THOMSON: IMPLICATIONS OF SEBASTES NO-TAKE RESERVE CalCOFl Rep., Vol. 40, 1999 ECONOMIC AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OF NO-TAKE RESERVES: AN APPLICATION TO SEBASTES ROCKFISH IN CALIFORNIA CYNTHIA J. THOMSON’ National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center Santa CrudTiburon Laboratory 31.50 Paradise Drive Tiburon, California 94920 [email protected] ABSTRACT istics (e.g., infrequent and variable recruitments) that This paper presents some of the economic and man- lend considerable uncertainty to the stock assessments agement issues likely to arise if a no-take reserve is de- upon which management decisions are based (Ralston signed to protect and manage rockfish in California. 1998). The current interest in rockfish reserves reflects These issues include equity matters associated with lo- an attempt to overcome the shortcomings of recent man- cation of the reserve, implications for major sectors of agement in dealing with such uncertainty. the rockfish fishery, and possible external effects on fish This paper provides information relevant to some of stocks and fisheries outside the reserve area. These is- the fishery-related issues that are likely be raised with sues are described in the context of the current man- regard to rockfish reserves. This information is intended agement regime and recent trends in the fishery. Particular to be exploratory rather than conclusive and to encourage attention is paid to two fishery sectors-groundfish further discussion of real-world issues that must be trawlers and commercial passenger fishng vessels-whose addressed if reserves are to be considered as a rockfish logbook data provide detailed information about the area management tool. Full development and evaluation of of harvest. Recommendations are made regarding the management options will require much more detailed need to define objectives, address allocative issues and iterations of the analysis provided here,2 as well as ex- external effects, accommodate scientific uncertainties, tensive input from natural as well as social scientists, and consider reserves in combination with more con- resource managers, enforcement and legal experts, the ventional management techniques. fishing industry, and the public at large. INTRODUCTION ROCKFISH FISHERY MANAGEMENT Permanent no-take marine reserves are being con- In 1982 the Pacific Fishery Management Council sidered as a means of acheving a variety of resource man- (PFMC) implemented a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) agement objectives, such as providing a hedge against for the groundfish fishery in the Exclusive Economic collapse of fish stocks, or providing reference areas to fa- Zone of California, Oregon, and Washington (PFMC cilitate the evaluation of natural versus human effects on 1982). The FMP covers a variety of finfishes, including fish populations (Bohnsack and Ault 1996). Economic 52 Sebastes stocks. benefits to fisheries outside a reserve may also arise: for In 1994 the PFMC implemented a limited entry pro- instance, the stock enhancement that occurs within the gram (PFMC 1992) for the commercial fishery, and is- reserve may eventually filter (via larval transport or ex- sued permits to vessels that met designated minimum port of adult fish) to outside areas (Rowley 1994). The groundfish landings requirements (MLRs) for trawl, long- extent to which such benefits are actually realized will line, or fishpot gear. At the time of issuance, each per- vary, depending on the specifics of the particular reserve mit was “endorsed” with the specific gear types for which being considered. the MLRs were met, with limited entry participation This paper presents economic and management im- restricted to the gear types endorsed on the permit. Each plications of reserves in the context of a specific hypo- permit, along with its particular gear endorsement(s), thetical scenario-the establishment of a permanent may be transferred to another vessel of similar or lesser no-take reserve to protect and manage rockfish (genus length, and larger vessels may enter the fishery by con- Sebastes) in California. Rockfish provide a plausible ex- solidating permits held by smaller vessels. Other re- ample for several reasons. As relatively sedentary stocks, strictions imposed on the limited entry fishery include they are considered amenable to enhancement by a re- quotas, limits on fish size, gear restrictions, and vessel serve. Rockfish also have certain life-history character- landings limits. ‘Mailimg address: University of California, Santa Cruz, Institute of Marine ZA non-rockfish-specific hut more comprehensive discussion of economic costs Sciences, EMS Bldg A-316, Santa Cruz, California 95064 and benefits associated with reserves is provided in Thomson 1998. 