes

(5 yr review)

Yes

(5 yr review)

Replication Yes No Yes No

Self-Sustaining Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown

Public Access No (security) No (depth) Yes Yes

compliance. I suggest that this problem of

compliance at the Oculina reserve is shortterm and, in particular, the result of a lack of

public experience, understanding and

acceptance of no-take zones. Hopefully,

compliance will improve as the public gains

experience, sees benefits, and begins to

understand and appreciate the value of marine

reserves.

Conclusions

The Florida experience supports

Ballantine's design criteria. Success was more

likely when key criteria were followed and

failure often resulted when not followed.

Exempting some users from the no-take

provision clearly reduced public support and

jeopardized attaining goals.

The establishment of a marine reserve

network in the Florida Keys represents a

significant philosophical improvement in

protecting marine resources in the U.S.

despite the fact that the total area fell short of

scientific recommendations. Marine reserves

were included in the final FKNMS

management plan despite some intense

opposition because most of the public agreed

that establishing no-take reserves was a

reasonable and necessary action. There was

less agreement about the level of protection

necessary, the total area to protect, and the

specific location of marine reserves. An

obvious lesson is that coordination between

governmental agencies is essential. Success

resulted from coordination and cooperation

between state and federal agencies. In

contrast, failure of coordination and

cooperation between two federal agencies

resulted in the rejection of the Tortugas

ecological reserve.

The Merritt Island National Wildlife

Refuge provides a unique case history of

effects of estuarine reserves and another

example in a growing list of successful no-take

reserves protecting biodiversity. Compared
98 Marine Harvest Refugia

to surrounding areas, it clearly shows the

impacts of fishing on species composition and

abundance, and is also one of the few reserves

in which export of fishes to surrounding

fishing grounds has been well documented.

References

Ballantine, W.J. 1997a. 'No-take' marine

reserve networks support fisheries. pp. 702-

706. In D.A. Hancock, D.C. Smith, A. Grant,

and J.P. Beumer (eds.). 'Developing and

Sustaining World Fisheries Resources: The State

and Management'. 2nd World Fisheries

Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 797 p.

Ballantine, W.J. 1997b. Design principles for

systems of 'no-take' marine reserves. Paper for

workshop: The Design and Monitoring of

Marine Reserves at Fisheries Center, University

of British Columbia, Vancouver, Feb 1997.

(unpublished).

Bohnsack, J.A. 1993. Marine reserves: They

enhance fisheries, reduce conflicts, and protect

resources. Oceanus 36(3): 63-71.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1994. How marine fishery

reserves can improve fisheries. Proc. Gulf.

Carib. Fish. Inst. 43:217-241.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1996. Maintenance and

recovery of fishery productivity. Chapter 11.

Pages 283-313 In N.V.C. Polunin and C.M.

Roberts (eds). Tropical Reef Fisheries. Fish and

Fisheries Series 20. Chapman and Hall.

London. 477 p.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1997. Consensus development

and the use of marine reserves in the Florida

keys, U.S.A. Proc. 8th Int. Coral Reef Sym. 2:

1922-1930.

Bohnsack, J.A. and J.S. Ault. 1996.

Management strategies to conserve marine

biodiversity. Oceanogr. 9: 73-82.

Davis, G.E. 1981. On the role of underwater

parks and sanctuaries in the management of

coastal resources in the Southeastern United

States. Env. Conserv. 8(1): 67-70.

Davis, G.E. and J.W. Dodrill. 1980. Marine

parks and sanctuaries for spiny lobster fisheries

management. Fish. Bull. U.S. 78: 979-984.

Davis, G.E. and J.W. Dodrill. 1989.

Recreational fishery and population dynamics

of spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, in Florida

Bay, Everglades national park, 1977-1980.

Bull. Mar. Sci. 44: 78-88.

Department of Commerce. 1994. Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary draft environmental

impact statement / management plan. Volume

1. Development of the management plan:

environmental impact statement. Sanctuaries

and Reserves Division, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration. 289 p.

Department of Commerce. 1996. Florida keys

National Marine Sanctuary: Final Management

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1.

Sanctuaries and reserves Division, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

319 p.

Gilmore, R.G. and R.S. Jones. 1992. Color

variation and associated behavor in the

epinepheline groupers, Myceroperca microlepis

(Goode and Bean) and M. phenax (Jordan and

Swain). Bull. Mar. Sci. 51: 83-103.

Funicelli, N.A., D.R. Johnson, and D.A.

Meineke. 1988. Assessment of the

effectiveness of an existing fish sanctuary

within the Kennedy Space Center. Special

purpose report to the Marine Fisheries

Commission of Florida. 54 p.

Klima, E.F., G.A. Matthews, and F.J. Patella.

1986. Synopsis of the Tortugas Pink Shrimp

Fishery, 1960-1983, and the impact of the

Tortugas sanctuary. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage.

6:301-310.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 99

Plan Development Team. 1990. The potential

of marine fishery reserves for reef fish

management in the U.S. southern Atlantic. U.S.

Dept. Comm. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSSEFC-261. 45 p.

Roberts, C.M., W.J. Ballantine, C.D. Buxton, P.

Dayton, L.B. Crowder, W. Milon, M.K Orbach,

D. Pauly, and J. Trexler. 1995. Review of the

use of marine fishery reserves in the U.S.

southeastern Atlantic. U.S. Dept. Comm.

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC 376.

Roberts, C.M. 1997. Ecological advice for the

global fisheries crisis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12:

35-38.
100 Marine Harvest Refugia

Stakeholder Group Perceptions of Marine Reserves in the Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary

Daniel Suman, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, FL

Introduction

Marine protected areas and their subset

of marine reserves ("no take" zones) are

enjoying increasing use as fisheries

management tools (Ballantine 1995).

Designation of a marine reserve involves

ecological issues and uncertainties (location,

size, shape, duration, placement in series).

Marine reserve designation also raises a

number of social science questions

(Wolfenden et al. 1994, Farrow 1996). These

issues include the political acceptability of the

marine reserve concept, the social/economic

groups that will stand to gain and lose as a

result of reserve creation, and the perceptions

and opinions that group members possess

about the marine reserve.

We have conducted comprehensive

surveys of different users of newly designated

marine reserves in the Florida Keys in order to

1) understand the social and economic

interests and characteristics of the groups, 2)

assess the groups' opinions and perceptions

of the marine reserves and their formation, 3)

elucidate the obstacles faced by marine reserve

managers during the designation process, and

4) recommend strategies that managers might

consider when working with the public on

reserve formation. The results of this research

have applicability to the formation of marine

reserves wherever they might be.

Introduction to the Florida Keys National

Marine Sanctuary

Congress created the 9,515 km2 Florida

Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS)

in 1990 as part of the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)

National Marine Sanctuary Program. The

purpose of the designation was to protect the

coral reefs, sea grasses, mangroves, and other

marine resources of the Florida Keys. The

enabling legislation mandated that NOAA

develop a zoning strategy as part of the

Sanctuary Management Plan to ensure

resource protection (Suman 1997).

NOAA coordinated the lengthy

development of the Draft Management Plan

that was released in March 1995. The Zoning

Action Plan proposed five distinct types of

zones: Replenishment Reserves, Sanctuary

Preservation Areas (SPAs), Wildlife

Management Areas, Special-use Areas, and

Existing Management Areas (Bohnsack 1997;

refer to Map 1.) The three proposed

Replenishment Reserves (Key Largo, Sambos,

Dry Tortugas) would have accounted for

about five percent of the Sanctuary's area (487

km2), while the 19 small SPAs, protecting

heavily used shallow reefs, totaled 15.55 km2.

Generally, the Replenishment Reserves and

SPAs were to be "no-take" areas where

consumptive uses would be prohibited.

Replenishment Reserves were large areas with

contiguous, diverse habitats intended "to

minimize human influences, to provide natural
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 101
102 Marine Harvest Refugia

spawning, nursery, and permanent residence

areas for the replenishment and genetic

protection of marine life" (NOAA, 1995, p.

264). The Draft Management Plan also

proposed four "Special-use Areas" designated

for research only that would account for an

area of 1.86 km2. Designation of Wildlife

Management Areas would restrict human

access to bird nesting and feeding areas, as

well as turtle nesting sites, while Existing

Management Areas were sites within the

FKNMS borders that were managed by state

or federal regulations prior to FKNMS

designation.

The public hearing process exposed the

extremely contentious nature of the FKNMS,

especially the Zoning Action Plan (National

Research Council 1997, Suman 1997). Many

public comments focused on the allegedly

unproven hypothesis that the Replenishment

Reserves would export adult fish and larvae to

the surrounding waters (Florida Sportsman

Magazine 1995). Opposition to the FKNMS

was led by the Conch Coalition, a loosely

organized grassroots group comprised of

treasure salvors, commercial fishermen, real

estate interests, and other Monroe County

(Florida Keys) residents waving an antiregulation banner. Concern centered on a

perceived excess of regulation, intervention by

the federal government, and displacement of

traditional users and uses.

The acrimonious and polarized debate on

these issues delayed the release of the

FKNMS Final Management Plan until

September 1996 (Suman 1997). NOAA

significantly altered some aspects of the

Zoning Action Plan with only one small "no

take" reserve (Western Sambos) remaining out

of the three proposed (NOAA 1996; refer to

Map 2.) NOAA also postponed

establishment of the large Dry Tortugas

Replenishment Reserve pending further

studies on the final boundary. Finally,

NOAA changed the name "Replenishment

Reserve" to "Ecological Reserve" to "reflect

public concerns over the purpose of these

areas" (NOAA 1996, p. 255).

As a result of the modifications, NOAA

zoned only about 0.3 percent of the FKNMS

or 30 km2 as an "Ecological Reserve".

Eighteen small SPAs (16.51 km2) continued to

protect shallow reef areas that experience

heavy diving pressure (NOAA 1966, p. 262

& 271, Bohnsack 1997). Ecological politics

had taken their toll on marine reserve

implementation.

Stakeholder Groups

Numerous stakeholder groups play a role

in marine ecological politics of the Florida

Keys. These represent the permanent

population of 80,000 Monroe County

residents and, in addition, approximately 2.5

million tourists who visit the county each

year (Leeworthy 1996). This research

focuses on three stakeholder groups:

commercial fishers, commercial dive

operators, and members of environmental

groups. All have a special interest in the

marine reserves of the FKNMS that they

voiced during the public hearing process.

Commercial fishers were concerned about

creeping fishing regulations and exclusion from

marine space. Dive operators carry scuba and

snorkeling enthusiasts to the shallow coral

reefs, many of which are now designated as

SPAs, and wished to guarantee their continued

access to these areas. National and local
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 103
104 Marine Harvest Refugia

environmental groups have long lobbied for

increased protection of the marine resources

of the Florida Keys and increased restrictions

on consumptive use of the marine resources.

Approximately 2,300 persons in the

Florida Keys hold a Florida Saltwater

Products License and are classified as

commercial fishers. Of these individuals,

greater than half are fulltime fishers. The

Florida Keys' fisheries are multispecies-based,

and the target species depend on the season

and applicability of restrictive regulations.

Important fishery resources include stone

crab, lobster, shrimp, snappers and groupers,

mackerel, tropical fish and sponges, and

offshore species (dolphin and tuna). In 1995,

Monroe County's shellfish and finfish

landings had a dockside value of $68.9 million,

the largest of any county in Florida (FDEP

1996). Monroe County commercial fishers

harvest a major portion of their total catch

inside the boundaries of the FKNMS (Milon

et al. 1997).

Approximately 20 to 30 percent of

visitors to Monroe County dive or snorkel

during their visit (Leeworthy and Wiley

1996). Visitors to the Florida Keys spend

about $31 million per year on scuba diving

and snorkeling activities. (English et al. 1996)

While some visitors have their own boat,

many divers pay a commercial dive operator

to transport them to a dive site. We identified

approximately 75 commercial dive operators

in Monroe County, about 80 percent of

whom have a dive destination that is a

FKNMS SPA (Shivlani and Suman in press).

National environmental groups, such as

The Nature Conservancy, the Center for

Marine Conservation, and The Wilderness

Society have supported NOAA's efforts to

implement the FKNMS. Local environmental

groups, such as Reef Relief, Last Stand, and

the Sanctuary Friends of the Florida Keys,

claiming a membership of over 3,600 persons

and focusing on local issues, were active

participants in the FKNMS planning process.

Over half of the members of these local

groups engage in each of the following nonconsumptive activities: swimming, snorkeling,

boating, and bird watching. These individuals

are also Sanctuary users, although their uses

are largely not commercial or extractive.

Survey Methodologies

During 1995, we developed three surveys

to characterize the demographic, social, and

economic status of members of the three

target stakeholder groups. Additional

questions probed informational sources on the

FKNMS and Zoning Action Plan,

participation in various types of public fora,

perceptions and acceptance of the Sanctuary

zoning strategy, and expected outcomes of the

zoning strategy (Alreck and Settle 1985). The

three groups of surveys were essentially

identical with the exception of a few

questions. We developed questionnaires in

consultation with organizations of commercial

fishers, dive operators, and environmental

groups and revised the surveys as a result of

pilot field tests.

We conducted personal interview

surveys with commercial fishers and dive

operators and mail surveys with members of

environmental groups from June 1995 until

March 1996. In total, the research team

sampled 337 commercial fishers or 15 percent

of the total pool of the 2,430 Saltwater

Products License holders who resided in
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 105

Monroe County. Our sample pool does not

include about 30 individuals who refused to

participate in our survey. Interviewees were

identified through the major fish houses in the

Florida Keys, the commercial fishing

organizations, the Florida Sea Grant extension

agent, and phone calls. Based on the total

pool of commercial fishers, we determined

that a randomized sample size of 332

interviewees would achieve a sample error of

plus or minus 5 percent of the total sample.

The ratios of full-time/part-time fishers in our

sample paralleled that in the total population.

"Dive operators" conduct businesses that

specialize in diving/snorkeling, transport

divers to specific field sites, operate

throughout the year, and utilize vessels

equipped especially for diving. We identified

75 "dive operators" in Monroe County and

conducted personal interviews with 62 of

these individuals or 83 percent of that pool.

