Change "MPA" to "no take reserve"

[NatalieDowling]

I've changed question 506 to be worded "Is/are there no-take reserves or marine protected areas (MPAs) in the fishery? If so, are these well enforced and can they represent unfished size and density?" and have added "reserves" together with MPAs in the description.

Anywhere else?

[bsnouffer]

There are no other questions where this appears to be an issue.

Following is where MPA is used in options: 1) Analysis of ratio of density inside and outside marine protected areas (MPAs)

• Description: This is a method for estimating localized abundance and determining target fishing rates in unprotected areas based on the ratio of fish density inside a protected area to fish density in the unprotected area. Using this method, Babcock and MacCall (2011) and McGilliard et al. (2011) evaluated the use of the density ratio (DR) of fish inside and outside marine protected areas in a management action to determine the direction and magnitude of change in fishing effort in the next year. They established that this comparative method can be used in any location that contains established marine reserves with similar environmental and habitat characteristics to fished areas. According to Babcock and MacCall, this method is advantageous because historical data is not required, it can be used at localized spatial scales, and it is robust to environmental changes. The following link may serve as a useful resource for this assessment option: http://www.datalimitedtoolkit.org/

2) Analysis of length/size-specific catch-rate indicators for fish sampled inside and outside of marine protected areas (MPAs), and per-recruit

• This is an assessment option developed by Wilson et al. (2010). It is a tiered decision tree based on four levels of length/size-specific catch-rate indicators for fish sampled inside and outside of MPAs, and per-recruit. These four levels of length/size-specific catch-rate indicators are: 1--The catch rates of "prime"-sized individuals (CPUEprime), inside versus outside MPAs. 2--Whether CPUEprime is increasing, decreasing, or stable in fished areas over a 5-year period. 3--The catch rates of old fish and the proportion of old fish in fished areas compared to the spawning potential ratio (SPR) targets derived from per-recruit models. 4--The catch rates of new recruits relative to reference levels (to inform whether recruitment overfishing is occurring). In a decision tree framework to adjust the allowable catch, these four levels of catch-rate indicators provide the length/size composition when fishing at the target rate. While Wilson et al.'s (2010) method is fairly data-intensive, similar metrics can be monitored and assessed to detect sustainability trends in fishing pressure and to obtain a proxy indication of stock status (i.e., the ratio of CPUEprime inside vs. outside an MPA). See, for example, Kay et al. (2012).

3) Adjust based on data collected from closed areas or marine protected areas (both catch and effort limits)

• This option uses estimates of density or abundance from within closed areas or marine protected areas (MPAs) to infer overall stock status. These estimates are determined either in isolation or in relation to estimates undertaken outside the closed area/MPA. The stock status is compared with a reference point(s), and the level of catch in areas open to fishing is adjusted accordingly.

4) Spatial Management category description: Spatial management involves applying harvest control rules that are spatially explicit that are specific to one or more areas within the fishery’s range. Spatial management may include the use of temporary, rotational, or permanent reserves, spatial closures, or protected areas. It may also include rules that limit individual catch or fishing effort in any one area, requiring fishers to “move on” if these limits are exceeded. Spatial harvest control rules can protect areas against the direct and indirect impacts of fishing, thus affecting the entire ecosystem within the restricted areas. Spatial restrictions can be fixed, or they may be invoked or modified within a harvest control rule.

5) Permanent (year-round) no take zones

• A permanent no-take zone is an area where fishing is prohibited for some or all species for a long period of time (usually more than 10 years). No-take zones are established to protect habitat, rebuild fish stocks, and protect against overfishing. No-take zones are not generally adjusted in response to performance indicators.

[NatalieDowling]

So I'm thinking that maybe we need to add the word "reserve" to where "MPA" or "marine protected area" appear in these options. I think option 4 (per above numbering) is fine as is - and possibly option 5.

