Groundfish Fleet Restructuring Information and Analysis Project

5. Conclusion

The methods and analysis presented here complete the GFR project. Having compiled and spatially integrated a host of fishery-dependent and independent data, we conducted a static comparative analyses of a range of numerical and policy-driven reduction scenarios. Even at this level, considerable geographic differences emerge. Combining a spatial, relational database with regional economic analysis and a range of community considerations, we examined four numerical fleet reduction scenarios. These result in considerably different implications for fleet diversity, as well as for the economic health of coastal communities. Linking this sort of analysis with other considerations such as demographics, census and qualitative information, may provide a useful framework for decision-makers and communities in planning the transition of the West Coast groundfish fleet.

Over the course of the GFR project (spring 2001 to 2003), new management issues and concerns have emerged that can partially or wholly be addressed with the framework we developed for the GFR project, and whose potential uses extend beyond the narrow set of reduction scenarios considered here. In particular, the project makes use of what might be the first regional, spatially integrated, fisheries database such as the National Academy of Sciences suggested NMFS and its partner agencies develop (National Research Council 2002). To illustrate some of the applications of this spatial analytical framework, we also considered area-based management measures, using a hypothetical scenario derived from the 2002 shelf closure measures. The outcomes of the model scenario could be compared to the actual outcomes as recorded in fish tickets and other pertinent data.

Finally, we examined a hypothetical trawl permit stacking program, in anticipation of such a program under consideration at the PFMC. Using the full complement of fishery data, including a finer temporal resolution and information on the non-groundfish fisheries, agency staff and scientists could adapt the GFR framework to examine the spatial implications of any planned permit stacking or, for that matter, buyback program. In fact, since our numerical scenarios are independent of the mechanism by which fleet reductions are achieved, they can be interpreted as estimates of the relative efficacy that West Coast fisheries managers might expect of differently sized and structured reduction programs.

Throughout the project we identified, and discussed, ideas and possibilities for further research and analysis. Since our analysis to date is deliberately static, and since there are no readily available models that predict the behavior of the fishing fleet in response to management measures, one plausible extension of our analysis would be to invite expert testimonials as to how the fleet is likely to respond to any one reduction scenario. This is essentially what currently happens in the PFMC process, when managers and fishery participants deliberate on the likely effects of harvest rules on management measures.

The GFR analysis deals largely with the commercial fishery for groundfish. We integrated a number of data sets describing the recreational fishing effort into our database, but were unsuccessful in making the available data commensurate with those describing the commercial effort. Since recreational fishing suffers from an almost complete lack of spatially explicit data, we have only integrated a crude snapshot of recreational effort in our project deliverables to the public funding agency (PSMFC) where the GFR database and products will reside. We anticipate producing maps that show the degree of spatial overlap between recreational fishing effort and commercial effort, and between recreational fleet and particular habitats and species. Most of this remains an area for future analysis.

The regional economic impact analysis is limited to adapting and applying FEAM multipliers to the GFR reduction scenarios. This regional economic model, in turn, relies on 1996 inputs from a national model, and was last updated for the West Coast in 1998 (Davis 1998). In the past four years, however, the processing sector and other fishery-related businesses have undergone substantial changes. In particular, many communities and port groups that had value-added processing in the FEAM have lost this capacity, or new ones (often smaller) have sprung up. Staff at PFMC and PSMFC are working on revising and updating the FEAM, and together with the data on communities and port collected for the GFR project, this will provide more accurate estimates of economic impacts. As part of the documentation on the GFR database and model that we are preparing for the PSMFC, we also identify ways in which such updated information can be factored into the GFR framework.

Programmatically, Ecotrust will continue to expand its suite of spatial tools and integrated analytical platforms for community planning purposes on the West Coast. A logical extension of the GFR project would be to consider other fisheries on the West Coast and the trade-offs and other dynamics between them and the groundfish fishery, for example as fishermen activate dormant permits for salmon and other species. We are also exploring partnerships for modeling the linkages between ecosystems, fisheries and social systems, and may draw on some of the associations emerging in the GFR project as initial hypotheses for predictive relationships.

Find your watershed

You are here:
Inforain.org » Research » Groundfish Fleet Restructuring Information and Analysis Project » 5. Conclusion