FEDERAL MANAGEMENT________________________

The Magnuson Stevens Fishery Consertation and Management Act, what is it?

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) 16 U.S.C. section 1801 et seq., is the cornerstone legislation of fisheries management in US jurisdictional waters. A federal law enacted in 1976, its purpose was to stop overfishing by foreign fleets and aid in the development of the domestic fishing industry. The Magnuson Act gave the United States sole management authority over all living resources within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone of our shores. The Act created eight regional councils whose job is to act as a regional management body in controlling the harvest of fish within their region. Our regional council is the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC/Council). The councils also are mandated to prepare, monitor and revise fishery management plans for fisheries requiring conservation and management. According to the Act the councils are to answer directly to the Secretary of Commerce whose job it is to review, approve and sometimes prepare fishery management plans. However in reality this management is largely delegated to the Undersecretary of Commerce / Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and various levels of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The PFMC is composed of representatives appointed by the governors of the states of California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho as well as the directors of the Pacific State Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). The northwest and southwest regional administrators for NMFS have seats on the PFMC, as does a representative of the Coast Guard, the Department of State, West Coast Indian tribes, and both commercial and recreational fisheries interests. Non-voting members of the Council include the Deputy Director of PSMFC, the Acting Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the representative of the U.S State Department.

Ultimately it is the Secretary's responsibility to provide for the conservation and management required for proficient stewardship of our fisheries resources. The Act has been amended at least 15 times, with the most recent and extensive amendments taking place in 1996, and referred to as the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). The primary issues addressed were habitat degradation, overfishing, funding, by catch, safety, and sustainability of fishing communities. Many of these issues will be addressed by requiring the councils to develop amendments to their Fishery Management Plans.

The most recent revisions of the MFCMA require:

• That the Secretary of Commerce notify regional councils if a fishery is approaching an overfished condition;
• that a rebuilding program must be implemented within one year for any fishery which is already overfished;
• that each fishery management plan include an identification of essential habitat and minimize adverse impacts of fishing on such habitat;
• an elevation to the secretarial level of the notification and response required when state or federal actions may affect essential fish habitat of a fishery; and
• that measures, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize the amount of by catch.

The FMP is a document (available from the PFMC) that includes biological information on stocks and describes the fishery for those species included in the plan. Under the framework of the plan, the Council may identify problems in a fishery and propose management measures to be implemented through NMFS regulations. These plans must comply with the list of National Standards in the Magnuson Act. The latest mendments to his Act exhibit a strong conservation ethic toward fisheries management. These amendments have yet to be fully implemented through regional councils and NMFS actions. The Councils have until October 1998 to amend their FMPs and remain in compliance with the SFA. The Act will be eligible for reauthorization in 1999. Get involved in this process by making public testimony Co the Council, writing your local congressperson, senator, or representative, and participating in
PMCC's rockfish campaign. This Act needs to remain strong if the fisheries on the West Coast are to remain strong.

How Are Rockfish Organized for Management?

The National Standard Guidelines discuss management for "fisheries" not "stocks." However, we have no means with which to measure overfishing for "fisheries." We currently have only the methodology to measure overfishing on a stock by stock basis.

The PFMC breaks the species of rockfishes under its management into several different groups. The two primary groups are: 1.) the Sebastes complex, and 2.) Other (meaning rockfish species "other" than the Sebastes complex). These groups do not include Pacific ocean perch, widow rockfish, shortbelly rockfish, short and longspine thornyheads, and most recently, chilipepper rockfish and rosefish (also a rockfish), which are managed separately. The Council also breaks the West Coast into two major areas for management: northern, Vancouver-Columbia, and southern, Eureka-Monterey-Conception (see map). See Table 8, containing the 1998 ABC levels, as an example of how the management for rockfish is broken up into its respective components. The 1998 Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) levels were set in 1996 based on the latest Sebastes assessment.

Since 1983, ABCs for the combined remaining rockfish have been estimated for each International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC) area along the coast based on historical landings because there is little or no stock assessment information for these species. However, the 1996 Sebastes assessment provided the basis for setting separate ABC's for eight of the remaining rockfish species in the North and seven in the South.

Remaining rockfish in the northern area includes: All rockfish species except widow, yellowtail, canary, POP, and shortbelly rockfishes, as well as the thornyhead species.