[bsnouffer]

Looking back at the papers that options 1,2 and 3 are based on, all four (Babcock and MacCall 2011, McGilliard et al. 2011, Wilson et al. 2010, Kay et al. 2012) explicitly refer to the MPA or reserve being no-take.

@NatalieDowling, in general I agree with your comment. I am putting the explicit changes I am suggesting below and passing back for a review. I can input into FishPath once we finalize the rewording.

For 1 and 2: I suggest changing anywhere it says marine protected areas/MPAs to no-take reserve.

For 3: I think also just switching to no-take reserve would be the most clear, unless we want to leave open the possibility that one could do this on an area with less protection than year-round no-take (even if its not be written up in the literature we provide).

For 4: I agree that this can stay as is.

For 5: We could update "no-take zone" to "no-take reserve" to keep it consistent. Otherwise agree that it can stay as is.

[NatalieDowling]

Thanks Brian. Personally I think we need to keep these descriptions inclusive, partly because MPAs, reserves, and no-take zones can all mean quite different things from a management perspective and in terms of why each has been established. My suggestions (based on yours!):

For 1 and 2: I suggest changing anywhere it says marine protected areas/MPAs to "marine protected areas (MPAs), or established no-take zones/reserves".

For 3: As for 1 and 2.

For 4: I agree that this can stay as is.

For 5: I suggest changing all instances of "zones" to "zones or reserves"

[shcaba]

I like all of those suggestions, Natalie.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:22 PM NatalieDowling notifications@github.com wrote:

Thanks Brian. Personally I think we need to keep these descriptions inclusive, partly because MPAs, reserves, and no-take zones can all mean quite different things from a management perspective and in terms of why each has been established. My suggestions (based on yours!):

For 1 and 2: I suggest changing anywhere it says marine protected areas/MPAs to "marine protected areas (MPAs), or established no-take zones/reserves".

For 3: As for 1 and 2.

For 4: I agree that this can stay as is.

For 5: I suggest changing all instances of "zones" to "zones or reserves"

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/shcaba/FishPath-updates/issues/158#issuecomment-613688065, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB6IZLVEQE3XK7JOQ7YOAP3RMTHYLANCNFSM4FUNUWCA .

--

Jason M. Cope, Ph.D.Research Fishery Biologist Fishery Resource Analysis and Monitoring Division Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2725 Montlake Blvd. East

Seattle, WA 98112-2013 NOAA Fisheries

jason.cope@noaa.gov email@noaa.gov206.302.2417www.nmfs.noaa.gov http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

[bsnouffer]

Updates made (in bold): 1) Analysis of ratio of density inside and outside marine protected areas (MPAs), or established no-take zones/reserves

This is a method for estimating localized abundance and determining target fishing rates in unprotected areas based on the ratio of fish density inside a no-take protected area to fish density in the unprotected area. Using this method, Babcock and MacCall (2011) and McGilliard et al. (2011) evaluated the use of the density ratio (DR) of fish inside and outside marine protected areas (or established no-take zones/reserves) in a management action to determine the direction and magnitude of change in fishing effort in the next year. They established that this comparative method can be used in any location that contains established MPA or no-take marine zones/ reserves with similar environmental and habitat characteristics to fished areas. According to Babcock and MacCall, this method is advantageous because historical data is not required, it can be used at localized spatial scales, and it is robust to environmental changes.

The following link may serve as a useful resource for this assessment option: http://www.datalimitedtoolkit.org/

2) Analysis of length/size-specific catch-rate indicators for fish sampled inside and outside of marine protected areas (MPAs) or established no-take zones/reserves, and per-recruit