Thirteen dive operators refused to participate

in our research efforts. The number of

interviewees was more than sufficient to

guarantee a 95 percent confidence interval.

We obtained the mailing lists of the

membership of the three local environmental

groups and sent questionnaires to the pool of

3,680 individuals. We received mail responses

from 401 environmental group members or 11

percent of the total sample. This response

rate was sufficient to guarantee a 95 percent

confidence interval.

Attitude and perception questions

elicited responses ranging from 1 to 5 that

indicated degrees of support for or opposition

to statements, i.e. Likert scale survey

techniques (Alreck and Settle 1985). When

we report support for a statement, we sum

Responses 1 (Strongly Agree) and 2

(Moderately Agree). Similarly, opposition to

a statement sums Responses 5 (Strongly

Disagree) and 4 (Moderately Disagree).

Response 3 represents neutral reactions to the

statements.

The surveys began with general questions

to probe the social and economic status of the

interviewees: age, ethnicity, income and

economic activities, group memberships, and

uses of the marine environmental resources.

Questionnaires then elicited responses

regarding the sources of information used to

obtain information regarding the FKNMS

zoning strategy, the relative value and

usefulness of these information sources, and

the types of public participation activities in

which the interviewees engaged.

We then tested interviewees' attitudes

and perceptions regarding the fairness of the

FKNMS planning process, the purpose of the

zones, potential beneficiaries of the zoning

strategy, and overall support for the zoning

strategy of the FKNMS. Table 1 lists some

of the survey questions that we adopted:

Questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 (FKNMS planning

process); Questions 5, 6, 7, and 9 (purpose of

the zones); Questions 8 and 10 (beneficiaries

of the zones); Questions 11, 12, 13 (support

for the zoning strategy).

Survey Results and Their Significance

Using the surveys, we obtained

information on the three groups' sources of

information regarding the FKNMS zoning

strategy, participation in public fora, and their

perceptions regarding the planning process, 
106 Marine Harvest Refugia

TABLE I. Comparative Survey Responses of Commercial Fishers, Dive Operators, and Members of

Local Environmental Groups

 STATEMENT COMMERCIAL DIVE ENVIRONMENTAL

FISHERS OPERATORS GROUP MEMBERS

N=337 N=62 N=401

Support Oppose Support Oppose Support Oppose

1. Information that NOAA

provided you on the zones

helped you understand the

overall effects of the zones. 11% 38% 46% 28% 37% 12%

2. NOAA's process to develop

boundaries and regulations for the

zones has been open and fair to

all groups. 9% 60% 38% 30% 40% 15%

3. Participation in the Sanctuary

process does not matter because

the average person cannot influence

the decisions. 67% 18% 45% 45% 21% 57%

4. Once Sanctuary regulations are

enacted, there will be no way the

average person can voice his/her

opinion about the usefulness of the

regulations. 75% 10% 60% 29% 24% 44%

5. The main purpose of the

zones is to increase overall

stocks inside the zones. 44% 44% 83% 10% 68% 13%

6. The main purpose of the zones

is to increase overall stocks

outside the zones. 23% 63% 59% 13% 53% 20%

7. The main purpose of the zones

is to conserve and protect marine

biodiversity inside the zones. 61% 29% 83% 10% 82% 8%

8. The primary group to

benefit from the zones will

be commercial fishermen. 5% 90% 24% 62% 23% 43%

9. Zones are the most

effective way to reduce user

conflict in the Florida Keys. 12% 74% 32% 49% 51% 19%
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 107

10. The economic effects of the

zones on the economy of the

Florida Keys will be positive. 17% 68% 51% 24% 68% 11%

11. I support establishment

of zones somewhere in the

Florida Keys. 27% 64% 75% 19% 76% 7%

12. I support establishment

of zones in the exact locations as

 proposed in the Sanctuary Plan. 6% 86% 40% 43% 39% 17%

13. I generally support the

establishment of the Florida

Keys National Marine Sanctuary. 13% 77% 64% 19% 83% 9%

purpose of the zones, beneficiaries of zones,

and support for the zoning strategy. We

asked all survey participants to indicate

whether they had used any of 14 different

information sources in learning about the

FKNMS and its zoning strategy. These

sources included several from NOAA, the

commercial media, and anti- and proSanctuary groups.

The commercial fishers' four most

common sources of information were

newspapers (75%), TV/radio (46%), NOAA

public meetings (38%), and sources from

commercial fishing organizations (36%).

Fishermen who used the different information

sources considered that the commercial fishing

organizations supplied the most useful and

reliable sources of information.

Sources of information most referred to

by dive operators were publications of dive

organizations (76%), NOAA's Draft

Management Plan (69%), newspapers (66%),

and NOAA public meetings (57%).

Respondents reported that they considered

the most useful and reliable source to be the

FKNMS Management Plan.

For environmental group members, the

four most popular sources of information

were publications from their own

environmental group (81%), newspapers

(78%), TV/radio (47%), and NOAA's Draft

Management Plan (42%). Environmental

group members ranked the FKNMS

Management Plan as the most useful source of

information.

Participation in public fora varied among

the three interest groups. Participation in one

or more NOAA workshops, hearings, or

meetings ranged between 65% (dive

operators), 44% (commercial fishers), to 34%

(environmental group members). Attendance

at Sanctuary Advisory Council meetings

followed a similar trend: 34% (dive

operators), 25% (commercial fishers), and

13% (environmental group members).

Likewise, 79% of dive operators, 50% of

commercial fishers, and only 40% of

environmental group members read parts of

the Draft Management Plan. Dive operators

appeared to be the most engaged in public

participation opportunities, while

environmental group members were the least

engaged.
108 Marine Harvest Refugia

We report some of the results from the

user group surveys in Table I. These results

provide insight into the different positions of

the three groups and the perspectives of

group members to public processes. The

questions that we have selected illustrate the

perceptions of respondents to concepts, such

as the usefulness of NOAA information on

marine reserves, the fairness of NOAA's

process in developing zoning regulations,

engagement in the public participation

process, the purpose of the "no take" zones,

beneficiaries of the zones, positive economic

benefits of the zones, support for the siting of

the zones, and support for the establishment

of the FKNMS.

NOAA-generated information on the

"no take" zones was generally not wellreceived by the commercial fishers, and only

11% of that group considered NOAA

materials to give satisfactory consideration to

reserves' positive and negative effects

(Question 1). Dive operators and

environmental group members had a much

more positive opinion of NOAA information

(46% and 37%, respectively).

The perception of NOAA's "fairness" in

the development of zone regulations and

boundaries varied among the three stakeholder

groups (Question 2). Only 9% of the

commercial fishers agreed with this concept

while agreement among the other two groups

was approximately 40%. Fishers felt that

they would be harmed the most by the

creation of "no take" zones. They perceived

themselves not to be part of the process that

developed zone location, size, and governing

regulations.

Commercial fishers displayed a high

degree of alienation from the public process

(Question 3 & 4). Two thirds of fishers

believed that public participation was futile

because it could not influence the outcome,

and three fourths of fishers believed that they

would be unable to state their opinions about

zones once they were established.

The groups varied considerably in their

perception of the ecological purposes of

zones (Questions 5, 6, 7). All groups

considered enhancement of biological diversity

inside the zones to be the primary purpose of

marine zones. The concept that

replenishment reserves might export fish

larvae and adults and increase the fish stocks

in adjacent waters was met with skepticism

by all groups. Only about a quarter of fishers

agreed that replenishment was a purpose of

zones, while just over half of dive operators

and environmental group members expressed

support for the concept.

Few individuals from any group

considered that commercial fishers would be

the primary beneficiaries of the zoning

strategy (Question 8), and a mere 5% of

fishers considered themselves to be

beneficiaries. Half of the environmental group

members and a third of the dive operators

believed that zones would be the most

effective way to reduce user group conflicts

(Question 9). Similarly, 51% of dive operators

considered the economic effects of zones to be

positive. SPAs will most likely attract larger

numbers of divers to the Florida Keys and,

therefore, benefit this stakeholder group.

About 68% of environmental group members

believed that zones would have a positive

economic benefit from improved marine

conservation and increased ecotourism.

Support for the establishment of zones

somewhere in the Florida Keys was especially
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 109

high (75%) for dive operators and

environmental group members as they

considered that their interests would advance

as a result (Question 11). Support dropped,

however, when they responded to a question

about the exact zone locations that the Draft

Management Plan proposed (Question 12). A

large number of stakeholders recognized the

benefits of marine reserves but preferred not

to have one in their vicinity ("Not-In-MyBack-Yard" or NIMBY). For example,

residents of the affluent Ocean Reef Club

development in Key Largo generally support

marine conservation efforts, but they also

enjoy fishing and argued that the Key Largo

Replenishment Reserve be moved south so as

not to abut their properties. Even 27% of

fishers supported establishment of reserves

somewhere in the Florida Keys, but only 6%

could embrace the exact locations that NOAA

recommended.

More generally, support for the FKNMS

varied significantly by stakeholder group

(Question 13). About 83% and 64% of

environmental group members and dive

operators, respectively, supported the

establishment of the FKNMS. However,

only 13% of commercial fishers were

FKNMS proponents.

Discussion

Commercial fishermen demonstrated high

degrees of alienation to the FKNMS planning

process and overwhelming opposition to the

designation of the FKNMS and its zoning

strategy. Even when they believed that they

could actually participate in the modification

of regulations, fishers tended to conclude that

their opinions would be incapable of altering

the current scenario. Perhaps fishers'

independent nature and occupation, their

lower levels of formal education, and repeated

negative experiences with numerous

government fisheries regulations explain this

attitude. Commercial fishermen in Monroe

County must deal with complex, and often

contradictory, regulations of the Florida

Marine Fisheries Commission, the South

Atlantic Fisheries Management Council, and

the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management

Council. By 1986, the National Park Service

had prohibited commercial fishing in nearby

Everglades National Park (Florida Marine

Fisheries Commission 1993). In 1994, Florida

voters adopted a constitutional amendment to

ban nets from state waters, a measure that

largely affected commercial fishermen (Barnes

1995). Commercial fishers repeatedly

mentioned that, through its zoning strategy,

NOAA "was trying to force them out of

business". Many commercial fishers stated

that they would suffer a negative economic

impact from the "no take" zones. Considering

the $97,000 average cost of a Monroe County

commercial fisher's vessel, one can understand

their concern.

Despite their alienation and general

opposition to marine reserves, fishers'

responses suggest some possible bridges to

cooperation with marine managers. Almost

half of the sampled fishers participated in

some public fora regarding the FKNMS

designation; the participation rate was higher

than that of environmental group members,

who generally seem to believe that the

"natural resource administrative system"

works for them. It is rather ironic that the

vocal participation of fishers, who appear to

be so alienated from resource management,
110 Marine Harvest Refugia

actually succeeded in reducing the size and

number of the "no take" areas of the FKNMS.

On the other hand, the fact that a quarter of

commercial fishers could embrace the marine

reserve concept someplace in the Florida

Keys, as long as the location did not impact

their present fishing activities, suggests that a

core group of fishers does adopt a

conservation ethic.

While dive operators generally are not

consumptive users of the marine zones, their

businesses are clearly dependent on their

access to healthy coral reefs. This group

displayed the highest indices of participation

in public fora, perhaps related to an average

capital investment of $225,000 per dive

operator that we surveyed. Although dive

operators show some skepticism regarding the

public participation process, their group

displayed the highest levels of participation.

Of the three groups, dive operators held the

highest opinion of NOAA-produced

information. Generally, dive operators' belief

that their businesses will directly benefit from

the creation of SPAs affects their perception

of the zoning plan. Restrictions on

consumptive uses will improve the health of

marine resources and, therefore, increase the

quality of the diving experience. SPAs will

most likely attract larger numbers of divers to

the Florida Keys and, therefore, benefit this

stakeholder group. Some divers expressed

concern that in the future the Sanctuary might

limit the number of divers at a dive site or

charge user fees (which dive operators could

subsequently pass on to divers). However,

these potential fears did not greatly reduce

dive operators' support for the FKNMS and

the establishment of zones.

Members of environmental groups were

most supportive of the FKNMS and the

zoning strategies. In fact, many of them felt

that NOAA should have gone further than it

did. For example, the average percentage of

the FKNMS area that environmental group

respondents would reserve as "no take" zones

was 33 percent. Most of these individuals

engaged in some type of nonconsumptive use

of Florida Keys marine resources and would

receive no direct economic gain or loss from

the zoning plan. Nevertheless, they believed

that restriction on consumptive uses would

elevate the public's enjoyment of

nonconsumptive uses. Ironically, while they

displayed the least evidence of alienation from

the public process, environmental group

members had the lowest participation in

public fora. Perhaps, the absence of a direct

economic link to the marine reserves explains

this lower level of participation.

NOAA's original attempts to convince

the public of the replenishment reserve

concept did not meet with great success

among any of the three stakeholder groups,

although dive operators and environmental

group members accepted this concept much

more than commercial fishers. Changing the

name of these areas from "Replenishment

Reserves" to "Ecological Reserves" before

releasing the Final Management Plan suggests

that NOAA may have realized this. The

agency wisely eliminated a name that

confused the public and was a lightning rod

for the opposition.

Despite NOAA's monumental efforts to

develop a zoning strategy for the FKNMS

that was ecologically supportable and

politically fair, the agency found political

waters in the Florida Keys to be turbulent.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 111

Although NOAA distributed thousands of

copies of the three volume FKNMS Draft

Management Plan, many individuals

(especially commercial fishers) considered the

document to be too voluminous and complex

to be of much benefit to resource users.

Despite NOAA's provisions for multiple

opportunities for public participation

(significantly more than mandated by statutes

and regulations), large numbers of persons

from all three user groups felt alienated from

the participatory process.

In the future, a marine resource agency,

such as NOAA, might consider development

of abbreviated planning documents that would

be more "user friendly" and tailored to the

interests of different user groups. The

documents should also be understandable by

major user groups that do not speak English,

like Cuban fishermen who account for 20-25%

of the fishing population in the Florida Keys.

Perhaps NOAA could employ Sanctuary

"extension" agents to work directly with small

focus groups of resource users at convenient

locations and times. For example, NOAA

might develop a joint extension process

through commercial fishing organizations and

meet commercial fishers at fish houses during

non-fishing hours to discuss the zoning

strategy and other aspects of the FKNMS.