107 THOMSON: IMPLICATIONS OF SEBASTES NO-TAKE RESERVE CalCOFl Rep., Vol. 40, 1999 The PFMC also manages an open access fishery, whch TABLE 1 is restricted to vessels that target non-PFMC-managed Average Landings (Metric Tons) and Ex-Vessel species (e.g., California hahbut, sea cucumber) with trawl Revenue ($, Base Year = 1997) by Limited Entry Permit Holders Who Landed Rockfish in California in 1997, gear; vessels that land groundfish incidentally while par- by Gear Type, Species Category, and State ticipating in non-groundfish fisheries (e.g., shrimp trawlers); and vessels that use hook and line or fishpot Longline Trawl gear without a limited entry permit to harvest small t $ t $ amounts of groundfish. California: Rockfish 4.5 9,551 39.1 29,563 The PFMC annually establishes separate Sebastes quo- Other groundfish 14.2 42,681 143.3 116,435 tas for the areas north and south of Cape Blanco, Oregon. Non-groundfish species 25.5 26,130 42.9 56.430 The quota for the southern area (which includes Cali- Oregon/Washington: Rockfish 0.2 201 15.6 10,779 fornia) is allocated 67% to the limited entry fishery and Other groundfish 1.3 6,311 179.3 43,465 33% to the open access fishery. Non-groundfish species 0.8 2,111 21.8 18,590 Total 46.5 86,985 442.0 275,262 In 1997, 483 limited entry permit holders landed ~ groundfish in California, Oregon, or Washington. Of Source: PacFIN data combined with limited entry permit information pro- these active permit holders, 234 landed groundfish in vided by Jim Hastie (NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle). In ad- dition to 83 longliners and 120 trawlers, 5 permit holders with either a pot California, and 218 of those counted rockfish among endorsenlent or endorseiiients for multiple gear types also landed rockfish in their groundfish landmgs. Of the 218 rockfish harvesters, California. Mean landings and revenues for those five vessels are not reported 83 possessed a longline endorsement, 130 had a trawl here in order to protect data confidentiality. endorsement, and 5 had either a fishpot endorsement or multiple gear endorsements. Rockfish landings and rev- responsibility of the PFMC and other regional councils enue averaged 4.5 metric tons and $9,551 for the long- to protect stocks from overfishing and rebuild overfished liners, and 39.1 t and $29,563 for the trawlers, and stocks. It also expanded the required scope of FMPs to accounted for about 10% of total landings and revenues include identification, conservation, and enhancement tiom all species by both longliners and trawlers. Although of essential fish habitat (NMFS 1996). RockGsh reserves, the longliners make significant non-groundfish as well as well as other management measures, must be evalu- as groundfish landings and deliver most of their fish to ated in the context of the new realities associated with California ports, the trawlers focus more exclusively on the MSFCMA. groundfish and are more likely to engage in interstate fishing (table 1). THE CALIFORNIA ROCKFISH FISHERY In 1997, 1,111 vessels landed rockfish in California’s The fishery for Sebastes rockfish in California includes open access fishery. Rockfish landings and revenues by both commercial and recreational components. Com- these vessels averaged 1.6 t and $3,211. Four gear types mercial landmgs declined from about 11,900 metric tons accounted for 96% of these landings: hook and line, ex- in 1988 to 7,400 t in 1997 (table 2). Ex-vessel revenues- cluding troll (53%); troll (18%); trawl (14%); and non- corrected for inflation to 1997 dollars-also declined trawl net (11%). from $13.4 dionin 1988 to $8.7 milhon in 1997 (table Although limited entry has been helpful in prevent- 3). The rockfish sport fishery includes anglers who fish ing the commercial groundfish fleet from expanding, from commercial passenger fishing vessels (CPFVs), pri- the fishery remains significantly overcapitalized (pers. vate boats, and shore. According to logbook data sub- comm. between PFMC Chairman Jerry Mallet and US. mitted by CPFV operators to the California Department Dep. Commerce Secretary William M. Daley, dated July of Fish and Game (CDFG), CPFV rockfish harvest in- 21, 1998). Growing concerns about the status of ground- creased from 1.7 million fish in 1987 to over 2 million fish stocks have prompted the PFMC to reduce quotas in the early 1990s, then declined to around 1 million by and vessel landings limits (PFMC 1997). These decisions 1996 (table 4). Although these numbers are conserva- have been complicated by the need to minimize man- tive estimates of CPFV activity (not all CPFV opera- agement-induced discards of fish and ensure that the tors participate in the logbook program), they are believed conservation burden is equitably distributed among dif- to indicate general