Remaining rockfish in the Southern area includes: All rockfish species except widow, yellowtail, canary, shortbelly, bocaccio, and chilipepper. Short and longspine thornyheads are also excluded. Canary and yellowtail are included in the remaining
rockfish only in the Conception and Monterey INPFC areas. The Eureka INPFC area ABC for canary rockfish is not based on a quantitative assessment.

Harvest guidelines have not been set separately for the remaining rockfishes, but rather for a management unit termed the Sebastes complex which is defined as all the rockfishes except chilipepper, splitnose, widowr POP, and shortbelly. Harvest
guidelines set for individual species within the Sebastes complex (such as yellowtail rockfish in the north) may be taken instead from the remaining rockfish category. Separate harvest guidelines (HG's) for the northern and southern area Sebastes complex have been derived based on the sum of the HG's for ABC's if HG's have not been set) for all the other species.

Four of the remaining rockfishes, black, darkblotched, bank, and splitnose, had preliminary quantitative assessments, but the data were limited and the assessments did not result in adopted ABC levels. In 1996 however, a Sebastes stock assessment resulted in the adaptation of ABC levels for darkblotched, bank, and splitnose rockfishes, as well as other new area/species combinations. The Council has chosen to continue to manage these species under the grouping of "Sebastes complex" and not assign them individual HG's or trip limits. This has resulted in the overexploitation of several of these species, in the case of darkblotched rockfish landings exceeded the southern ABC by eight times the suggested amount (see Figures 29 to 34).

How Do We Know Whether or Not a Species is Overfished?

Currently under the NSGs, Councils are required to develop two thresholds for each stock or stock complex under their management: 1.) a maximum fishing mortality threshold, and 2.) a minimum stock size threshold. Exceeding the maximum fishing mortality rate for a period of one year constitutes overfishing, and a stock below its minimum stock size threshold is "overfished". Overfishing occurs when a stock is subjected to a fishing mortality rate that jeopardizes its capacity to produce MSY on a continuing basis. For a mixed stock fishery, under which the overwhelming majority of rockfish species are managed, exceptions to the prevention of overfishing apply. These exceptions condone overfishing if harvesting one species within the mixed stock or assemblage at its optimum level results in the overfishing of another stock component in the complex.

So what are some of the current thrshold for rockfish?

Rockfish are managed on the basis of the stocks ability to produce a maximum sustainable yield (MSY). MSY is an estimate of the largest average annual catch or yield that can be taken over a significant period of time from each stock under prevailing ecological and environmental conditions.

Currently, the spawning biomass that would be expected to produce MSY on a continuing basis (BMSY) for rockfish, is estimated to be about 40 percent of what the spawning biomass would be if there were no fishing pressure. A fishing mortality rate (F) of F40%, is the amount of fishing pressure that will reduce the level of spawning per recruit to 40 percent of what would be expected in the absence of fishing. The F40% level resulted from ie-evaluation of an analysis done in 1991, which resulted in the idea that an F35% was most appropriate for rockfish, but it too, is currently being challenged. Many feel this level of fishing exploitaticn (F40% ) is still too aggressive for rockfish. Life history characteristics of Sebastes, such as their viviparity, late maturation, longevity, as well as current oceanographic conditions, may require a less aggressive fishing mortality rate such as F50% or F60% (A. MacCall NMFS SWFSC pers. comm.). Continued exploitation at the F40% level may result in continued declines for certain species. The Council will be addressing the issue of setting an MSY (Maximum Sustainable Yield) proxy, possibly at F40% if this is deemed the most appropriate level, in 1999.

How are stocks analyzed to decide whether or not they are overfished?

Stocks of rockfish are subjected to an assessment. Currently, of the 66 species of Sebastes and Sebastolobus on the West Coast, approximately 17 or 25 percent or have been assessed. Without this analysis there are no estimates of current biomass on which to base sound management and no baseline with which to compare future stock size fluetuations. This information is crucial to the development of minimum stock size estimates, which is mandated in the national standard guidelines, section 600.310 (d)(2)(ii). Several of the non-assessed species, such as greenspot, and vermilion rockfish, have been reported by the fishing industry to have decreased noticeably in abundance in the last five years (B. Culver WDFW pers.comm.) Of immediate concern is the fact that approximately 60 percent of rockfish species without stock assessments are being taken in the growing California and/or Oregon livefish fisheries.

The California livefish fishery

Most of the important rockfish species taken in the livefish fishery are residential (adults have a tendency to not move around much), making them very susceptible to localized overfishing (Love et al. 1998a). The livefish fishery is one that to some degree targets juveniles. By having an optimum live fish weight ranging from one to three pounds, an economic]incentive is provided to the fishers to bring in smaller fish. One to three pounds is small relative to the size at maturity for some species and means they are fished before having the opportunity to reproduce. Additionally, certain species, such as black, widow, and yelloweye rockfish inhabit the nearshore environment as juveniles prior to recruitment into deeper waters as they mature, where they are then targeted in other fisheries. The issue of possible loss of spawning potential to the stock due to the economic incentive to bring in smaller fish, as well as the impact on other fisheries is extremely disturbing. Because of the accessibility of the nearshore environment we are seeing increased fishing pressure in areas that had previously seen little or none. In California alone the number of participants in the livefish fishery has increased by over 800 percent since 1989 (CDFG commercial landing data, 1997) (Figures 36
and 37).

Reduced limits in other fisheries, such as sablefish and urchins, are also leading to increased pressure on the nearshore assemblage of rockfishes. This trend will not reverse itself unless appropriate management is applied. The alternative we are facing is to have these areas fished out.

The Oregon livefish fishery

The south and central coastal communities of Oregon experienced the emergence of a livefish fishery in 1997. This value-added change to the traditional hook-and-line and bottom longline fisheries allowed fishers to sell their catches at higher prices per pound than in the past. Over 90 thousand pounds of live fishes were landed in five ports: Brookings, Gold Beach, Port Orford, Newport, and Depoe Bay.

Most of the landings in this fishery were from Vessels using traditional bottom longline or hook-and-line gears such as jigs (rod and reel) and vertical longline. However, new hook-and-line gears such as stick gear and jig gear are now commonly used in the Gold Beach area. In addition, a limited amount of landings were from bycatch in commercial crab gear. In Port Orford, the majority of fish landed in the large rockfish market category for live rockfish were china and quillback rockfishes. These comprised 97 percent of the landings by weight. Other species taken included grass, tiger, vermilion, and yelloweye rockfishes.

An additional economic incentive to bring in less abundant species exists. Yelloweye rockfish, for which strong qualitative information exists indicating low abundance, command a higher price command a higher price than do other, more abundant, species of rockfishes.

Problems existing within the current management system

The 1998 National Research Council report on :Improving Fish Stock Assessments" states the following:

"There are fisheries on the West Coast that do not have the basic population data necessary to allow adequate assessment modeling. We believe it is critical that efforts be initiated to develop the databases necessary to manage these fisheries. Rockfish are targeted by both commercial and recreational fisheries off the West Coast. There has been concern, coast-wide, regarding the management of nearshore rockfish. These concerns have been discussed on a regional basis by the Canada-U.S. Groundfish Committee." (National Research Council 1998). This committee listed the following concerns.

1. There is a lack of biological information and abundance for many nearshore rockfish species.
2. There exists a generally poor track record of rockfish management coast-wide.
3. There is notable difficulty in managing nearshore species.
4. The relationship between the longevity of these species and the vulnerability to over-exploitation associated with these species [is a cause for concern] even when some biological parameters are known." (National Research Council 1998).

The status of 83 percent of our rockfish species managed under the PFMC's jurisdiction is virtually unknown (Figure 38). In the 1998 report to Congress on the status of overfished stocks in the United States, out of fifty-four rockfish species listed, five are listed as "approaching overfished condition." Four are listed as "not approaching overfished condition", and the status of the remaining forty-five species (83 percent) is listed as "unknown" (NMFS 1998).

All Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) information for rockfish in the "Essential Fish Habitat West Coast Groundfish Appendix" developed by NFMS is classified as level one. This is the lowest of four possible levels and is described as "Presence/absence distribution available for some or all portions of the geographic range of the species" (NMFS 1998). We need to increase both the quality and quantity of habitat data for West Coast rockfish.

We have very little information on the status of nearshore rockfish stocks. Methodology is already in place in portions of California and could serve as a model that may possibly be applied to other areas of the coast as well. Support in the way of finding and expertise on the federal level would allow this process to move forward. The national standard guidelines, whose main purpose is stated as "to reduce overfishing immediately, rebuild overfished stocks within a set timeframe, prevent by chatch, and reduce mortality of unavoidable bycatch to the maximum exted possible" mandates in several places management requiring data we currently do not have for many species of rockfish, such as current and historical stock sizes.

What species of rockfishes are currently in an overfished condition

Three species of Sebastes, Pacific Ocean perch (POP), canary rockfish, bocaccio, are currently listed as "approaching overfished" in the 1998 NMFS Report to Congress on the status of fisheries in the United States (see Table 9). POP is currently in a rebuilding plan that was initiated in 1981 with the goal of rebuilding depleted stocks to levels which would produce maximum sustainable yield within 20 years. The 1998 stock assessment for FOP estimates that this species remains at low levels, and is presently at about 30 percent of target stock size (Ianelli and Zimmerman 1998). Current analysis (A. MacCall, pers comm. NMFS) of stock status in relation to the F40% fishing mortality rate indicates that this level of fishing pressure may not be sustainable for widow rockfish and chilipepper rockfish as well as for other species. One species of rockfish, bocaccio, was identified as overfished by the PFMC in 1998.

Stock assessments

In very simplistic terms, stock assessments are performed because it is virtually impossible to count the entire population of any species of rockfish, therefore, biomass levels must be estimated. This estimation is accomplished by sampling the population (i.e. taking length measurements, aging, enumerating landings, etc.) and plugging these numbers into a mathematical model that takes into account and "models" the various unknowns of the population (recruitment selectivity, etc.). Basically a stock assessment includes all of the activities done by fishery biologist to describe the condition or status of a stock.

There are two main categories of information necessary for a stock assessment. The first one involves obtaining as much information as possible on the biology of the species and performing fishery independent surveys to monitor their relative abundance. The second is to find out about the fishing activities for the species (catches, gear types, number of fishers, effort etc.). The basic purpose of stock assessments is to estimate the exploitable biomass of the stock in the year of the assessment and to project that forward in time under a particular harvest policy (Ralston 1998).

Rockfishes life history characteristics of slow growth and the age varied composition of the stocks suggests that the stock biomass should not change very rapidly; and this is one reason stock assessments are currently done only every three years (Ralston 1998). This time frame for the assessment of rockfish biomass has come under criticism over the last few years. Some feel assessments need to be done on a yearly basis to avoid the fluctuations in estimates and quotas resulting from a three to four year time lag between assessments, while those performing the assessments point to shortages of time, personnel, and stock data as limiting factors in the equation.

For better-known rockfish species (widow, bocaccio, yellowtail, POP) the Stock Synthesis model (Methot 1990) is primarily used in calculating stock assessments. The`assessments are most often based on taking observed age and length frequency information and looking at the maximum likelihood fit of the model to the data (Ralston). This basically means, how likely is it, given the data available for the stbck being assessed (surveys, lengths, weights, ages etc.), that the estimate for the population developed by the model is a good fit to the original data?

Once the direction in which the population biomass is moving has been identified, future production is analyzed based on several harvest policies (Ralston 1998). The harvest policy applied to rockfish stocks by the PFMC currently is F4096, which decreases the spawning potential per recruit (SPR) to 40 percent of the unfished condition. The ABC is calculated by applying the F40% fishing mortality rate to the exploitable biomass identified by the stock assessment model and taking the average yield from typically a three-year projection (Ralston 1998). For some of the remaining rockfish species ABC's are calculated using data from the triennial bottom trawl surveys conducted by the Alaska
Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) since 1977. The calculation takes into account area fished, catchability of the net, and survey coverage as well as an estimate of the natural mortality rate (M) and other factors (Rogers et al. 1996). For other minor rockfish species the current catch is added to result in a combined ABC value.

Data for the stock assessments come from many sources including federal surveys sponsored by NMFS as well as information from industry in the form of logbobks. See-the section on "Sampling and Data Collection" for more detailed information. Prior to the establishment of an ABC, the assessment is reviewed by the Stock Assessment Review Panel (STAR) and subsequently the Groundfish Management Team (GMT) and Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). The GMT uses the reviewed assessments to recommend preliminary ABCs. The SSC comments on the STAR review results and the GMT recommendations. Once the assessment has been approved, Harvest Guidelines
(HGs) are developed. The Councilis charged with determining ABCs with input from the GMT. The GMT is a group of people composed of personnel from the three state fishery agencies and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Team also monitors catch rates throughout the year and analyzes impacts of altqrnative management measures. Taking into consideration discards at sea and other potential mitigating circumst~ncesi the GMT and GAP, a public and fishing industry committee, recommend to the Council a HG that must be equal to or less than the ABC set. Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and annual quotas are equivalent to HGs. The HG recommendations are then sent to the Council, along with reports from the SSC, and the public. After taking all of this into account the Council sets the final ABC by vote and decides the levels of the final HGs, which results in an allocation between the limited entry and open access portions of the fishery. Management during the fishing seasonsconsists of in-season alterations of limits with the intent of not exceeding the annual HG, and providing for a year-round fishery.

To facilitate a year-round fishery the GMT sets monthly, bimonthly or trimonthly cumulative catch limits as well as individual trip limits. The cumulative landings are monitored by the GMT throughout the year and are adjusted accordingly to suppress or accelerate the landings. One of the biggest problems with this kind of management is that the low trip and/or bimonthly limits currently in existence often result in management-induced discard (Ralston 1998). The fishers themselves attest to this, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of utilizing trip limits as a management tool has been presented in a paper by Pikitch et al. (1988), in which they state that "experience with the current management system of trip and annual single-species quotas indicates that it has been unsuccessful in meeting conservation goals and maintaining a year-round fishery, and has led to a significant waste of fish." And as a result "total catch consistently exceeded both landed and annual harvest goals."

This is in conflict with the interpretation of National Standard 9 in the national standard guidelines. The guidelines state "This national standard requires Councils to consider the bycatch effects of existing and planned conservation and management measures guidelines" (50 CFR 600.350(b)(2)). "The priority under this standard is first to aviod catching bycatch species where practicable. Fish that are bycatch and cannot be avoided must, to the extent practicable, be returned to the sea alive. Any proposed conservation and management measure that does not give priority to avoiding the capture of bycatch species must be supported by appropriate analysis"(50 CFR 600.350(d)).

A federal limited entry permit is required to participate in the limited entry segment of the fishery since 1994. Permits are issued based on the fishing history of qualifying fishing vessels. Each permit is endorsed for one or more of three gear types (trawl, longline, and fish trap or pot) and in addition, for each gear type, one of four possible types of endorsements ("A," Provbional "A,""B," and Designated Species "B"). Vessels without valid limited entry permits may participate in the open access fishery with any legal groundfish gear except groundfish trawl, subject to any open access trip limits, quotas and harvest guidelines in effect (PFMC 1998). Limited entry permits must be renewed between October 1 and November 30 each year and are transferable. As of April 1998 there were approximately 500
vessels with limited entrv Dermits. See Finures 39 and 40 for breakdown by state and gear type.

The open access fishery includes all types of legal groundfish gear vessels that have a limited entry permit. Even though the groundfish trawls are not legal in the open access fishery, groundfish may be taken in shrimp, prawn, California halibut, or sea cucumber trawls, under certain conditions. These non-groundfish trawls are called exempted trawl gear. (Fishermen's News Jan. 1998)

The open access allocation shares are set by the fishery management plan (FMP) (Amendment 6) which states "Allocations for the open access fishery will be basedon historical catch levels for the period of July 11, 1984 to August 1, 1988 by exempted longline, and fishpot gears used by vessels which did not receive an endorsement for the gear." It goes on to state that "A change in the catch history allocation method for determining the allocation for the open access fishery will require a plan amendment." There are currently approximately 2000 vessels participating in the open access fishery (Figure 41). Participants in the open access fishery may use, but are not limited to: longline, vertical hook-and-line, groundfish troll, pot, setnet, tramme. net, shrimp and prawn trawl, California halibut trawl, and sea cucumber trawl.

Allocation

The initiation of the Limited Entry fishery in 1994 required the designation of allocated percentages of the rockfish fishery. Separate allocations for the limited entry nd open access fisheries are calculated annually based on the percentages establishedin Amendment 6 to the groundfish fishery management plan. The allocation for the limited entry fishery is the allowable catch (harvest guideline) for the species, or assemblage, minus the allocation to the open access fishery. Limits for the open access fishery are primarily set as monthly cumulative limits that cannot exceed 50 percent of the 2 month limited entry limit for that species. Because there are declines in certain species of rockfish, allocation between trawl and fixed gears are under consideration. Unfortunately, the formula proposed in initial
allocation meetings allocates primarily based on historical catch, and does not take into consideration gear selectivity and bycatch level differences between the gear types.