Participatory mechanisms must evolve from

rigid forms of one-way communication

(resource manager to resource user) to flexible

fora with open discussion. In the future,

NOAA should enter into planning for marine

reserves without preconceived notions about

details of these areas. Details should emanate

from focus groups between resource managers

and consumptive and non-consumptive users.

The ultimate goal for resource managers must

be to convince stakeholder groups to embrace

marine reserves as their own and comprehend

the relevance of the reserves to their group's

interests (Kelly 1992).

Had NOAA revised its public

participation strategy and improved its

working relationships with all user groups in

the Florida Keys, the agency might have been

able to develop a zoning strategy that

protected a more extensive area of the

FKNMS and engaged the enthusiastic support

of larger percentages of all consumptive and

non-consumptive stakeholder groups.

Instead, the replenishment reserve strategy

became a political football that evolved into a

sacrificial lamb.

References

Alreck, P.L. & R. B. Settle. 1985. The Survey

Research Handbook. Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Homewood, IL.

Anonymous. 1995. Florida's Marine Waters:

"One Big Replenishment Zone". Florida

Sportsman Magazine, Dec. 1995.

Ballantine, W.J. 1995. Networks of "No-Take"

Marine Reserves are Practical and Necessary.

In Marine Protected Areas and Sustainable

Fisheries (N.L. Shackell & J.H. Martin Willison,

eds.), pp. 13-20. Science and Management of

Protected Areas Association: Wolfville, Nova

Scotia, Canada.

Barnes, J.C. 1995. Save Our Sealife or Save Our

Seafood?: A Case Study of Conflict in the

Management of Florida's Marine Resources. In

Urban Growth and Sustainable Habitats: Case

Studies of Policy Conflicts in South Florida's

Coastal Environment (D. Suman, M. Shivlani &

M. Villanueva, eds.), pp. 69-91. University of

Miami: Miami, FL.
112 Marine Harvest Refugia

Bohnsack, J.A. 1997. Consensus Development

and the Use of Marine Reserves in the Florida

Keys, USA.. Proc. Eighth Int. Coral Reef Sym.

2:1927-1930.

English, D.B.K., W. Kriesel, V.R. Leeworthy

and P.C. Wiley. 1996. Economic Contribution

of Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key

West. NOAA. Silver Spring, MD.

Farrow, S. 1996. Marine Protected Areas:

Emerging Economics, Mar. Pol. 20:439-446.

Florida Department of Environmental

Protection. 1996. 1995 Florida Statewide and

Monroe County Edited Landings Data. Florida

Marine Research Institute. St. Petersburg, FL.

Florida Marine Fisheries Commission. 1993. A

Study of Potential Impacts of the Save Our

Sealife Net Ban Proposal: A Report to the

Legislature.

Kelly, G.C. 1992. Public Participation and

Perceived Relevance as Critical Factors in

Marine Park Management. Proc. Seventh Int.

Coral Reef Sym. 2:1033-1037.

Leeworthy, V.R. 1996. Technical Appendix:

Sampling Methodologies and Estimation

Methods Applied to the Florida Keys/Key West

Visitors Surveys. NOAA. Silver Spring, MD.

Leeworthy, V.R. and P.C. Wiley. 1996. Visitor

Profiles: Florida Keys/Key West. NOAA. Silver

Spring, MD.

Milon, J.W., D.O. Suman, M. Shivlani and K.A.

Cochran. 1997. Commercial Fishers'

Perceptions of Marine Reserves for the Florida

Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Florida Sea

Grant Tech. Pap. 89.

National Research Council. 1997. Striking a

Balance: Improving Stewardship of Marine

Areas. National Academy Press. Washington,

D.C.

NOAA. 1995. Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary, Draft Management

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1.

NOAA: Silver Spring, MD.

NOAA. 1996. Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary, Final Management

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1.

NOAA. Silver Spring, MD.

Shivlani, M.P. and D.O. Suman. In press. Dive

Operator Use Patterns in the Designated Florida

Keys National Marine Sanctuary No-Take

Zones. A GIS Analysis. J. Env. Manag.

Suman, D.O. 1997. The Florida Keys National

Marine Sanctuary: A Case Study of an

Innovative Federal-State Partnership in Marine

Resource Management. Coastal Manag.

25(3):293-324.

Wolfenden, J., F. Cram and B. Kirkwood. 1994.

Marine Reserves in New Zealand: A Survey of

Community Reactions. Ocean Coast. Manag.

25: 31-51.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 113

Trials and Tribulations of Attempting to Establish an Experimental DeepWater No-Fishing Zone in a National Marine Sanctuary

Peter J. Auster, National Undersea Research Center and Stellwagen Bank National Marine

Sanctuary, University of Connecticut at Avery Point, Groton, CT

The National Marine Sanctuary

Program has designated sites in federal and

state waters that are of national significance

based on natural resource and archeological

value. Most sites are not truly sanctuaries

from all human activities but are managed for

multiple use, including natural resource

harvesting (e.g. Barr 1995). Restriction of

human activities within sanctuaries is

initially determined during the designation

process. Generally, activities which took

place within each site prior to designation

are grandfathered into the site designation,

including commercial and recreational fishing

activities.

Stellwagen Bank National Marine

Sanctuary (SBNMS) is 682 nm2, located off

the north coast of Massachusetts. The site

was designated due to an abundance of

natural resources including fishes and marine

mammals. All historic commercial fishing

activities (e.g. using trawl, scallop dredge,

gillnet) are allowed and regulation of these

activities rests with the New England

Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC)

and the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS). The site is the focus of a wide

range of research including understanding the

role of landscape processes that structure

the abundance and distribution of fishes (e.g.

Auster et al., in press). The U.S. Geological

Survey is presently using multibeam

bathymetry and sidescan sonar to produce

high resolution seafloor maps of the site and

these provide the basis for sampling for

other studies.

An ad hoc group of scientists proposed

an experimental management area (EMA)

within the sanctuary to act as a reference site

to study the impacts of fishing gear (e.g.

bottom trawl, scallop dredge) on seafloor

habitats. Initial studies have shown that

these types of gears can have significant

impacts on a range of seafloor habitats (e.g.

Auster et al. 1996). However, a systematic

study assessing the effects of chronic

impacts to a range of habitat types has not

been conducted. This type of knowledge is

required by managers to begin to manage

fishing activities for conservation of habitat

integrity. The sanctuary was deemed to be

the best site for such work off the northeast

U.S. as the entire range of sediment types

(i.e. mud to boulder) is found in a relatively

small area, recruitment processes of benthic

species are influenced by a restricted range

of oceanographic processes, high resolution

base maps would greatly improve sampling

by reducing variability of the withintreatment station characteristics, and the

proximity to major ports allows use of

smaller vessels and day trips to conduct field

work (rather than larger vessels and multiday support needs for offshore sites).

A proposal was prepared that outlined

the conceptual basis for the project (Auster

et al. 1995). Studies in the closed area were

designed to address the following questions:
114 Marine Harvest Refugia

1. Are there differences in habitat

composition between bottom dragged

and protected areas?

2. Is the composition and productivity

potential of the benthic community

different between dragged and protected

areas?

3. Are there differences in benthic microalgal

and demersal zooplankton production,

biomass, and composition between

dragged and protected areas?

The project has a five year time frame,

annual reporting requirements (to SBNMS,

NEFMC, and NMFS), and a built in

evaluation procedure that would open the

closed area if no significant differences are

found after three years.

Draft proposals were distributed to

NEFMC staff, council members, and

NMFS. Guidance was provided suggesting

that a series of public information meetings

should be conducted to bring this unique

proposal to the public. Three public

meetings were held and constructive input

suggested that the initial site selection be

adjusted to account for the fishing patterns

of small trawlers from the ports of

Provincetown and Gloucester,

Massachusetts, such that each fleet would

be giving up a small portion of traditional

grounds rather than the Provincetown fleet

bearing the effect of the initial closed area

proposal for the southern end of Stellwagen

Bank. New stations in a middle bank

location ultimately were selected and

remotely operated vehicle reconnaissance

showed that patterns of habitats were

similar to the southern site and would be

acceptable for the proposed study (Fig. 1).

Also, the size of the proposed closed area

was greatly reduced as the new boundaries

encompassed the same range of habitats in a

smaller area.

Discourse about the proposal from the

fishing community (at the public meetings,

in the press, and on the radio) largely

focused on the perceived inconsistency

between the “promise” that the sanctuary

would not manage fisheries and the proposal

to close an area within the sanctuary.

Despite the explanation that any subsequent

actions based on the proposal would be

taken by the NEFMC and NMFS, not the

sanctuary program, the perception of broken

promises persisted. While there was

support from some segments of the fishing

community, non-governmental

organizations, and various interested parties,

complaints from segments of the local

fishing community to their congressman

resulted in his public rejection of the project.

Clearly, such a reaction should have been

anticipated and congressional staff should

have been briefed about the project to allow

them to form an opinion prior to input from

constituents.

These initial actions occurred during the

proposal and review of Amendment 7 to the

Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish)

Fishery Management Plan. This plan put

further restrictions on fishing days-at-sea,

reduced targets for particular groundfish

species (i.e. Atlantic cod, haddock,

yellowtail flounder), and threatened even

further closures beyond the existing closed

sites from Amendment 5. Given the great

angst of the fishing community to an

“experimental site” when further reductions

loomed on the horizon, we decided to table

the proposal until the Amendment 7 review
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 115
116 Marine Harvest Refugia

process was complete.

A meeting with the Regional Director

further elucidated a pathway by which the

project could be acceptable to NMFS and

the Council. Based on this meeting, a new

project element was included to develop a

series of management recommendations and

options based on the results of the study. A

revised draft was subsequently given further

review at NMFS. Comments were received

that suggested the proposal be re-cast as a

full science proposal, describing sampling

schedules and analytical techniques.

However, the NEFMC and NMFS were

never considered a source of funding (nor did

they suggest they may be) and elements of

the project could change based on comments

that would come out of the peer review

process.

At the outset of the initial proposal,

there were commitments (i.e. funds and

ships) for the start-up year of the project,

but additional funds and expansion of the

studies would depend upon fully reviewed

proposals to appropriate agencies (e.g.

NOAA’s National Undersea Research

Program, Sea Grant, Sanctuaries Division).

Two of the investigators had a Sea Grant

project already funded that addressed some

of the operant questions and the location of

the work was to be changed to this site if the

proposal was implemented. Unfortunately,

after the Amendment 7 process was

completed and regulations implemented,

further reductions in fishing mortality would

be required. This may necessitate additional

closures and further delay the consideration

of the proposal in a more favorable

environment.

The proposal currently is in revision

and will be submitted to the NEFMC for

action (see Postscript). Rather than

attempting to garner support as was done

previously, the proposal will be submitted

directly to the NEFMC and any subsequent

requests for revision, public meetings, etc.

will be part of the official record and be more

fully considered within the formal Council

process.

The process to date has produced

several generalities to consider in future

actions regarding the proposals for protected

areas at SBNMS and other national marine

sanctuaries. First, the time frame for any

such proposal to make its way through the

Council review process must be considered

within a management field that is constantly

shifting based on continued management

considerations apart from research needs.

Moreover, questions persist regarding the

efficacy of the closure in the face of unsure

funding to conduct the work. Finally, the

issue of displacement of fishing effort by

such closures must be addressed.

Movement rates of most fish exceed the size

of the proposed area of closure so the

research program would not necessarily be

"locking up fish". However, the closure

would certainly disrupt the length of tows of

mobile gear users and exclude setting fixed

gear. This issue has been alluded to during

initial meetings and will inevitably arise

during the Council hearing process. The

ultimate objective of this project is to

provide information for strategic

management decisions. How can this

process be streamlined to develop the

knowledge required for attaining sustainable

fisheries?
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 117

References

Auster, P.J., R.J. Malatesta, R.W. langton, L.

Watling, P.C. Valentine, I.G. babb and L.B.

Cahoon. 1995. Management implications of

mobile gear alterations to benthic habitats in

the Gulf of Maine: Science program summary.

Draft Proposal.

Auster, P.J., R.J. Malatesta, R.W. Langton, L.

Watling, P.C. Valentine, C.L.S. Donaldson,

E.W. Langton, A.N. Shepard, and I.G. Babb.

1996. The impacts of mobile fishing gear on

seafloor habitats in the Gulf of Maine

(northwest Atlantic): Implications for

conservation of fish populations. Rev. Fish.

Sci. 4:185-202.

Auster, P.J., C. Michalopoulos, P.C. Valentine,

and R.J. Malatesta. 1998. Delineating and

monitoring habitat management units in a

temperate deep-water marine protected area.

p. 169-185. In N.W. Munro and J.H.M.

Willison (eds.) Linking Protected Areas with

Working Landscapes, Conserving Biodiversity.

SAMPAA, Wolfville, Nova Scotia.

Barr, B. 1995. The U.S. National Marine

Sanctuary Program and its role in preserving

sustainable fisheries. p. 165-173. In N.

Shackell and J.H.M. Willison (eds.). Marine

Protected Areas and Sustainable Fisheries.

SAMPAA, Wolfville, Nova Scotia.

Postscript

The NEFMC designated a 884 nm2 year-round closed area in the western Gulf of Maine, under

Framework Adjustment 25 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (Federal

Register, Vol. 63, No. 61, p. 15326-15333). The closure takes effect on 1 May 1998. This action

was undertaken as part of a suite of measures to reduce fishing mortality on the Gulf of Maine stock

of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). The closure area encompasses the eastern side of Stellwagen Bank

and a large section of Jeffreys Ledge. This closure provides the essential elements for the study that

I have outlined above. Currently, there are plans to conduct an initial research cruise from 27 April10 May 1998 to address all of the issues outlined in the initial proposal. This initial cruise will form

the baseline to compare changes in subsequent sampling efforts.
118 Marine Harvest Refugia

Closed Areas to Manage Rockfishes in the Gulf of Alaska

SungKwon Soh, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Donald R. Gunderson, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Daniel H. Ito, NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA

Introduction

Current Management. Since 1988, rockfish

(Sebastes spp.) in the Gulf of Alaska have

been divided into three management

assemblages based on their perceived habitats

and spatial distribution (Table 1). Shortraker

and rougheye rockfish (Sebastes borealis and

S. aleutianus) became one of the three

management subgroups within the slope

rockfish assemblage in 1991. Managed by the

North Pacific Fisheries Management Council

(NPFMC), a constant exploitation rate

strategy is the preferred management scheme

for this assemblage. The rockfish fishery in

the Gulf of Alaska has been managed

primarily by season limits and gear

restrictions. A directed fishery for

shortraker/rougheye rockfish occurred only in

1991 and 1992 and has been designated as a

bycatch fishery thereafter. During a bycatch

only fishery, a vessel can retain no more than

a certain percentage of the bycatch species

haul by haul. Once the allowable biological

catch (ABC) is reached, these species attain

prohibited species status, and have to be

returned to the sea when caught.

