11 spatial bioeconomic model evaluation of blue ribbon task force recommended marine protected area...
TRANSCRIPT
11
Spatial Bioeconomic Model Evaluation ofBlue Ribbon Task Force Recommended Marine Protected Area Proposals for the North Coast
Study RegionPresentation to the MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team
January 13, 2011 • Teleconference and Webinar
Dr. Eric Bjorkstedt, Co-chair • MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team
Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
2
Model Description
• Models simulate population dynamics.• Model inputs include:
– Life history characteristics of modeled species– Larval dispersal predicted by ocean currents– Habitat data– Spatial fishing effort
• Models consider outcomes of three management scenarios:
– Conservative management– Maximum sustainable yield (MSY)-type
management– Unsuccessful management
33
Enhanced Compliance Alternative
• The North Coast Enhanced Compliance Alternative MPA Proposal (ECA) includes nearshore “ribbon MPAs” where a variety of uses are proposed to accommodate traditional tribal uses, paired with MPAs offshore where proposed uses are restricted to those at moderate high or high level of protection (LOP).
• Ribbon MPAs (which extend from shore to approximately 1,000 feet offshore) generally are narrower than a single model cell (1 square kilometer).
• To complete the modeling evaluation, it was necessary to assign the proposed uses associated with a nearshore ribbon MPA to the entire model cell, if the ribbon MPA overlapped the model cell.
• Because of this model constraint, the evaluation of the ECA is conservative; the ECA actually offers slightly more protection than indicated in the modeling evaluation.
4
Model Input: Larval Dispersal
Origin
Des
tinat
ion
Cape Blanco
Crescent City
Cape Mendocino
Pt Arena
Pt Reyes
Cap
e B
lanc
o
Pt
Rey
es
Probability of dispersal
Matrix for black rockfish (2000-2006 average)
Matrix: C. Edwards & P. Drake, UCSC
Cre
sce
nt C
ity
Cap
eM
endo
cino
Pt
Are
na
5
Model Description
• Six core species were modeled:– Black rockfish– Brown rockfish– Cabezon– Redtail surfperch– Red sea urchin– Red abalone
• Dungeness crab were also modeled but are presented separately because of characteristics of the fishery (only males are taken).
6
Model Outputs
• Conservation metrics– Spatial distribution of biomass– Total biomass (summed over study region,
weighted sum across species), relative to unfished biomass
• Economic metrics– Spatial distribution of fishery yield– Total fishery yield (summed over study region,
weighted sum across species), relative to maximum sustainable yield under Proposal 0
7
Biomass relative to unfished
Model Outputs: Biomass
• Map represents predicted spatial distribution of biomass.
• Outputs available for each:– Model species– Proposal – Management scenario
• Maps are posted online for:– Biomass– Fishery yield– Fishing effort– Larval production– Biomass for each MPA
(deletion analysis)
Example (RNCP): Black Rockfish Biomass
8
Model Outputs: Proposal Rankings
P0 RNCP ECA
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16Unsuccessful Management
P0 RNCP ECA0.4
0.42
0.44MSY-type
Rel
ativ
e B
iom
ass
P0 RNCP ECA0.58
0.6
Conservative
P0 RNCP ECA
0.48
0.5
0.52Unsuccessful Management
P0 RNCP ECA
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
1.02MSY-type
Rel
ativ
e F
ishe
ry Y
ield
P0 RNCP ECA0.78
0.8
0.82
0.84 Conservative
99
Model Results: Rankings in Context
Relative biomass
Rel
ativ
e fis
hery
yie
ld
conservation versus economic axis
- Choice along this axis is a matter of priorities, not science.
- Models can put the options in context
1010
Model Results: Rankings in Context
win-win axis
Relative biomassRel
ativ
e fis
hery
yie
ld
conservation versus economic axis
- Models can reveal where one proposal performs better than another for the species modeled.
- Differences are most apparent under assumption of unsuccessful management.
11
Results: MSY-type Management*MSY is Maximum Sustainable Yield
P0
ECA
RNCP
Smaller grey dots indicate proposals from rounds 1,2 and 3
Legend
0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
Relative Biomass
Rel
ativ
e F
ishe
ry Y
ield
12
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
Relative Biomass
Rel
ativ
e F
ishe
ry Y
ield
Results: Conservative Management
Smaller grey dots indicate proposals from rounds 1,2 and 3
P0
ECA
RNCP
Legend
13
Results: Unsuccessful Management
Smaller grey dots indicate proposals from rounds 1,2 and 3
P0
ECA
RNCP
Legend
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
Relative Biomass
Rel
ativ
e F
ishe
ry Y
ield
14
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Relative Biomass
Rel
ativ
e F
ishe
ry Y
ield
Results: Comparing Scenarios
conservative
MSY- type
unsuccessful
P0
ECA
RNCP
Legend
1515
Conclusions
• Deletion and larval production analyses suggest that the Skip Wollenberg-Ten Mile State Marine Reserve (SMR), Sea Lion Gulch SMR, and South Cape Mendocino SMR should be especially effective for most species in both ECA and RNCP.
• Vizcaino State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA), Reading Rock SMCA, and Pyramid Point SMCA are predicted to be more effective in ECA than in RNCP.
• No MPAs are predicted to decrease noticeably in effectiveness in ECA relative to RNCP.
• Genetic connectivity analysis suggests no difference between P0, RNCP, and ECA for long-dispersing species (e.g., black rockfish). For short-dispersing species (e.g., red abalone), ECA improves connectivity to Shelter Cove region from points south (relative to RNCP and P0).
All model outputs from this evaluation are posted on the MLPA website (www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa)
1616
Conclusions
• The ECA consistently had highest relative biomass for all management assumptions.
• Proposal 0 (no action alternative) had highest relative fishery yield under MSY-type or conservative management.
• The ECA had highest economic value under unsuccessful management.
• The RNCP was intermediate between Proposal 0 and the ECA in all rankings.
• The evaluation of the ECA is conservative; the ECA actually offers slightly more protection than indicated in the modeling evaluation.
All model outputs from this evaluation are posted on the MLPA website (www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa)