MARINE REFUGIA______________________________

Perhaps something can be taken from the following quote by Albert Einstein and applied to fisheries management "The world we have created today as result of our thinking thus far has problems which cannot be solved by thinking the way wethought when we created them" (McArdle 1997). Perhaps the problems existing today in the fishery for West Coast rockfish can't be solved by applying the same management that was used to create them. Traditional fisheries management has failed in the protection of West Coast rockfish in many ways; overcapitalization of the fishery, overfishing, and habitat destruction to name a few. In an attempt to remedy some of these failings there has been much discussion and debate recently surrounding the issue of developing marine refugia. In spite of well intentioned efforts over the last 23 years (The Magnuson Act was originally passed in 1976) by federal and state fisheries management entities, rockfish stocks continue to decline (Ralston 1998, Love 1998, Ralston and Pearson 1997,
Ianelli 1998), and appear as four of the five West Coast groundfish species listed as "approaching overfished" in the 1998 report by NMFS to congress on the status of Fisheries in the United States.

The uncertainty generally acknowledged to exist in fisheries mana~ement comes from many sources. It results from a lack of data on many species, by simplifying assumptions made in mathematical models used for analysis, and from a lack of understanding of large-scale ecological processes such-as long-term oceanographic cycles, and life history strategies (Fujita et al. 1997). A fraction of this uncertainty can be addressed through increased research and data collection and some is just an artifact of the complicated natural environmental conditions that exist on the earth and in its oceans.

How do we begin to manage that uncertainty effectively?

Some feel that by setting aside, in perpetuity, a fraction of the resource for the purpose of guaranteeing its future existence, we are dealing with this uncertainty by acknowledging the inability of modern science to completely understand a very complex system. The development of "no-take" zones can be looked at as a way of "hedging our bets" against the management being applied and the assumptions made in the rest of the system. This is conceptually similar to terrestrial land management, where areas of and have been set aside as national parks, wildemess
areas, etc., while others continue to be managed for the extraction of natural resources.

Rockfish have several life-history characteristics, such as being long-lived, increasing fecundity with age, and high site fidelity (adults don't move much) that qualify them as good candidates for responding favorably to refugia, as indeed they have been proven to (see Table 14).

What are some of the potential benefits of marine reserves?

1. Protection against management errors and uncertainty in stock assessments by setting aside a minimum spawning biomass (Fujita et al. 1997).

2. Protect habitat from human disturbance, from fishing, pollution, development etc.

3. Protection for weak stocks in mixed species assemblages (Fujita et al. 1998).

4. Improvements to long-term yield by allowing the fish within the reserve to attain a natural age structure resulting in an increase in potential recruits to the fishery.

5. Enable scientists to disentangle effects of the fishing and environmental change on fisheries communities and the ecosystem they depend on.

What issues must be taken into consideration in their development?

1. Establish clear goals for each proposed area. These include such questions as: Exactly why is the refuge being proposed? What are the expected benefits?

2. Analyze the impacts (social, economic, etc.) and potential mitigation measures for coastal communities, as well as recereational commercial fisheries.

3. Involve all potentially impacted by the reserve from the onset in a meaningful manner.

4. Develop an achievable enforcement regime and identify appropriate funding sources prior to the designation of the area in order for enforcement to be implemented concurrent to the refuge.

5. Collect biological baseline information and develop a monitoring program to be continued after the area is designated as a refuge. Both must be rigorous enough to analyze the feasibility of the achievement of the goals set for the area.

6. Other management tools must be utilized coincident with the refuge. Management tools such as limited entry, TACs, and time/area closures must be evaluated for their usefulness in addition to refugia.

7. Outside forces, such as predators, must by analyzed.

The following is a statement prepared by Mary Yoklavich of the NMFS NWFSC for a conference dealing with research needs for West Coast groundfish, in which she summarized the results of a workshop on marine refugia for West Coast rockfish. The purpose of this workshop was to bring together biologists, ecologists, social scientists, economists, and resource managers to address the following questions:

What are key problems in managing rockfish populations?

Can marine harbest refugia help manage and conserve rockfish popuations?

What can we expect from marine harvest refugia?

What are the 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 impementing refugia?

What are the requirements and considerations of these stakeholders?

Ms. Yoklavich states; There was general consensus that marine harvest refugia exemplify a precautionary approach to the management and con~servation 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.

Three different scenarios for developing rockfish refugia were proposed 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 refugia that augment other management practices and buffer against overfishing, to large harvest refugia used for sustainable fisheries management.

It was agreed that stakeholders need to be identified early in the process of implementing rockfish refugia. A network among all those involved in the refugia process should consider interstate and international issues of rockfish resource management. Public education should reinforce compliance and help 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 enforcements.

This quote from a 1995 CDFG report summarizes why some feel the development and implementation of marine refugia are necessary if we are to ensure the existence of heahhy rockfish stocks in perpetuity.

As our human population has grown, fishing technology has rapidly advanced and demands on fishery resources have rapidly increased. Management actions have frequently been too little too late to stem fishery declines. Permanent closure of selected areas may become one of the few reliable management strategies for protecting fishery stocks (particularly rockfish that are late-maturing, long-lived, and have low natural mortality) for use by future generations.