Current management allows vessels to

“top-off” their catch during the bycatch

season. The intended purpose of setting the

“bycatch” season is to protect the population

from a directed fishery but to allow for

“natural” bycatch in other directed fisheries.

Such bycatch management measures have

failed in instances where some fishermen

deliberately target bycatch species (Fig. 1).

Thus, the “topping-off” fishery can be

thought of as a directed fishery on a bycatch

species. Our concern is that these stocks are

very slow growing, long-lived, and patchy in

their distribution, and therefore could be

severely depleted by continual topping-off.

Commercial Fisheries. Most commercial

fisheries for shortraker and rougheye rockfish

occur on the continental slope, a narrow band

along with the coastline of the Gulf of Alaska.

This assemblage is usually caught by trawl

Table 1. Gulf of Alaska management assemblages and assemblage subgroups.

Management Assemblage Subgroups of Assemblage

Slope rockfish Pacific ocean perch (POP)

Shortraker/rougheye rockfish

Northern rockfish

Other slope rockfish (17 species)

Pelagic shelf rockfish Five species

Demersal shelf rockfish Seven species
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 119

Figure 1. Total catch per haul (mt) versus proportion of shortraker and rougheye rockfish in that haul. The upper

panels show hauls made during the bycatch season, when these species could be legally retained, while the lower

panels show hauls made during periods when their retention was prohibited.

and longline gear. Most of the shortraker and

rougheye taken on longline gear is considered

an incidental catch in the directed sablefish

and halibut longline fisheries. Major species

that co-occur with this assemblage include:

Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus),

sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), northern

rockfish (Sebastes polyspinis), rex sole (Errex

zachirus), and thornyhead (Sebastolobus

alascanus).

Observer Program. An observer

program was established by the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 1973

to aid in the management of fisheries

within the 200-mile fishery conservation

zone (now called the Exclusive Economic

Zone) established by the Magnuson

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act of 1976. The domestic groundfish

observer program requires that vessels 125

feet or longer carry a NMFS-certified

observer while fishing for groundfish.

Vessels 60-124 feet in length must carry a

NMFS-certified observer during about

30% of their fishing days in each calendar

quarter of the year in which they fish

more than 10 days. Observers collect a

wide variety of data including total catch

(including discards) and effort, catch
120 Marine Harvest Refugia

composition, biological samples, gear

design and operation information.

Shortraker/rougheye rockfish. Stock

assessment of slope rockfish is hampered by

limited information and considerable

uncertainty as to current stock abundance and

long-term productivity. The adequacy of

current trawl survey methodology to assess

rockfish biomass is questionable. These

concerns have prompted the Alaska Fisheries

Science Center to develop a comprehensive

working plan to improve stock assessments

and management for rockfish.

Both shortraker and rougheye rockfish

inhabit the deeper waters of the outer

continental shelf and upper continental slope

regions throughout their range. Shortraker and

rougheye rockfish are among the largest

Sebastes species in body size present in the

Gulf of Alaska (L =72.36 cm and 54.74 cm,

respectively). Both species are slowgrowing, very long-lived (maximum age 140

years) and mature at an age of around 20 years

(McDermott 1994). The age of recruitment

into the fishery is thought to be about 30

years (Nelson 1986). The early life histories

of both species are not well known.

However, geographic movements of these

species appear to be very restricted during

exploitable ages (Gunderson 1997).

Although both species are among the

most economically important species within

the assemblage, very little work on their

population dynamics has been accomplished

to date. Reconstruction of the historical

removals were attempted based on all the

auxiliary survey and observer data because no

independent catch data were available prior to

1991. Stock Reduction Analysis (SRA;

Kimura et al. 1984, Kimura 1985, 1988)

provided useful stock assessment information,

including estimates of instantaneous rates of

fishing mortality and historical biomass (Soh

unpubl. MS).

Discard Rates. Preventing stock depletion

and discards at sea are among the problems to

be resolved for better management of Sebastes

populations. Percentage discarded of the four

slope rockfish management subgroups in the

Gulf of Alaska were estimated by observers

(Table 2). In 1994, over 40% of the

shortraker/rougheye rockfish catches were

discarded and amounted to 820.7 mt (= annual

catch of 1832 mt * 0.448). This was worth

about $2.71 million (= 820.7 mt * 2.2 lb/kg *

$3/lb at sea * 0.5 for headed and gutted

rockfish) and represents a significant waste.

As an alternative, incorporating harvest

refugia into the current management scheme

Table 2. Observer estimates of percentage of total catch discarded for the four slope rockfish

management subgroups in the Gulf of Alaska.

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Pacific ocean perch 15.7 21.5 79.2 60.3 19.8 17.6

Shortraker/rougheye rockfish 42.0 10.4 26.8 44.8 30.7 20.5

Northern rockfish - - 26.5 17.7 12.7 16.3

Other slope rockfish 20.0 29.7 48.9 65.6 72.5 75.7
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 121

may offer a way to reduce wastage due to

discards. As an illustration, we compare the

outcomes of status quo management and one

alternative refugia scheme using a 20-year

simulation, and attempt to show how discard

problems can be resolved. Also, this

alternative management scheme may avoid

depletion of valuable stocks.

Approach

Population Dynamics Model.

Reconstructing the historical removals of

rougheye and shortraker rockfish (R/S) from

the Gulf of Alaska is not a trivial matter.

Accurately estimating these removals is

hampered by the fact that both species were

never officially reported in the commercial

landings until 1991. However, both species

were undoubtedly caught in significant

quantities prior to 1991 because shortraker

and rougheye rockfish are frequently caught

with Pacific ocean perch and other Sebastes

species. Furthermore, it is clear that the

amount of geographical overlap among the

demersal Sebastes species is considerable

based on historical catch and survey data. It

is this overlap that forms the basis of our

catch reconstruction. To estimate the

historical R/S catches, we multiply the

distributional ratios of R/S by certain known

reference catches (Soh unpubl. MS).

By employing SRA, we examined trends

in biomass and potential long-term

production. This assessment technique,

which incorporates Schnute's (1985) version

of the delay-difference equation, is a biomassbased method of stock assessment that links

the exponential form of the catch equations

when age data are insufficient or unavailable.

Input requirements for the SRA model

included: catch data (in biomass), natural

mortality, the delay-difference growth

coefficients, the age at recruitment, the

Beverton-Holt recruitment shape parameter,

and one or more estimates of stock biomass.

GIS. Spatial distribution of shortraker and

rougheye catches were created using the

geographic information system (GIS) software

Arc/Info. Technical procedures in GIS include

the spatial generalization of point data for

refugia work. Relying on historical catches

from the observer and NMFS survey

databases, “hotspots” and localized

concentrations of adults were easily detected.

We evaluated different geographic areas of

refugia using different cutoff criteria for the

cumulative (1987 to 1996) catch.

Modeling of Refugia Management. Two

separate zones, refuge and harvestable area,

were defined to discuss the outcomes of

various refugia systems based on a simulation

approach. The outcomes depend on the size

of the refuge area. This size was determined

arbitrarily according to the cutoff points that

were determined by commercial catch quantile

analysis. Separation of the biomass and

recruits between refugia and harvestable area

is based on the simple assumption that

cumulative historical catches (1987 to 1996)

reflect the spatial distribution of the adult

biomass within the Gulf of Alaska.

We are not assuming that closed areas are

self-contained production systems, because

we know very little about habitat

requirements for juveniles and larval transport

patterns. However, it seems clear that adult

habitat requirements are quite specific, and we

assume that all prime habitat is reflected in the
122 Marine Harvest Refugia

distribution of “hotspots”. Independent

population dynamics models are run for the

refugia and harvestable areas, with an

exploitation rate (and F) = 0 in refuge areas.

We also predict reduction in the yield of other

groundfish such as POP, thornyhead,

sablefish, and rex sole inside the refugia.

Discards can be greatly reduced by

retaining all catches in the harvestable areas

until the ABC is attained. This scenario is

based on the supposition that harvestable

areas are expected to have less dense stocks

because all hotspots in the Gulf are designated

as refuge areas. Ending biomass, the range of

expected yields, and fishing mortality in

harvestable areas will differ with refuge size.

We will pick only one size of refuge area as an

example: those areas that accounted for 40%

of the catch for shortraker and 29% of

rougheye during 1987 to 1996, but represent

only 5.4% of the trawlable area within the

Gulf of Alaska (Fig. 2).

Example: Simulation Results. The SRA

model was applied to the Gulf rockfish

stocks, and 20-year projections were

simulated under two scenarios, comparing the

ending biomass with identical catch amounts

retained by fishermen (Table 3). Under the

refugia system, annual harvests are set equal

to about 70% of those caught under the

current system, because the average discard

Figure 2. Example of the use of GIS to delineate “hot spots” and refugia. The dark circled areas

delineate those 314 km2 “pixels” containing the upper 0.5% of the 1987-1996 commercial catch of

rougheye and shortraker rockfish.
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 123

Table 3. Results of shortraker and rougheye rockfish Stock Reduction Analysis simulation.

Shortraker Current management Refugia management

Biological Yield 7,259 mt/20 yrs (with discards of 2,120 mt) 5,140 mt/20 yrs

Ending Biomass 16,459 mt 18,337 mt

Average F 0.023 0.028

Rougheye Current Management Refugia Management

Biological Yield 19,146 mt/20 yrs (with discards of 5,591 mt) 13,556 mt/20 yrs

Ending Biomass 35,809 mt 40,541 mt

Average F 0.025 0.025

rate was about 30%. Instantaneous fishing

mortality (F) for shortraker was set to 0.023

and for rougheye 0.025. In the case of

shortraker rockfish, the procedure was as

follows:

1) Apportion population biomass between

refugia and harvestable areas, using

commercial fishery data and GIS (Fig. 2).

2) Set constant F = 0.023 for the open

ocean system, and calculate accumulated

yield and ending biomass for 20 year

simulation.

3) Set biological yield under refugia system

= 7,259 * (1 - 0.292) = 5,140 mt, where

0.292 is an average discard rate (1991 to

1996) under the current system, and

determine the fishing mortality (F) required

to obtain this in the harvestable areas.

The outcomes of this simulation depend

on the size of the refuge area. The results

above are based on a refuge area representing

5.4% of the trawlable area within the Gulf of

Alaska.

Impact On Other Fisheries. Establishing

no-take zones obviously affects other

fisheries in the zone. To minimize these

impacts, depth effects need to be considered

for practical application of refugia

boundaries. For example, the proportion of

catches within the refuge area (5.4% of the

Gulf), as compared with those from the

whole Gulf, for major species on the

continental slope changes significantly

among depth strata (Table 4).

Outlook

Refuge areas can be defined in such a

manner that several benefits can be derived

with minor impacts to other fisheries.

Major improvements resulting from refugia

management are as follows:

• Maintain current catch levels with reduced

discard waste,

Table 4. Percent of Gulf-wide catches (1987 to 1996) at three depth strata within refugia area.

Depth (m) shortraker rougheye POP thornyhead northern dusky sablefish rex sole

100-713 28 29 15 12 12 17 6 12

200-713 27 28 12 12 1 1 5 6

300-713 23 25 2 9 0 0 3 1
124 Marine Harvest Refugia

• Maintain geographic structure of shortraker

and rougheye populations,

• Insure the protection of spawner biomass,

• Avoid “shutdowns” of the fishery due to

depleted stocks.

Though we simulated results for only one

size of refugia, further analyses also resulted

in higher ending biomass for a wide variety of

refugia size with a minor increase in fishing

effort outside refugia. Because of the

difficulties in enforcing refugia management, it

appears that industry support will be required

if refugia are to be effective. This is

particularly true if refugia are delimited using

depth criteria.

References

Gunderson, D.R. 1997. Spatial patterns in the

dynamics of slope rockfish stocks and their

implications for management. Fish. Bull.

95:219-230.

Kimura, D.K. 1985. Changes to stock

reduction analysis indicated by Schnute’s general

theory. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 2059-2060.

Kimura, D.K. 1988. Stock-recruitment curves

as used in the stock-reduction analysis model. J.

Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 44: 253-258.

Kimura, D.K., J.W. Balsiger, and D.H. Ito.

1984. Generalized stock reduction analysis.

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41: 1325-1333.

McDermott, S.F. 1994. Reproductive biology

of rougheye and shortraker rockfish, Sebastes

aleutianus and Sebastes borealis. M.S. thesis,

University of Washington. Seattle, WA. 76 p.

Nelson, B.D. 1986. Population parameters of

the rougheye rockfish (Sebastes aleutianus).

M.S. thesis, University of Alaska, Juneau. 103

p.

Schnute, J. 1985. A general theory for the

analysis of catch and effort data. Can. J. Fish.

Aquat. Sci. 42: 414-429.

Shortraker rockfish (Sebastes borealis) near isolated boulder, as viewed from

the Delta submersible in the Gulf of Alaska in 300 m of water. This species

can reach 120 years of age. Photo by K. Krieger
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 125

The Use of a No-Take Marine Reserve in the Eastern Gulf of Alaska to

Protect Essential Fish Habitat

Victoria O’Connell, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sitka, AK

Waldo Wakefield, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ

H. Gary Greene, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Moss Landing, CA

Introduction

The Alaska Department of Fish and

Game (ADF&G) has management authority

for demersal shelf rockfishes and lingcod in

state and federal waters of the Gulf of Alaska.

