PMCC Perspective on Spatial (area-based) Management The existing coast-wide management structure for West Coast groundfish encourages local area depletion of stocks, provides disincentives for stewardship, and fails to protect the biological structure of fish populations. As a result of this coast-wide approach, over-harvest in one area can shut down fishing over large areas of the coast, resulting in prohibited access to historic resources by coastal fishing communities. There clearly is spatial structure along the West Coast at the species and biological community scales (Gunderson and Vetter 2006). However that structure is not fixed in time (Levin et al 2006, Jay 1996, Berkeley et al 2004). Much of it is defined by physical habitat (e.g. bottom depth and topography) and climate-ocean processes (e.g. PDO, ENSO, climate change). And those dynamic structuring processes are ever-changing. In the face of increasing uncertainty and variability in the marine environment (e.g. climate variability and change, dead zone) managing stocks on a finer scale provides flexibility in the face of uncertainty and increases the resilience of stocks and ecosystems. For example, Berkeley et al (2004) suggest that the geographic source of successful recruits to west coast groundfish populations may differ from year to year. As a result, “management should strive to preserve a minimal spawning biomass throughout the geographic range of the stock.” Spatial management thus becomes proactive in the face of uncertainty and unpredictability. There is a growing body of clear scientific evidence for structure and variation in fish populations, ecosystems and coastal fishing communities. The inability to account for spatial structure can lead to uncertainty in the status of the stocks and localized depletions. For example, generalizations from one portion of a species range across its entire range can give misleading perceptions regarding its status of stock. Thus, one fundamental solution to the current management dilemma is a regionally-based management structure which recognizes that fish populations and community uses are not evenly distributed along the coast. To address this issue, in August 2006, a group of scientists, fishermen, and fisheries-policy experts were convened by PMCC to explore spatial management of west coast groundfish. PMCC proposed that a practical first step in making a management shift is to divide the West Coast groundfish management into smaller units, possibly delineated by Cape Flattery, Cape Blanco, Cape Mendocino, and Point Conception. The Capes are well-known biogeographic boundaries of fish communities (Gabriel 1982, Jay 1996, Levin et al 2006). The meeting, coined “Cape to Cape”, was tasked with evaluating the PMCC proposal. We are now in the process of developing a consensus statement and additional meetings to outline further an area-based management scheme for west coast groundfish. Additional detailed information on the development and use of area-based allocation schemes, as well as scientific evidence supporting the biological and socio-economic arguments for this proposal, can be found in the document “On the Need for Spatial Management in West Coast Groundfish Fisheries” by Mr. James Golden, and submitted to the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) in 2006. PMCC supports the following recommendations Mr. Golden outlines in his document: The Council should continue to support research into spatial sampling and modeling approaches for stock assessments. The degree of localized overfishing is unknown – fishery and survey data and habitat information should be analyzed on a finer spatial scale to develop a better understanding of fishing and fish distribution patterns. Recent studies of population and age structure and recruitment dynamics raise serious biological concerns with present and proposed management. Present management measures (RCAs, selective gears, etc.) and new tools (finer area allocation, MPAs, etc.) should be employed to ensure proper spatial management to safeguard against localized overfishing as a precautionary measure, and to conserve population and age structure needed to increase the likelihood of successful recruitment events. Area allocation of OY for West Coast groundfish should be employed as a hedge against unpredictable spawning success. Available information on species characteristics (genetic structure, age structure, reproduction, and larval dispersal) should used as a guide to establish boundaries and OYs for sub-areas within the WOC.
PMCC P.O. Box 59, Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-8188 Fax: (503) 325-9681 Email: info@pmcc.org

PMCC Perspective on Spatial (area-based) Management

The existing coast-wide management structure for West Coast groundfish encourages local area depletion of stocks, provides disincentives for stewardship, and fails to protect the biological structure of fish populations. As a result of this coast-wide approach, over-harvest in one area can shut down fishing over large areas of the coast, resulting in prohibited access to historic resources by coastal fishing communities.

There clearly is spatial structure along the West Coast at the species and biological community scales (Gunderson and Vetter 2006). However that structure is not fixed in time (Levin et al 2006, Jay 1996, Berkeley et al 2004). Much of it is defined by physical habitat (e.g. bottom depth and topography) and climate-ocean processes (e.g. PDO, ENSO, climate change). And those dynamic structuring processes are ever-changing. In the face of increasing uncertainty and variability in the marine environment (e.g. climate variability and change, dead zone) managing stocks on a finer scale provides flexibility in the face of uncertainty and increases the resilience of stocks and ecosystems. For example, Berkeley et al (2004) suggest that the geographic source of successful recruits to west coast groundfish populations may differ from year to year. As a result, “management should strive to preserve a minimal spawning biomass throughout the geographic range of the stock.” Spatial management thus becomes proactive in the face of uncertainty and unpredictability.

There is a growing body of clear scientific evidence for structure and variation in fish populations, ecosystems and coastal fishing communities. The inability to account for spatial structure can lead to uncertainty in the status of the stocks and localized depletions. For example, generalizations from one portion of a species range across its entire range can give misleading perceptions regarding its status of stock. Thus, one fundamental solution to the current management dilemma is a regionally-based management structure which recognizes that fish populations and community uses are not evenly distributed along the coast.

To address this issue, in August 2006, a group of scientists, fishermen, and fisheries-policy experts were convened by PMCC to explore spatial management of west coast groundfish. PMCC proposed that a practical first step in making a management shift is to divide the West Coast groundfish management into smaller units, possibly delineated by Cape Flattery, Cape Blanco, Cape Mendocino, and Point Conception.

The Capes are well-known biogeographic boundaries of fish communities (Gabriel 1982, Jay 1996, Levin et al 2006). The meeting, coined “Cape to Cape”, was tasked with evaluating the PMCC proposal. We are now in the process of developing a consensus statement and additional meetings to outline further an area-based management scheme for west coast groundfish. Additional detailed information on the development and use of area-based allocation schemes, as well as scientific evidence supporting the biological and socio-economic arguments for this proposal, can be found in the document “On the Need for Spatial Management in West Coast Groundfish Fisheries” by Mr. James Golden, and submitted to the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) in 2006.

PMCC supports the following recommendations Mr. Golden outlines in his document:

The Council should continue to support research into spatial sampling and modeling approaches for stock assessments. The degree of localized overfishing is unknown – fishery and survey data and habitat information should be analyzed on a finer spatial scale to develop a better understanding of fishing and fish distribution patterns.
Recent studies of population and age structure and recruitment dynamics raise serious biological concerns with present and proposed management. Present management measures (RCAs, selective gears, etc.) and new tools (finer area allocation, MPAs, etc.) should be employed to ensure proper spatial management to safeguard against localized overfishing as a precautionary measure, and to conserve population and age structure needed to increase the likelihood of successful recruitment events.
Area allocation of OY for West Coast groundfish should be employed as a hedge against unpredictable spawning success. Available information on species characteristics (genetic structure, age structure, reproduction, and larval dispersal) should used as a guide to establish boundaries and OYs for sub-areas within the WOC.

PMCC Perspective on Spatial (area-based) Management

PMCC P.O. Box 59, Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-8188 Fax: (503) 325-9681 Email: info@pmcc.org

PMCC P.O. Box 59, Astoria, Oregon 97103
(503) 325-8188 Fax: (503) 325-9681 Email: info@pmcc.org