Marine Reserves

San Miguel Island, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

The Council is currently considering the use of marine reserves to protect fish and habitat resources, especially for groundfish.  Some common questions are answered below. What is the difference between a “marine reserve” and a “marine protected area”? Why is the Council interested in marine reserves? What authority does the Council have to create marine reserves? What process is the Council following to consider marine reserves? Additional information

What is the difference between a “marine reserve” and a “marine protected area”?

The terms “marine reserve” and “marine protected area” overlap but have different meanings. The Council uses the term “marine reserve” to mean an area where some or all fishing is prohibited for a lengthy period of time. This is similar to the definition of a “fishery reserve” created by the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council:

“Zoning that precludes fishing activity on some or all species to protect critical habitat, rebuild stocks (long term, but not necessarily permanent closure), provide insurance against overfishing, or enhance fishery yield.” (Ocean Studies Board, 2001)

Marine reserves are types of “marine protected areas.” A “marine protected area” is a “geographic area with discrete boundaries [like the boundaries of a piece of real estate or a park] that has been designated to enhance the conservation of marine resources” (Ocean Studies Board). For example, a marine protected area might prohibit activities like oil and gas drilling, while allowing fishing. The Council's focus on marine reserves as “no fishing” areas (or areas where only certain types of fishing are allowed) reflects its area of regulatory authority: fishing.

Return to Top

Why is the Council interested in marine reserves?

The Council's stated interest, to date, in marine reserves is related to problems in the groundfish fishery. Due to fishing, ocean conditions, low stock productivity and other causes, some groundfish stocks have declined to lower than desired levels. Widow rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, bocaccio, lingcod, Pacific ocean perch, and cowcod are currently thought to be overfished. Stock rebuilding plans for these species have either been developed or are in progress.

Fishery managers aim to maintain or improve the health of the fish stocks that fishing communities rely on, but they are doing so in an unstable and uncertain environment. Sustained economic health for fishing communities depends on sustained biological health, which in turn requires rational harvest rates and healthy ecosystems. However, there is a question as to whether traditional management efforts have adequately protected our many of our groundfish populations and habitats.

Marine reserves provide an alternative means of controlling fishing mortality. For example, the Council has recommended marine reserve areas to protect cowcod off southern California. In this case, marine reserves were used to eliminate groundfish harvests in areas with high cowcod bycatch rates.

Marine reserves can also be a valuable management tool when the status of a fish stock is uncertain. The best available scientific knowledge about stock status may also be highly uncertain and prone to significant changes as we learn more. Also, stock assessments have been done for only about 22 of the 82 groundfish species managed by the Council, so marine reserves may offer some protection for unassessed sedentary species (those that do not move around much relative to the size of the reserve), which are not well-understood.

As a harvest management tool, marine reserves can be particularly helpful for sedentary species that produce dramatically more offspring as they get older. Traditional fisheries often remove these larger, more productive fish. More mobile species may benefit if marine reserves can be used to preserve habitat from damage by fishing gear and other human activities, or to preserve ecosystems that are vital to fish survival.

Marine reserves can also have educational and research value. To successfully manage these resources, managers need better knowledge of the biology, habits, and behaviors of fish stocks and the ecosystems that support them.

Below is the Council’s list of objectives for groundfish marine reserves, in priority order:

Return to Top

What authority does the Council have to create marine reserves?

The Council has two separate authorities regarding marine reserves and marine protected areas under two different federal statutes, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act) and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). Each statute independently gives the Council different authority in different situations.

Under the Magnuson Act, the Council proposes regulations for review, approval and implementation by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a sub-agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Under the NMSA, the Council is given the opportunity to draft regulations for review, approval, and implementation by the National Ocean Service (NOS), also a sub-agency of NOAA.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council has authority over all species of fish from three to 200 nautical miles offshore. Generally, the Council recommends regulations only for species that have a federal fishery management plan (FMP) which has been prepared by the Council and approved by NMFS. For the West Coast (Washington, Oregon and California), federal FMPs have been approved for groundfish, salmon, and coastal pelagic species. An FMP for highly migratory species has recently been adopted by the Council but has not yet been approved by NMFS. For species not covered by an FMP, the Council could propose emergency regulations to be effective for up to one year, while it develops an FMP. The Council can also impose certain restrictions on the take of FMP species in non-FMP fisheries. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council can and does recommend to NMFS fishing regulations that are effective within National Marine Sanctuaries, but only for FMP species.

While the Council can recommend the creation of marine reserves under its Magnuson-Stevens Act authority, it has limited ability to protect fish and habitat in the marine reserve from anything other than fishing impacts. For example, the Council does not control dredging, dumping, or other potentially damaging activities. However, the Council can comment to state and Federal agencies about actions that may harm marine reserve areas. One example would be if an agency wanted to issue a permit for dumping dredge materials in fish habitat.

National Marine Sanctuaries are designated under the NMSA as having special national significance. They are a type of marine protected area, but are not necessarily marine reserves (see definitions above). Under the NMSA, regulation of fishing by a particular Sanctuary is allowed only if that Sanctuary's designation document allows regulation of fishing. Also under the NMSA, Councils are given the opportunity to draft necessary regulations governing all types of fishing in the Federal waters of a National Marine Sanctuary (not just for fisheries covered under a Council FMP). Any recommendations made by Councils to be implemented under the NMSA must fulfill the purposes and policies of the NMSA and the goals and objectives of that particular Sanctuary. Some Sanctuaries do not currently have authority to regulate fishing, and are considering changes to their designation documents to allow them to regulate fishing under the NMSA.

The flowchart below shows a simplified outline of authority under the Magnuson Act and NMSA.

Return to Top

What process is the Council following to consider marine reserves?

In 1999, the Council began a two-stage process to consider marine reserves as a tool for managing groundfish. The first part was a “conceptual evaluation” and the second part was to develop alternatives for consideration. The second phase was to be started only if there was a positive result from the conceptual evaluation.

The first phase ran from the spring of 1999 through September 2000.  During this phase, a technical analysis of marine reserves was prepared and an Ad-Hoc Marine Reserve Committee met to develop recommendations for the Council.  Following these efforts, the Council adopted marine reserves as a tool for managing the groundfish fishery.  In addition, the Council’s Strategic Plan for the Groundfish Fishery includes the following goal:  To use marine reserves as a fishery management tool that contributes to groundfish conservation and management goals, has measurable effects, and is integrated with other fishery management approaches.  The Council recommended that implementation (Phase II) proceed “as appropriate.”

The second phase involves developing options for the design and location of marine reserves.  Since other west coast states are also considering marine reserves, this phase requires that the Council coordinate with state, tribal, and local agencies.  A Council ad hoc committee met and developed a budget for considering a coastwide network of marine reserves.  The budget proposal was put forward for Congressional funding in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, but was not funded.  Without additional funding, there is not enough money or staff time to fully implement this phase.  The Council is prepared to respond to initiatives developed at the state and local levels as these responses fit in with other Council priorities.

To date, the Council has established two de facto marine reserves off southern California to help rebuild cowcod.  These two reserves cover 4,700 square miles.  In those areas, all fishing for Federal groundfish species is prohibited and the state has prohibited prawn trawling and other recreational and commercial fishing except in shallow waters (less than 20 fathoms).

Return to Top

Additional information

For more information on the Council’s consideration of marine reserves, please contact Mr. Mike Burner at (503) 820-2280 ext. 414 or toll free 1-866-806-7204.

Return to Top

PFMC
05/29/07