Steve Gaines Bren School of Environmental Science & Management Sustainable Fisheries Group UC Santa Barbara12 May 2011

The Legislative Seascape: Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) AB 1217: California Sustainable Seafood Initiative (CSSI) Can we create synergies?

 Conservation of the state's marine life and habitats, marine ecosystems, and marine natural heritage.  Creation of a state-wide network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). NOAA’s Nat. Ocean Service

 Fisheries impacts quantified and considered in MLPA process  But fisheries goals were not the objective

MPA Larval Export Adult spillover Inside MPA Outside MPA

 California is invested in MPAs  Are there more dividends for fisheries?

Incorporating MPAs into fisheries management Challenges & Opportunities 1.Accounting for fish biomass inside of MPAs in stock assessment and for fishing regulations 2.MPAs can provide new insight for fisheries managers

 Don’t account for MPA benefits  Don’t count biomass within MPA during stock assessment  Don’t provide fishermen with “credit” for not fishing in closed areas Lester et al. 2009

Fishery Dependent Information (logbook data, discards, etc.) Landings by Gear Type 1. commercial 2. recreational Fishery Independent Surveys (e.g., trawl surveys) Life History Information growth, maturity, etc. Stock Assessment (statistical model) Biomass (relative to “target” state) + Fishing Mortality Management Decision Catch Demographic Data 1. age composition 2. length composition Where the Stock is Where it is going

 New technical challenge: spatial variation  Ignoring biomass in MPAs: ▪ under-estimating stock size ▪ setting fishing targets lower than needed

 Spatial BioEconomic Models for Entire Coastline

MPAs can help: 1. improve data-poor, small-scale management 2. estimate key parameters (e.g., fishing mortality rate) 3. distinguish fishing effects from other factors/threats (e.g. climate change) 4. provide short term financial benefits to fishermen through certification credits

 Status of approx global fisheries without stock assessments  Costello et al. unpublished data

Compare CPUE of prime sized fish inside and outside of reserves Level 1 Compare CPUE and proportion of old fish in catch to SPR40 levels Level 3 Evaluate CPUE of young fish over past 5 years Level 4 Compare CPUE of young fish to SPR50 levels Output: Adjustment to Total Allowable Catch (TAC) Evaluate CPUE of prime sized fish in fished area over previous 5 years rising stable falling Level 2 Marine reserve-based decision tree (J. Wilson)

Sedentary Nearshore, < 20m water depth Dispersal = 10km/generation Small fishery, but valuable Case Study: Grass Rockfish

Mean = 356 mm Mean = 342 mm Mean = 382 mm Mean = 368 mm Mean = 334 mm

High Productivity Region

Low Productivity Region

Total Mortality (Z) = Natural (M) + Fishing (F) Mortality F = Z - M ReserveNon-Reserve M = natural mortality Z = M + F

Mean = 356 mm Mean = 342 mm Mean = 382 mm Mean = 368 mm Mean = 334 mm

= Status quo; = Certifiable

 The evaluation tools developed in MLPA form the basis for a comprehensive new spatially explicit management approach  California has an opportunity to lead in these areas because of the MLPA  Innovations can provide better results with less costs

 Stock assessment methods should account for benefits of MPAs  MPAs provide an opportunity to….  Improve management of data poor stocks  Estimate important parameters more accurately  Tease out impacts from climate change and other factors besides fishing  Provide benefits to fishermen for lost fishing opportunities through certification credit