Management of these species has included

annual catch quotas, season and gear

allocations, trip limits, and area closures.

ADF&G has used an occupied submersible to

obtain habitat-specific density estimates of

demersal shelf rockfishes in the Eastern Gulf

of Alaska since 1990 (O’Connell and Carlile

1993, O’Connell et al. 1997). During these

surveys we have made over 300 dives in

depths between 40 m and 200 m between

Dixon Entrance (54°30’ N) and Fairweather

Ground (58°30’ N). Direct observation using

in-situ technology has greatly increased our

understanding of the linkage in the marine

system between species diversity, abundance,

and habitat complexity. It also has allowed us

to identify areas that appear to be of critical

importance to a variety of fish species.

A specific habitat that appears to be

particularly important is an area off Cape

Edgecumbe that is dominated by two large

volcanic cones (Fig. 1). These pinnacles rise

abruptly from the seafloor at the entrance to

Sitka Sound where ocean and tidal currents

create massive water flows over this habitat

(Fig. 2). The most southerly and shallowest

cone (Nineteen-Fathom Pinnacle) is topped

by a volcanic plug that extends to within 40 m

of the ocean's surface. The plug has shear

vertical walls on one side that drop down to a

rubble apron composed of large angular blocks

of considerable size (up to 10 m). A fairly

linear lobate feature extends northeastward to

the base of the northern cone. The northern

pinnacle is more gentle in morphology and is

deeper, with its crest lying at a depth of 70 m.

The crest of this pinnacle comprises exposed

volcanic rock (plug) that sits atop an almost

smooth cone and large angular boulders

surround the base. The steeper of the two

pinnacles (Nineteen-Fathom Pinnacle) has

extremely complex rock habitats and supports

a diversity and density of fishes not seen in

surrounding areas.

The boulder field at the base of this

pinnacle provides important refuge for adult

fishes including large numbers of yelloweye

rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus; Fig. 3), tiger

rockfish (S. nigrocinctus), prowfish (Zaprora

silenus), and lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus).

Aggregations of small deep-water rockfishes

occur here as well, including sharpchin (S.

zacentrus), pygmy (S. wilsoni), and redstripe

(S. proriger). Besides harboring adult fishes,

this boulder field also is used as spawning

habitat by lingcod. While it had been

previously reported that lingcod spawn and

nest-guard in shallow water, in-situ

observations at the pinnacle have identified
126 Marine Harvest Refugia

Figure 1. Boxed area is proposed no-take marine reserve, southeast Alaska.

lingcod nest-guarding in the boulder field at

depths to 140 m (O’Connell 1993). The

female lays a large egg mass in caves and

crevices between boulders and the male

fertilizes the eggs and guards the “nest” until

hatching.

The sides of the pinnacle are comprised

of columnar basalts and Primnoa gorgonians

provide biogenic habitat for fishes on the

steep walls of the pinnacles (Fig. 4). Juvenile

rockfishes occur in great abundance at the top

of the pinnacle and utilize the dense

assemblages of sessile invertebrates, including

Metridium and hydrocorals for cover. Adult

lingcod utilize the top of the pinnacle as a

seasonal feeding platform after spawning.

These fishes occur in extremely dense

aggregations during the late spring and early
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 127

summer (Fig. 5). In addition to fish living and

feeding directly on the habitat or using the

pinnacle and associated infauna for cover,

large schools of pelagic fishes congregate in

the water column above the pinnacle. These

include black (S. melanops), yellowtail (S.

flavidus), dusky (S. ciliatus) and widow (S.

entomelas) rockfishes that feed on the

plankton in the water column.

History of Fishing

The area surrounding the pinnacles has

been an important fishing ground for halibut

(Hippoglossus stenolepis), salmon

(Oncorhynchus sp.), and rockfishes. In the

late 1980s several fishermen began to target

the pinnacles for yelloweye rockfish using

bottom longline gear. In 1987 a directed

fishery for lingcod began (Gordon 1994). The

directed fishery used modified troll gear called

dinglebar gear. This gear is very effective at

catching lingcod and operates by bouncing a

lead bar along the bottom and trailing leaders

and jigs to attract fish. By early 1991 some

lingcod fishermen discovered that lingcod

congregate on the tops of the pinnacle during

early summer and began aggressively targeting

this area. The small size of the area, large

density and feeding behavior of the fishes

make them extremely susceptible to fishing

pressure. Hourly catch rates of lingcod at this

site exceeded catch rates in the surrounding

area by three-fold (ADF&G confidential

logbook data).

Several management actions have

Figure 2. Bathymetry of pinnacles area, 10 X vertical exaggeration.
128 Marine Harvest Refugia

Figure 3. Yelloweye rockfish in boulder field at

base of pinnacle.

occurred regarding the commercial fishery in

this area. The pinnacles are in federal waters.

The State of Alaska has management

authority over lingcod and demersal shelf

rockfish in both state and federal waters. In

1991, as part of a larger winter closure to

protect nest-guarding male lingcod, the Alaska

Board of Fisheries closed all harvest of lingcod

from December 1 - April 30 in the waters

from Cape Edgecumbe to Biorka Island, which

includes the pinnacle area. There have been

several conservation closures in the area

beginning in 1992. In 1997 an emergency

order (EO) was issued that prohibited all

retention of groundfish by commercial

fisheries in a four square mile area that

included the pinnacles. This emergency order

was reissued for 1998.

Prior to 1997 there had been no

significant sport fish or charter boat harvest of

bottomfish in the pinnacle area. However

with the expansion of the charter boat fleet

out of Sitka and their increased interest in

bottomfish, the pinnacles area became the

target of an intensive charter boat fishery.

The commercial fishery emergency orders

have no authority over the charter boat and

sport fishery. In effect, the commercial

fishery EO had simply reallocated the harvest

of groundfish on the pinnacle to a different

user group.

The Alaska Department of Fish & Game

(ADF&G) has petitioned the Alaska Board of

Fisheries (BOF) and the North Pacific Fishery

Management Council (NPFMC) to enact a

bottomfish reserve for the pinnacle areas. The

petition is to permanently close a 3.1 mi2 (8.1

km2) area to all bottomfish and halibut fishing

(including commercial, sport, charter, bycatch

and subsistence) and anchoring to prevent

localized over fishing, protect nursery habitat

provided by rock outcrop and invertebrate

epifauna, and to create a bottomfish refuge.

This closure would protect the fragile nature

of this rare habitat, and prevent the harvest

(including bycatch) of lingcod and rockfish

during critical portions of their life history.

Approach to Implementation

The authority to establish a marine

reserve in southeast Alaska is complicated by

the various jurisdictions of state and federal

agencies. The pinnacles occur in federal

waters but some of the species inhabiting the

area are managed by the state of Alaska.

Once we had determined that we were

interested in creating a marine reserve for

groundfish, we began garnering support for

the reserve. We contacted various scientists
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 129

Figure 4. Yelloweye rockfish resting on Primnoa

growing on wall of pinnacle.

Figure 5. Lingcods on top of pinnacle.

and biologists involved in research and

management of groundfish in the area and

requested a review of our proposal. We also

held public meetings to discuss the idea with

local users of the area and other interested

public. We were able to take a small group of

scientists, managers, and fishermen on

submersible dives of the pinnacle as part of

the education process. Videotapes of these

dives were shown at a variety of public

meetings. Once we had agency and public

support for the reserve, we moved ahead with

official proposals for action.

In Alaska, lingcod and black rockfish are

not listed as groundfish species in the Federal

Fisheries Management Plan. Consequently,

the state of Alaska has management authority

over these species even in federal waters.

Because the BOF would not be meeting to

discuss southeast groundfish regulations for

three years, ADF&G submitted an agenda

change request (ACR) that would allow the

proposal to be addressed at an earlier BOF

meeting. The ACR was submitted in October

of 1997 and was proposed jointly by the

Commercial Fisheries Division and the Sport

Fish Division. BOF booklets were circulated

for public review to allow for written public

comments. Local advisory committees to the

BOF reviewed the proposal. The Sitka Fish

and Game Advisory Committee (which is

comprised of representatives from the

commercial fisheries, charter fisheries,

subsistence fisheries, sport fisheries,

conservation groups, hunters, and general

public) unanimously supported the proposal.

Several special-interest groups (both

conservation and resource-user) submitted

letters of support. In February 1998, after a

public hearing to discuss this and other

regulations, the BOF voted unanimously to

establish the pinnacle reserve as a no-take area

for all bottomfish species over which they

have authority (currently lingcod, black

rockfish, blue rockfish, and demersal shelf

rockfish).

Concurrent with the effort to get the

State to implement the closure, was the effort

to have the NPFMC implement a companion

closure for other species including halibut.

ADF&G submitted a proposal for the

pinnacles reserve to the NPFMC’s Gulf of

Alaska Plan Team at their August 1997

meeting. The Plan Team endorsed the

proposal and it was forwarded to the

NPFMC. In September 1997 the NPFMC

agreed to further consider the pinnacle reserve

and requested a staff analysis be conducted.
130 Marine Harvest Refugia

The draft Environmental Assessment and

Regulatory Impact Review was released at the

April 1998 NPFMC Council meeting. The

preferred alternative listed in this document

was to prohibit all fishing activities in the

closure area, including trolling for salmon.

The NPFMC is scheduled to take final action

on the proposal at their June 1998 meeting

(see Postscript).

If approved by the NPFMC this will be

the first no-take reserve in the Gulf of Alaska.

Although the area is relatively small in total

area (3.1 mi2; 8.1 km2), it encompasses a wide

range of depths and a variety of rock habitats.

The margins of the closed area occur in water

depths between 180 and 150 m; bottom

habitat types include cobble, gravel, and lava

flow. One pinnacle rises to 70 m and the other

to 40 m.

Research

ADF&G has conducted in-situ

assessments of bottomfish in this area since

1989 using an occupied submersible and has

mapped the area using sidescan sonar and

swath bathymetry. In 1997, several

permanent transects were established using

on-bottom flags, which will facilitate longterm monitoring (Fig. 6). Using a combination

of technology, including a submersible

equipped with an array of imaging systems,

sidescan sonars, GIS and 3D-data

visualizations, ADF&G has been able to

characterize this habitat. Habitat-specific fish

densities and complete detailed quantification

of habitat may now be determined. Future

submersible observation along with the use of

a drop-video camera system will allow

seasonal monitoring of the distributions,

diversity, and abundance of fauna in this area.

Enforcement Issues

One difficulty in establishing marine

reserves is the ability to enforce closures.

This is a particular concern in remote areas

where people other than the resource users are

unable to monitor the area. The pinnacles

occur at the corner of Cape Edgecumbe off the

mouth of Sitka Sound. There is significant

boat traffic in the area and the salmon trolldrag turnaround is adjacent to this spot.

There are regular Coast Guard over-flights and

the State Fish and Wildlife Protection officers

monitor this area by boat. Fishing in closed

waters is a serious violation under both state

and federal statutes and always results in at

least a fine and forfeiture of fish. More

importantly there is strong local support for

the closure in the Sitka area. The local Sitka

advisory committee to the Alaska BOF

unanimously supported the closure, as did the

Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association.

Given the strong support for the closure and

the opportunity for fishermen and boaters to

observe the area, it seems likely that the

boundaries of the area will be respected.

Conclusion

The recently reauthorized Magnuson -

Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Sustainable Fisheries Act

of 1996) has a mandate to identify, conserve,

and enhance essential fish habitat (EFH). The

Act identifies EFH as, in part, the substrate

necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,

growth, and maturity. The pinnacle area

provides habitat for all these purposes for a

variety of species and is extremely

productive, in part due to its physical
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 131

Figure 6. Digital sidescan mosaic of pinnacle areas with transect.

oceanography. Closure of the area will allow

a vital habitat to maintain populations at

natural levels in an area surrounded by heavy

fishing pressure. Because baseline

information has already been collected on the

habitat and the associated fish populations, it

will be possible to monitor the changes in

diversity, distribution, and abundance of

organisms and it may be possible to determine

if the closure provides benefits to the area

surrounding the reserve.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded in part through grants

from NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries

Service Alaska Region and the West Coast

National Undersea Research Center. We thank

the following people for their contributions

towards this effort: Cleo Brylinsky, Dave

Gordon, Bev Richardson, Deidra Holum, and Jim
132 Marine Harvest Refugia

McRea for help in the field; Rich Slater, David

Slater, Chris Ijames and the crew of Delta

Oceanographics and the R/V Cavalier; Greg

Beam and the crew of the F/V Ida June; Jim

McRea, Andrea Fildani, and Cleo Brylinsky for

mapping and GIS support.

References

Gordon, D.A. 1994. Lingcod fishery and

fishery monitoring in Southeast Alaska. Alaska

Fish. Res. Bull. 1(2):140-152.

O’Connell, V.M. 1993. Submersible

observations on lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus,

nesting below 30 m off Sitka, Alaska. Mar.

Fish. Rev. 55(1): 19-24.

O’Connell, V.M and D.C. Carlile. 1993.

Habitat specific density of yelloweye rockfish

(Sebastes ruberrimus) in the eastern Gulf of

Alaska. Fish. Bull. 91:304-309.

O’Connell, V.M., D.C. Carlile, and C. Brylinsky.

1997. Demersal Shelf Rockfish. In Stock

assessment and fishery evaluation report for the

groundfish resources of the Gulf of Alaska, p

310-323. Report to North Pacific Fishery

Management Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue,

Suite 306, Anchorage AK 99501-2252.

Postscript

During their June 1998 meeting in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, the NPFMC adopted a plan amendment to

prohibit boat anchoring and all fishing for groundfish, halibut, and scallops in the pinnacle area. This

amendment originally was proposed by the ADF&G as a means to protect important habitat for

rockfish and lingcod, and was later incorporated into the EFH amendment package. After reviewing

the material, the Council decided to separate the pinnacle closure from EFH provisions, and to adopt

it as a separate amendment (tentatively assigned Amendment 59 to the Gulf of Alaska Groundfish

Fishery Management Plan). In the future, the pinnacle area will be re-evaluated for consideration as

a "habitat area of particular concern" under the EFH guidelines. An option for prohibiting

recreational and commercial salmon fishing in the pinnacle area was considered, but not adopted.

The Council will discuss the salmon issue with the Alaska BOF at its committee meeting in July.

NPFMC staff contact is Dave Witherell (Anchorage, Alaska).
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 133

Restrictions on Rockfish Fishing in Existing California Marine

Protected Areas

Deborah A. McArdle, University of California Sea Grant Extension, Santa Barbara, CA

A total of 101 areas of special biological

significance, city underwater parks, ecological

reserves, Marine Resource Protection Act

(MRPA) ecological reserves, state parks,

refuges, reserves, University of California

natural reserves, national marine sanctuaries,

national parks and biosphere reserves

comprised 18.2% of the total California state

waters on 31 December 1998. Due to

overlapping boundaries, and to the omission

of two marine protected areas (MPAs) that

were completely within federal waters, there

were actually only 65 MPAs with unique

geographical boundaries (the MPAs in federal

waters had no restrictions on the take of

rockfish.) I analyzed the extent to which

rockfish fishing was restricted in these 65

MPAs.

Of the 65 MPAs, ten prohibited rockfish

fishing and totaled 8676.3 acres (35 km2)

(Table 1). However, the ten MPAs that did

prohibit the take of rockfish were not

designated, designed or located with the goal

of rockfish protection. The ten areas covered

0.2% of the 3,591,000 acres (14,532 km2) of

California state waters (from the coastline to 3

nautical miles offshore, including island

coastlines). In addition to the ten MPAs that

Table 1. Marine Protected Areas that completely prohibit the take of rockfish in the four marine

ecological regions of California.

Region Area 

Acres (km2)

 I. Northern Region 0 (0)

 II. North Central Region

1. King Range MRPA Ecological Reserve 1511.1 (6.1)

III. Central Region

2. Hopkins Marine Life Refuge 80.2 (0.3)

3. Point Lobos Ecological Reserve 682.3 (2.8)

4. Big Creek MRPA Ecological Reserve 935.6 (3.8)

IV. Southern Region

5. Vandenberg MRPA Ecological Reserve 1524.8 (6.2)

6. Big Sycamore Canyon MRPA Ecological Reserve 1279.2 (5.2)

7. Catalina Marine Science Center Marine Life Refuge 2087.8 (8.4)

8. Heisler Park Ecological Reserve 31.6 (0.1)

9. Scripps Coastal Reserve 87.0 (0.4)

10. San-Diego-La Jolla Ecological Reserve 458.7 (1.9)

TOTAL: 8676.3 (35; 0.2% of state waters)
134 Marine Harvest Refugia

Table 2. Marine Protected Areas that prohibit the take of rockfish, either commercially or

recreationally, in the four marine ecological regions of California.

A. No Rockfish May Be Taken Recreationally Area 

Acres (km2)

 I. Northern Region 0 (0)

 II. North Central Region

1. Point Cabrillo Reserve 55.8 (0.2)

2. Gerstle Cove Reserve 6.4 (0.03)

3. Point Reyes Headlands Reserve 501.3 (2.0)

III. Central Region 0 (0)

IV. Southern-Baja Region

4. Lovers Cove Reserve, Santa Catalina Island 13.1 (0.05)

TOTAL: 576.6 (2.3; 0.02% of state waters)

B. No Rockfish May Be Taken Commercially

 I. North Region 0 (0)

 II. North Central Region

1. Del Mar Landing Ecological Reserve 52.0 (0.2)

III. Central Region

2. Carmel Bay Ecological Reserve 1564.9 (6.3)

IV. Southern Region

3. Abalone Cove Ecological Reserve 66.0 (0.3)

TOTAL: 1682.9 (6.8; 0.04% of state waters)

completely prohibited rockfish fishing, four

additional small MPAs prohibited recreational

fishing for rockfish (Table 2). These four

areas totaled 576.6 (2.3km2) acres and

comprised 0.02% of the state waters. Another

three small MPAs restricted commercial

fishing of rockfish (Table 2). These three

areas totaled 1682.9 acres (6.8 km2) and

comprised 0.04% of the state waters.

Although all were relatively small, the

proportion of area that protects rockfish

varies geographically (Fig. 1). For this

analysis I divided the state into four general

regions including a northern, north central,

central and southern region. These regional

divisions were adapted from those used by

the California Department of Parks and

Recreation. The northern region extends from

the Oregon border to Cape Mendocino. The

north central region extends from Cape

Mendocino to Elkhorn Slough. The central

region extends from Elkhorn Slough to Point

Conception and the southern region extends

from Point Conception to the border of

Mexico.

On a statewide level, the major coverage

(63.0%) of the MPAs that prohibited the take

of rockfish occurred in the southern region

totaling 5469.1 acres (22.1 km2; n=6 MPAs).

However, the MPAs that prohibited the take

of rockfish in the southern region only

comprised 0.2% of the region's waters. The

MPAs that prohibited the take of rockfish in

both the north central (n=1) and the central

(n=3) region comprised only 0.04% of their

regional state waters. The northern region
For West Coast Rockfish: A Workshop 135

Figure 1. Marine Protected Areas of California that restrict the take of rockfish. The

“No-Take” areas comprise 0.2% of the state waters. (The point dots are not drawn to scale.)

The MPAs in federal waters do not restrict the take of rockfish.

had no MPAs that prohibited the take of

rockfish.

The ten MPAs that prohibited the take of

rockfish were not designated, designed or

located with the goal of rockfish protection.

They were established on other criteria such as

the protection of invertebrates or of finfish in

general. The first “No-take” area that

contained rockfish was the Scripps Coastal

Reserve, in 1965. The University of

California Regents designated the natural

reserve to provide undisturbed environment

that could be used as an experimental and

educational research station for Scripps

Institution of Oceanography. In the seventies,

three MPAs were established as ecological

reserves (i.e. Heisler Park, Point Lobos and

San Diego-La Jolla). The Fish and Game

Commission designated these ecological

reserves to protect aquatic resources for the

future of mankind. Two marine life refuges

(i.e. Catalina Marine Science Center
136 Marine Harvest Refugia

Marine Life Refuge and Hopkins Marine Life

Refuge) were established in the eighties. The

State Legislature designated the refuges with

the initial goal of protecting only marine

invertebrates (as is the goal of all the other

twelve marine life refuges). However, because

of their unique relationship with academic

institutions and marine laboratories, the

refuges were designated as complete “Notake” areas. Finally, four MRPA ecological

reserves were established in 1994 (i.e. King

Range, Big Creek, Vandenberg, and Big

Sycamore Canyon). Their goal was to

provide undisturbed areas for scientific

research.

The MPAs that prohibited the

recreational fishing of rockfish were all

established by the Fish and Game

Commission as reserves. These were all

designated in the 1970's and only prohibit

recreational fishing because the Commission's

authority does not expand to commercial

fishing except when specifically provided by

the State Legislature. All of the three MPAs

that prohibited commercial rockfish fishing

were established by the Fish and Game

Commission as ecological reserves. These

were also all designated in the 1970's (Table

2).

Although the existing MPAs were not

designed to protect rockfish, most if not all,

do contain rockfish populations. In the north

central region, for example, King Range

MRPA Ecological Reserve has a substantial

rockfish population. It should also be noted

that both Point Cabrillo Reserve and Gerstle

Cove Reserve, in the north central region, have

served as de facto “No-take” areas for the past

~20 years. The regulations that are mandated

by the reserve designation only restrict

recreational finfish and invertebrate fishing.

However, confusion over the interpretation of

these regulations has resulted in commercial

fishing also being prohibited in both MPAs.

Both of these MPAs contain rockfish within

their boundaries. In addition, the commercial

take of rockfish in the Del Mar Landing

Ecological Reserve is prohibited and the

recreational take of rockfish in Point Reyes

Headlands Reserve is prohibited.

In the central region, Hopkins Marine

Life Refuge, Point Lobos Ecological Reserve

and Big Creek MRPA Ecological Reserve all

contain rockfish populations. In addition,

although not a “No-take” area, the commercial

harvest of finfish and invertebrates in the

Carmel Bay Ecological Reserve is prohibited.

Of the six MPAs that prohibit the take of

rockfish in the southern region, five have

rockfish populations within their boundaries

(i.e. Big Sycamore Canyon MRPA Ecological

Reserve does not). In addition, the

commercial take of rockfish in the Abalone

Cove Ecological Reserve is prohibited.

Although the existing MPAs that protect

rockfish represent only a small proportion of

state waters (0.2%), they could be further

evaluated to determine what positive role they

play in conserving this valuable species

complex.
For West coast Rockfish: A Workshop 137

WORKING GROUPS

Introduction

The three working groups were important components of this workshop. Group

chairs and rapporteurs were identified prior to the workshop, and their input on the

structure and topics of discussion were incorporated into the instructions given to each

working group. Participants were assigned to each group to achieve a balance in

expertise and assure representation of all interests. Each chair presented a summary of

their group’s findings to the plenary session for feedback. Members were exchanged

among the working groups to facilitate cross-fertilization of ideas and recommendations.

The Chairs and Rapporteurs drafted summary reports of their group’s deliberations,

including recommendations for needed actions and research.

Each working group was asked to discuss specific topics that pertained to the

overriding goal of evaluating the function and effectiveness of harvest refugia to

manage rockfish populations and maintain species and habitat diversity along the west

coast. Many of the topics were considered by all three working groups.
138 Marine Harvest Refugia

Working Group I: Fishery Management Considerations

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)

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
For West coast Rockfish: A Workshop 139

-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 nonprotected areas may distort catch-age composition, causing errors in standard age-based fisheries
140 Marine Harvest Refugia

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 payoff.

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 solutions depend 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
For West coast Rockfish: A Workshop 141

• 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 MagnusonStevens 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
142 Marine Harvest Refugia

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).

Darkblotched (under ledge; Sebastes crameri) and cowcod (foreground; S. levis) rockfish

viewed from Delta submersible at 250 m in Año Nuevo Canyon off the central California

coast. Photo by Mary Yoklavich
For West coast Rockfish: A Workshop 143

Working Group II: Science-based Design Considerations

While considering the unique life history characteristics and the current status of west coast rockfish

populations, the following questions and topics are relevant to the identification of those critical

design elements that influence the extent and success of harvest refugia:

1. What is the motivation for designing the harvest refugia?

2. What are the design considerations for the most effective marine harvest refugia?

3. Do we currently have sufficient understanding of the dynamics of the natural system to identify

specific characteristics for rockfish refugia?

4. What information do we need to implement effective refugia for rockfishes?

Participants:

Mark Carr, Chair (University of California, Santa Cruz)

Lisa Ziobro, Rapporteur (Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary)

Tom Hourigan (NMFS, Office of Protected Resources)

Dan Ito (NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center)

Deborah McArdle (UC Sea Grant Marine Extension Program)

Lance Morgan (University of California, Davis and Bodega Laboratory)

Wayne Palsson (Washington Department of Fisheries)

Richard Parrish (NMFS, Pacific Fisheries Environmental Laboratory)

Steve Ralston (NMFS, Tiburon Laboratory)

Paul Reilly (California Department of Fish and Game)

Josh Sladek Nowlis (NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center)

Rick Starr (UC Sea Grant Marine Extension Program)

The design working group recommended three different scenarios in which marine harvest

refugia could be developed for rockfish populations, based largely on the goals and objectives for

establishing the refugia. The three scenarios range from small no-take areas used for research and

to protect key habitats and species to large harvest refugia used to enhance fisheries. Each

scenario includes different design characteristics and subsequent levels of protection. It is

important to understand that the three distinct scenarios provide greatly different benefits, and

that a system of marine refugia could include all three levels of resource protection.
144 Marine Harvest Refugia

Scenario I. Harvest Refugia as an Alternative Strategy For Sustainable Fishery

Management

Goal

In this scenario, marine harvest refugia collectively comprise an area that is sufficient to

sustain fisheries in adjacent fished areas. Refugia at this level of protection are designed from an

ecosystem approach, whereby specific requirements for targeted species are considered along

with more general objectives.

Objectives

1. Protect and maintain spawning biomass

2. Select for larval dispersal over adult spillover

3. Establish and maintain natural size and age structure of a population

4. Preserve essential fish habitats and increase habitat diversity

5. Enhance and protect biological diversity (i.e. species, community and genetic diversity)

6. Provide control communities, that is "pristine" communities that can be used as

benchmarks for comparison with unprotected areas to estimate the effects of exploitation

Design Considerations

Size. Refugia are established on the largest scale, protecting from 20 to 50% of (1) the total area

of habitat for multi-species, or (2) the spawning potential for targeted species. Size of individual

refugia should be based on the extent of rockfish movements and on the pristine size structure of

the population.

Number. The number of refugia will be based on the size of individual refugia and on the

collective or total area of protection.

Shape. The shape of each refuge is region-specific, encompassing an onshore-offshore swath for

increased protection of both shallow and deepwater rockfishes and of the whole ecosystem.

Additionally, a contiguous swath of protected area, rather than patches, offers logistical

advantages in terms of effective enforcement.

Location. Refugia would be established within a minimum of three bioregions along the west

coast, considering the following criteria:

1. Sites should be located with consideration to ocean current regimes (i.e. as a bet-hedging

tactic, select multiple sites in regions of both high and low upwelling).

2. Sites should include both heavily and less exploited populations. Heavily exploited

populations are more likely to exhibit a greater, although lagged, response to protection.

Areas of heavy exploitation most likely indicate sites of historically large populations.
For West coast Rockfish: A Workshop 145

Less exploited populations may provide immediate response to protection by maintaining

existing spawning biomass.

3. Sites should meet habitat diversity and depth requirements for multi-species assemblages.

4. Sites should have sufficient resources to support spawning biomass.

5. Sites should be distributed in a network that guarantees replenishment of one another and

increases the likelihood of sustainability.

Restrictions. These refugia would prohibit directed fisheries for rockfish species of concern.

They also would prohibit those gear types that adversely affect these species and that adversely

disturb or destroy essential habitats. One consequence of such restrictions would be to allow

exploitation of non-demersal transient species (e.g. salmon, tuna). Within this scenario, there may be a

range of restrictions in different areas, including a core zone that would prohibit all fishing.

Primary Information Needs For Effective Design

1. Current regimes

2. Spatial structure of populations

3. Demographics of exploited and unexploited populations, especially size and age structure

4. Regional-scale habitat maps

5. Habitat associations, depths, movements

6. Stock assessments for targeted species

7. Distribution of fishing effort

Research Goals

1. Explore methods to quantitatively or qualitatively describe larval dispersal

2. Describe mechanisms that influence larval dispersal and recruitment

3. Conduct adaptive management, using the information gleaned from established refugia (e.g.

the effects of various design criteria) to improve the design and management of existing and

future refugia

Scenario II. Harvest Refugia as a Buffer or Insurance Against Overfishing

Goal

In this scenario, marine harvest refugia supplement fishery management practices, thereby

providing a buffer against fishery collapse caused by environmental change, failed fishery

management plans, or unexpected natural or anthropogenic events. Refugia created under this

scenario also serve as a benchmark for management trials or experiments.
146 Marine Harvest Refugia

Objectives

1. Provide a buffer against uncertainty associated with environmental change and deficiencies

in fishery management strategies

2. Preserve essential fish habitats and increase habitat diversity

3. Enhance and protect biological diversity (i.e., species, community and genetic diversity)

4. Provide control communities, that is "pristine" communities that can be used as

benchmarks for comparison with unprotected areas to estimate the effects of exploitation

Design Considerations

Size. Refugia are established on an intermediate scale, protecting from 5 to 20% of a species'

essential habitat. The smallest possible size (e. g. 5%) should encompass the typical movements

of individuals of a targeted species.

Number. The number of refugia will be based on the size of individual refugia and on the

collective or total area of protection. A suggested minimum number of refugia would be one per

upwelling region.

Shape. The shape of each refuge is region-specific, encompassing an onshore-offshore wedge for

increased protection of the whole ecosystem and to accommodate the larger home ranges of

deeper dwelling species. Additionally, a contiguous swath of protected area, rather than patches,

offers logistical advantages in terms of effective enforcement. The exact shape of the swath

would be dependent on the distribution of species and habitats to be protected, and be designed

to maximize the diversity of species and habitats.

Location. The refugia need to encompass the essential fish habitats of the species and/or species

complex. The criteria listed for large scale refugia need even more emphasis and consideration

here. Refugia in this scenario would be established within a minimum of three bioregions along

the west coast, and placed in upwelling cells with careful consideration of the following criteria:

1. Sites should be located with consideration to ocean current regimes (i.e. areas of high and

low upwelling as a bet-hedging tactic).

2. Sites should include both heavily and less exploited populations. Heavily exploited

populations are more likely to exhibit a greater, although lagged, response to protection.

Areas of heavy exploitation most likely indicate sites of historically large populations.

Less exploited populations may provide immediate response to protection by maintaining

existing spawning biomass.

3. Sites should meet habitat diversity and depth requirements for multi-species assemblages.

4. Sites should have sufficient resources to support spawning biomass.

5. Sites should be distributed in a network that guarantees replenishment of one another and

increases the likelihood of sustainability.
For West coast Rockfish: A Workshop 147

Restrictions. These refugia would prohibit directed fisheries for rockfish species of concern.

They also would prohibit those gear types that adversely affect these species and that adversely

disturb or destroy essential habitats. One consequence of such restrictions would be to allow

exploitation of non-demersal transient species (e.g. salmon, tuna).

Primary Information Needs For Effective Design

1. Demographics of exploited and unexploited populations, especially size and age structure

2. Regional-scale habitat maps

3. Habitat associations, depths, movements

4. Stock assessments for targeted species

5. Distribution of fishing effort

6. Current regimes

Note: Although comprehensive information for the above listed items generally is unavailable,

effective refugia implementation can occur using existing data.

Research Goals

1. Evaluate response of populations to protection (BACI [Before After Control Impact]

monitoring designs)

2. Explore response of stock in terms of 1) spawning potential, 2) change in size and age

distribution, 3) yield and catch per unit effort at different spatial scales

3. Experiment with management strategies on exploited population

4. Monitor the response of the fishery to harvest refugia

5. Improve the design and management of existing and future refugia using the information

gleaned from established refugia

Scenario III. Harvest Refugia as Heritage Sites And Areas For Fisheries Research

Goal

In this scenario, marine harvest refugia protect representative essential fish habitats and key

associated species. Refugia at this smallest level of protection are not intended as an alternative

or supplement to traditional fisheries management. These areas may be quite small, but focus

critical protection on ecologically valuable areas and highly sedentary species. Refugia created

under this scenario also may serve as important control sites for research.

Objectives

1. Preserve essential fish habitats and increase habitat diversity

2. Enhance and protect biological diversity (i.e. species, community and genetic diversity)

3. Provide control communities, that is "pristine" communities that can be used as

benchmarks for comparison with unprotected areas to estimate the effects of exploitation
148 Marine Harvest Refugia

Design Considerations

Size. Refugia are established on the smallest acceptable scale, protecting less than 5% of the

population.

Number. The number of refugia will be based on the size of individual refugia, the collective or

total area of protection, and on the distribution of essential fish habitats.

Shape. The shape of each refuge is region-specific. Shape is a function of the distribution of

key habitats and species, and of the need for habitat and ecosystem protection. Where possible,

an onshore-offshore wedge should be considered to protect all portions of the local ecosystem.

This shape also has logistical advantages, in terms of effective enforcement, as compared to

patches of protection.

Location. Refugia would be established by bioregion, considering the following criteria:

1. Large enough to incorporate home ranges of species and to minimize edge effects

2. Include representative essential fish habitats (not just unique habitats) of both exploited

and unexploited populations

3. Areas that maximize habitat diversity

4. Provide coupling with natural refugia to increase overall protection

5. Complementary to and integrated with protected areas under other management

jurisdictions

6. Located in deep water near existing nearshore refugia

7. Contiguous across depths allowing onshore-offshore movement

Restrictions. These refugia are no-take areas, allowing fisheries research by permit.

Primary Information Needs For Effective Design

1. Regional-scale habitat maps identifying essential fish habitats

2. Detailed fish habitat maps and descriptions of proposed refugia

3. Descriptions of fish-habitat associations, depth distributions, movements of key species

4. Identify levels of exploitation in and around selected areas of protection

Note: Although available information is sufficient to proceed with establishment of harvest refugia

at this level of protection, a thorough review and identification of information gaps is needed.

Research Goals

1. Evaluate the response of the communities to protection (BACI monitoring designs)

2. Quantify fish home ranges and movements

3. Conduct experiments to separate fisheries effects from environmental variables

4. Compare health (e.g. quality and quantity) of fish habitats inside and outside refuge
For West coast Rockfish: A Workshop 149

Working Group III: Socio-economic Considerations and Implementation

In considering the principles for the conservation of wild living resources, Mangel et al. (1996)1

summarized that “Resources have scientific, ecological, aesthetic, and functional values that are not

expressed in the market place. Adequately identifying and effectively measuring all relevant

consumptive and non-consumptive values of varying stakeholders is a non-trivial and complex

matter, but it must be undertaken.” In evaluating harvest refugia for rockfishes, the following social

and economic topics and questions might be considered:

1. Do we currently have sufficient understanding of the social and economic considerations

associated with implementing harvest refugia for management purposes?

2. Who are the stakeholders involved in managing these resources?

1. What do they require?

2. What are their motivations?

3. What are their expectations?

3. Can we establish valuation of our rockfish resources from the ecological as well as economic

perspective?

4. What are the risks involved in establishing harvest refugia?

5. What would be the most effective approach to implementing refugia?

Participants:

Caroline Pomeroy, Chair (University of California, Santa Cruz)

Greg Cailliet, Rapporteur (Moss Landing Marine Laboratories)

Peter Auster (NOAA National Undersea Research Program)

Jim Bohnsack (NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center)

George Darcy (NMFS, Office of Sustainable Fisheries)

Bruce Leaman (International Pacific Halibut Commission)

Milton Love (University of California, Santa Barbara)

Jan Mason (NMFS, Pacific Fisheries Environmental Laboratory)

Rachel Saunders (Center for Marine Conservation)

Wes Silverthorne (NMFS, Southwest Region)

Daniel Suman (University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science)

Ed Ueber (Gulf Farallones National Marine Sanctuary)

1 Mangel, M., L.M. Talbot, G.K. Meffe, M.T. Agardy, D.L. Alverson, J. Barlow, D.B. Botkin, G. Budowski,

T. Clark, J. Cooke, R.H. Crozier, P.K. Dayton, D.L. Elder, C.W. Fowler, S.Funtowicz, J. Giske, R.J. Hofman,

S.J. Holt, S.R. Kellert, L.A. Kimball, D. Ludwig, K. Magnusson, B.S. Malayang III, C. Mann,E.A. Norse, S.P.

Northridge, W.F. Perrin, C.Perrings, R.M. Peterman, G.B. Rabb, H.A. Regier, J.E. Reynolds III, K. Sherman,

M.P. Sissenwine, T.D. Smith, A. Starfield, R.J. Taylor, M.F. Tillman, C. Toft, J.R. Twiss, Jr., J. Wilen, and

T.P Young. Principles for the Conservation of Wild Living Resources. Ecol. Appl. 6(2): 338-362.
150 Marine Harvest Refugia

The establishment of harvest refugia for rockfish (i.e., no-take areas; HRR) necessitates three

broad sets of policy decisions: 1) those concerning whether or not to establish them, 2) those

assessing sizes and locations of refugia to be established and 3) those addressing the management

of refugia, once they are established (see Tisdell, C. and J. M. Broadus. 1989. Policy issues

related to the establishment and management of marine reserves. Coastal Management 17:37-53).

These decisions are not only about resource management per se. They also are about the

management of people, and therefore require consideration of the social, cultural, economic and

political environment in which these decisions are made. In particular, it is important to

understand the range of individuals and groups who value these resources, the nature and extent

of those values, in what way the establishment of harvest refugia likely will affect these people,

and how they might respond. Differences in values, perceptions, and beliefs among groups are

likely to lead to fundamentally different responses to the establishment of harvest refugia. By

understanding these differences, proponents of refugia can: 1) capitalize on the support and

initiative of a group; 2) provide appropriate and more effective communication about the concept

of no-take areas; and 3) predict and mitigate opposition to refugia. The direct involvement of

these diverse stakeholders throughout the process can bode even better for the outcome of a

refugia effort because this provides for ongoing feedback that can contribute to appropriate

design and implementation, and invests these groups in the process and the outcome.

Among the questions that should be asked when exploring the social and economic aspects

of marine refugia are: 1) What individuals and groups have interest in, or would be affected by,

harvest refugia for rockfish; 2) What are the social and economic characteristics of these groups;

3) What are their values, perceptions, beliefs and attitudes regarding rockfish, marine resources,

and refugia; 4) What is the nature and extent of their 'use' of the resources; 5) What are the costs

and benefits of HRR, in psychological, social and economic terms, to these individuals and

groups, as well as to society as a whole; and 6) How do these costs and benefits change, given

different harvest refugia alternatives versus the status quo? Answers to these questions can, and

should, inform decision-making at all stages -- from conceptualization through evaluation -- in the

establishment of rockfish harvest refugia.

Our working group began by asking a general question: Is enough known about rockfish life

history and the status of and vulnerability to their fisheries to establish HRRs? The conclusion

was that yes, we have sufficient understanding to proceed, and that refugia exemplify a

precautionary approach to resource management. However, there was some disagreement as to

how refugia should be conceived -- as an experiment in resource management or as a mechanism

for protecting and enhancing rockfish resources? Because the efficacy of harvest refugia for

rockfish has yet to be ascertained, we concluded that an experimental approach should be taken,

rather than proposing refugia as a panacea for declining resources or as a substitute for traditional

resource management. Participants cited a lack of marine wilderness areas, which are analogous

to terrestrial wilderness areas as established by the Wilderness Act of 1964, through which

rockfish might be protected more effectively. Such areas, proposed as experiments in resource
For West coast Rockfish: A Workshop 151

management, would provide a reference point to better understand: 1) natural processes in

undisturbed systems; and 2) fishery management measures in other areas. The group concluded

that it is important ecologically to enhance population health (e.g. genetic, habitat and species

diversity) and that refugia can have positive socio-economic benefits for diverse groups of

people.

A more focused discussion of socio-economic considerations and implementation of HRR

included generating support for refugia, gaining a better understanding of risks associated with

their establishment and evaluation, and obtaining compliance with and enforcing them.

There was general agreement that if HRR are to be used, the problems they are meant to

address (e.g. growing fishing pressure, declining residential rockfish populations, diminishing

productivity) must be recognized and the objectives of the proposed HRR clearly defined.

Participants differed in their views on the appropriate mechanism and process for establishing

HRR. Some said ‘just do it,’ echoing Ballantine’s approach to establishing marine refugia in New

Zealand. Others argued for proceeding with caution, citing social, economic and political

complexities that, if not recognized and addressed, would lead to failure with efforts to establish

and realize the potential benefits of an HRR network.

The ensuing discussion addressed a number of these issues in pursuing an HRR strategy.

First, there is a diversity of stakeholders, variously identified as consumptive and nonconsumptive users, non-users (i.e. those who value the resource for its existence), and more

specifically as commercial and recreational fishermen, scientists, resource managers, and

individuals and groups from among the local, regional and national public. Each of these groups

has particular values, perceptions and beliefs about the existence and nature of the problem, its

importance, whether and how it can be solved, and what might be expected of HRR. Some of the

socio-economic considerations that are likely to influence their views on both the problem of

conserving rockfish populations and HRR as a solution include: ethnic and cultural views of

natural resources in general and fishes in particular, socio-economic status, physical proximity to

the resource, and economic dependence on it. It is important to understand the diversity and

complexity of stakeholders because their support for (or opposition to) HRR will be a function

of these characteristics.

It was agreed that stakeholders clearly need to be involved in identifying the reasons for

establishing HRR, and in conceptualizing, designing, implementing and evaluating them. Opinion

of the working group diverged as to which stakeholders should be involved, when, and how.

Discussion of examples of successes and failures in the establishment of marine protected areas

along the California coast recognized the many options and arenas for pursuing HRR. Among

these options and arenas are federal legislation and the fishery management councils, state

legislation and resource management commission action, and citizen (grassroots) action initiatives.
152 Marine Harvest Refugia

Our group also considered the risks associated with establishing rockfish refugia. There was

concern about overselling the refugia concept, thereby creating inappropriate and unreasonable

expectations that could lead to erosion of the credibility of the refugia concept and of its

proponents. Given the long life cycle of most rockfish species, the results of refugia might not be

reasonably evaluated for several years following HRR establishment. At present, the public is

likely to expect clear results in the short term. This discrepancy between ecological and socioeconomic time horizons could lead to withdrawal of public support and increased opposition to

HRR. However, this concern could be addressed (partially if not completely) through concerted

efforts to understand and work with the perspectives and expectations of diverse stakeholders.

Another concern was that the evaluation of refugia could render inconclusive results. Such an

outcome could be due to the actual inefficacy of refugia, or to mitigating circumstances (e.g.

unforeseen design flaws, illegal fishing within the closed area, and disturbances from either natural

or anthropogenic impacts within the HRR).

The socio-economic considerations related to locating HRR prompted a discussion on design

(e.g. distribution and size of HRR, as well as location). Recent experience with the establishment

of four marine ecological reserves pursuant to California’s Marine Resources Protection Act of

1990 was cited as a cautionary tale. All four reserves, which were established to provide for

scientific research on the management and enhancement of marine resources, are very small,

averaging 2 mi2. Two of the reserves comprise inappropriate benthic habitats that provide no

benefit to rockfishes, and two are in relatively remote areas where they are less likely to have a

noticeable impact than if they were located in more accessible and used areas. In terms of spatial

distribution, it was suggested that rockfish harvest refugia be established in multiple areas along

the coast. Broad distribution would more likely cover a range of rockfish species and habitats,

and would more equitably distribute the costs and benefits among coastal communities. This

could help make refugia more appealing to, and supportable by, diverse stakeholders.

Some argued that the process of establishing a network of HRR, including conceptualization,

design, implementation and evaluation, should begin as soon as possible, using a plan that can be

phased in and expanded over several years. As part of this process, it is critical that the refugia,

individually and as a network, be evaluated periodically to determine their effectiveness relative

to the objectives articulated clearly from the start.

When discussing compliance with and enforcement of HRR, it was noted that a large

proportion of stakeholders would likely comply with rules associated with harvest refugia, and

would exert social pressure on others to do the same. Public education about harvest refugia

should reinforce compliance and help lessen the need for enforcement. Nonetheless, enforcement

will still be necessary and should be considered in the design and implementation process.

Planning should carefully consider the range of needs and concerns, resources available, and

opportunities for cooperation among local, state, and federal entities in promoting compliance

and carrying out enforcement. In connection with this, it was noted that enforcement also

pertains to the active involvement of relevant agencies; agency inaction can jeopardize the
For West coast Rockfish: A Workshop 153

effectiveness of harvest refugia. Thus, in addition to insuring compliance and facilitating

enforcement vis a vis citizens (the public), an HRR strategy must include mechanisms for

insuring agency involvement.

Finally, the group also agreed there should be a network among all those involved in the

HRR process that considers inter-state and international issues of rockfish resource management

and protection through traditional resource management (e.g. gear restrictions, catch limits) as

well as refugia. A primary concern was the need to coordinate the development of rockfish

harvest refugia efforts among all interested groups to avert conflict with other initiatives (and

thus potential loss of resources or support for HRR) and, more positively, to leverage resources

to more effectively pursue and achieve the goals related to the establishment of harvest refugia for

rockfishes.

Typical jig boat with 3000 lb of rockfish caught off the central California

coast in 1938. Photograph from J. B. Phillips (1939)1.

Preparing set lines coiled in baskets for early morning fishing for rockfish off

the central California coast in 1938. Photograph from J.B. Phillips (1939)1.

1

Phillips, J.B. 1939. The rockfish of the Monterey wholesale fish markets. CDFG Bull. 25: 214-225.
154 Marine Harvest Refugia

Consolidated Recommendations of the Working Groups

The recommendations and conclusions of the three working groups are synthesized as follows:

Need for Rockfish Refugia. There was general consensus that marine harvest refugia exemplify a

precautionary approach to the management and conservation of rockfish resources on the west

coast. It was recognized that, while there are limits to our scientific knowledge of rockfish ecology,

we have sufficient understanding of the problems associated with their management and conservation

to proceed with the process of implementing refugia. The goals and objectives of establishing

harvest refugia and the problems being addressed by this process must be clearly defined at the onset

of planning. The expected level of success and how it will be evaluated should be established prior to

refugia implementation.

Key Problems in Managing Rockfish Populations and Associated Expectations of Refugia.

Marine harvest refugia are one of the few constructive ways to address protection and conservation

of essential fish habitat, and offer the opportunity for habitat to recover from disturbances including

impacts from fishing gear. Secondly, there are currently no effective management practices to deal

with infrequent recruitment and its interdecadal variability, which are exhibited by rockfishes.

Refugia hold promise in addressing this problem by allowing researchers to separate environmental

variables from fishery effects. Further, current rockfish assemblage management can result in serial

overfishing and overfishing on the weakest stocks. Refugia will allow us to incorporate ecosystem

principles into fisheries assemblage management. Refugia also provide the needed baseline data for

more accurate stock assessments.

Design Considerations For Rockfish Refugia. Three different scenarios for developing

rockfish harvest refugia were recommended, based on the goals and objectives for establishing the

refugia. These scenarios range from small no-take heritage sites used for research and to protect key

habitats and species to large harvest refugia used for sustainable fisheries management. Each scenario

includes different design characteristics and subsequent levels of protection. These distinct scenarios

provide greatly different benefits. A coastwide network of marine refugia could include all three

levels of resource protection.

Considerations of Stakeholders. It was agreed that stakeholders need to be identified early in the

process of implementing rockfish refugia. Stakeholders clearly need to be involved in identifying the

reasons for establishing the refugia, and in conceptualizing, designing, implementing and evaluating

them. A network among all those involved in the refugia process should consider interstate and

international issues of rockfish resource management.

Compliance and Enforcement. Public education should reinforce compliance and lessen the need

for enforcement, but enforcement will be necessary and should be considered in the design and

implementation process. Assignment of property rights, which would encourage fishermen to take a

personal interest in the protection of the refuge, would foster compliance. Vessel-tracking-systems,

an attractive aid to enforcement, need to be considered. Planning should carefully consider the range

of needs and concerns, resources available, and opportunities for cooperation among local, state, and

federal entities in promoting compliance and carrying out enforcement.
For West coast Rockfish: A Workshop 155

Suggested Research

A synopsis of research needs and direction, as suggested by the working groups,

includes:

1. Quantify economic and social costs and benefits of implementing harvest refugia.

2. Develop criteria for candidate species and sites of harvest refugia.

3. Develop criteria for evaluation and monitoring of harvest refugia (performance vs

expectations).

4. Quantify fish movements and home ranges, to be applied to design of harvest refugia.

5. Describe larval dispersal and ocean transport as related to design of harvest refugia.

6. Develop means to protect harvest refugia from anthropogenic impacts, including illegal

fishing.

7. Evaluate effects of harvest refugia of varying spatial scales on fishery yields and effort

(empirical and theoretical).

8. Assess recovery of fish habitats inside vs outside of harvest refugia.

9. Conduct adaptive management experiments to improve design of harvest refugia.

10. Assess tactical use of harvest refugia for managing local bycatch and discard problems.
156 Marine Harvest Refugia
For West coast Rockfish: A Workshop 157

Rockfish Refugia

Ed Ueber

Gulf of the Farallones

National Marine Sanctuary

We met together

So we could say

It is a good

To let rockfish play

Where they can be safe to roam

And not have someone destroy their home;

Where gun or net or hook or club

Would not cut short some rockfish’s love.

Then some day - a long time from now -

The future will have rockfish named cow.

Striped and China and Vermillion will be free

To allow our children rockfish to sea.

Rosy rockfish (Sebastes rosaceus) viewed from Delta submersible at 100 m off

Point Sur off the central California coast. Photo by M. Yoklavich.
158 Marine Harvest Refugia

Appendix 1

Workshop Participants

Peter Auster

NOAA-NURP

U Connecticut/Avery Pt.

1084 Shennecossett Rd.

Groton, CT 06340

auster@uconnvm.uconn.edu

George Boehlert

NOAA-NMFS-SWFSC

Pacific Fisheries Environmental Lab

1352 Lighthouse Avenue

Pacific Grove, CA 93950-2097

gboehlert@pfeg.noaa.gov

Jim Bohnsack

NOAA-NMFS-SEFSC

75 Virginia Beach Drive

Miami, FL 33149-1003

Jim.Bohnsack@noaa.gov

Greg Cailliet

Moss Landing Marine Labs

PO Box 450

Moss Landing, CA 95039

cailliet@mlml.calstate.edu

Mark Carr

Department of Biology

Earth and Marine Sciences Bldg

University of California

Santa Cruz, CA 95064

carr@biology.ucsc.edu

George Darcy

NOAA-NMFS-HQ

1315 East West Hwy

Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226

George.Darcy@noaa.gov

Don Gunderson

University Of Washington

Fisheries Research Institute

Seattle, WA 98195

dgun@fish.washington.edu

Tom Hourigan

NOAA-NMFS

Office Of Protected Species

1315 E W Highway, 13th Floor

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Tom.Hourigan@noaa.gov

Dan Ito

NOAA-NMFS-AFSC

7600 Sandpoint Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

dan.ito@noaa.gov

Bob Lea

CA Dep. Fish & Game

20 Lower Ragdale Dr. #100

Monterey, CA 93940

75357.376@compuserve.com

Bruce Leaman

International Pacific Halibut Comm

P.O. Box 95009

Seattle, WA 98145

bruce@iphc.washington.edu

Milton Love

UCSB

Marine Science Institute

Santa Barbara, CA 93106

love@lifesci.ucsb.edu

Alec MacCall

NOAA-NMFS-SWFSC

Tiburon Laboratory

3150 Paradise Drive

Tiburon, CA 94920-1211

Alec.Maccall@noaa.gov

Dave Mackett

NOAA-NMFS-SWFSC

P.O. Box 271

La Jolla, CA 92038-0271

David.Mackett@noaa.gov

Marc Mangel

UCSC

Dep. Environmental Studies and

Institute of Marine Sciences

Santa Cruz, CA 95064

msmangel@cats.ucsc.edu

Jan Mason

NOAA-NMFS-SWFSC

Pacific Fisheries Env. Lab

1352 Lighthouse Ave.

Pacific Grove, CA 93950-2097

jmason@pfeg.noaa.gov

Deborah McArdle

UC Sea Grant

105 E Anapamu St, Room 5

Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2000

damcardle@ucdavis.edu

Rod McInnis

NOAA-NMFS

SW Region

501 West Ocean Blvd, Suite 4200

Long Beach, CA 90802-4213

 Rod.Mcinnis@noaa.gov

Lance Morgan

Bodega Marine Laboratory

UC Davis

P.O. Box 247

Bodega Bay, CA 94923

morgan@megalopa.ucdavis.edu

Tory O'Connell

Alaska Dep. Fish & Game

304 Lake St, Room 103

Sitka, AK 99835

toryo@fishgame.state.ak.us

 Wayne Palsson

WA Dep Fish & Wdlf

16018 Mill Creek Blvd

Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296

palsswap@dfw.wa.gov
For West coast Rockfish: A Workshop 159

Richard Parrish

NOAA-NMFS-SWFSC

Pacific Fisheries Environmental Lab

1352 Lighthouse Ave.

Pacific Grove, CA 93950-2097

rparrish@pfeg.noaa.gov

Carrie Pomeroy

UCSC

Institute Marine Science

1156 High St

Santa Cruz, CA 95064

cpomeroy@cats.ucsc.edu

Eugene Proulx

NOAA-NMFS

SE Office of Enforcement

9721 Executive Center Dr., N.

St. Petersburg, FL 33702

Gene.Proulx@noaa.gov

Steve Ralston

NOAA-NMFS-SWFSC

Tiburon Laboratory

3150 Paradise Drive

Tiburon, CA 94920-1211

Steve.Ralston@noaa.gov

Paul Reilly

CA Dep. Fish & Game

20 Lower Ragsdale Dr #100

Monterey, CA 93940

103727.3150@compuserve.com

Rachel Saunders

Center For Marine Conservation

801 Lighthouse Ave, Suite #108

Monterey, CA 93940

rsaunders%pg@cenmarine.com

 Wes Silverthorne

NOAA-NMFS

SW Region

501 West Ocean Blvd, Suite 4200

Long Beach, CA 90802-4213

Wes.Silverthorne@noaa.gov

Larry Six

Pac. Fish. Mngmt. Council

2130 SW Fifth Ave.

Portland, OR 97201

Larry.Six@noaa.gov

Josh Sladek Nowlis

NMFS-NEFSC

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543

josh@cenmarine.com

SungKwon Soh

University of Washington

6155 N.E. Radford Drive

Seattle, WA 98115

sksoh@refm2.afsc.noaa.gov

Rick Starr

UC Sea Grant

PO Box 440

Moss Landing, CA 95039

starr@mlml.calstate.edu

Daniel Suman

U Miami/RSMAS

Marine Affairs & Policy

4600 Rickenbacker Cswy

Miami, FL 33149

dsuman@rsmas.miami.edu

Jim Thomas

NOAA-NMFS

1315 East West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

james.thomas@noaa.gov

Cindy Thomson

NOAA-NMFS-SWFSC

UCSC Institute Of Marine Sciences

EMS Building A-316

Santa Cruz, CA 95064

cthomson@cats.ucsc.edu

Ed Ueber

NOAA Gulf Of Farallones

National Marine Sanctuary

Fort Mason Building #201

San Francisco, CA 94123

eueber@ocean.nos.noaa.gov

Mary Yoklavich

NOAA-NMFS-SWFSC

Pacific Fisheries Environmental Lab

1352 Lighthouse Ave.

Pacific Grove, CA 93950-2097

myoklavich@pfeg.noaa.gov

Lisa Ziobro

Monterey Bay Nat’l Marine Sanctuary

299 Foam Street

Monterey, CA 93940

lziobro@lobos.mbnms.nos.noaa.gov