This is an assessment option developed by Wilson et al. (2010). It is a tiered decision tree based on four levels of length/size-specific catch-rate indicators for fish sampled inside and outside of MPAs, or no-take zones/reserves, and per-recruit. These four levels of length/size-specific catch-rate indicators are: The catch rates of "prime"-sized individuals (CPUEprime), inside versus outside MPAs or no-take zones/reserves. Whether CPUEprime is increasing, decreasing, or stable in fished areas over a 5-year period. The catch rates of old fish and the proportion of old fish in fished areas compared to the spawning potential ratio (SPR) targets derived from per-recruit models. The catch rates of new recruits relative to reference levels (to inform whether recruitment overfishing is occurring). In a decision tree framework to adjust the allowable catch, these four levels of catch-rate indicators provide the length/size composition when fishing at the target rate. While Wilson et al.'s (2010) method is fairly data-intensive, similar metrics can be monitored and assessed to detect sustainability trends in fishing pressure and to obtain a proxy indication of stock status (i.e., the ratio of CPUEprime inside vs. outside an MPA, or no-take zone/reserve). See, for example, Kay et al. (2012).

5) Permanent (year-round) no-take zones or reserves

A permanent no-take zone or reserve is an area where fishing is prohibited for some or all species for a long period of time (usually more than 10 years). No-take zones or reserves are established to protect habitat, rebuild fish stocks, and protect against overfishing. No-take zones or reserves are not generally adjusted in response to performance indicators.

[bsnouffer]

For 3) Adjust based on data collected from closed areas or marine protected areas

This one has the added wrinkle of closed areas listed as well. Seems like it could get kind of long and repetitive to change to "Adjust based on data collected from closed areas or marine protected areas, or no-take zones/reserves." I suggest removing closed areas and adding no-take zones/reserves to keep it consistent with the assessment section, but am open to other suggestions. "Adjust based on data collected from marine protected areas, or no-take zones/reserves". Then doing the same of whatever we decide in the description.

Also, I noticed that there is an input category titled "MPA". Should this be updated as well? "MPA or No-Take Zones/Reserves"?

[NatalieDowling]

Thanks for all this, Brian.

Against 2) I think we need to throw is "established no take zones/reserves" a little more in the description - to distinguish from newly-established, or temporary, zones or reserves.

For 3), good pickup. Thank you. Yes, I agree with your suggestion. And I think yes, we should update the input category.

Thanks for the careful eye to detail; you are a legend.

[bsnouffer]

Inputted into FishPath.

2) added "established" before "no-take zones/reserves" in the description.

3) Additions in bold (done for both catch and effort limits): Title: Adjust based on data collected from marine protected areas or established no-take zones/reserves This option uses estimates of density or abundance from within marine protected areas (MPAs), or established no-take zones/reserves, to infer overall stock status. These estimates are determined either in isolation or in relation to estimates undertaken outside the MPA or no-take zone/reserve. The stock status is compared with a reference point(s), and the level of catch in areas open to fishing is adjusted accordingly.

For category name: Turns out there is no way to edit (or delete) an input category. I added a new input category with the new name, "MPA or No-Take Zone/Reserve", and replaced the old input cat in the options to fix the current issue. I will write a new GitHub issue to address the broader problem of not being able to edit/delete input categories.

[NatalieDowling]

Fantastic – thank you, Brian. Great stuff.

From: Brian Snouffer notifications@github.com Sent: Friday, 17 April 2020 6:07 AM To: shcaba/FishPath-updates FishPath-updates@noreply.github.com Cc: Dowling, Natalie (O&A, Hobart) Natalie.Dowling@csiro.au; Assign assign@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [shcaba/FishPath-updates] Change "MPA" to "no take reserve" (#158)

Inputted into FishPath.

1. added "established" before "no-take zones/reserves" in the description.
2. Additions in bold (done for both catch and effort limits): Title: Adjust based on data collected from marine protected areas or established no-take zones/reserves This option uses estimates of density or abundance from within marine protected areas (MPAs), or established no-take zones/reserves, to infer overall stock status. These estimates are determined either in isolation or in relation to estimates undertaken outside the MPA or no-take zone/reserve. The stock status is compared with a reference point(s), and the level of catch in areas open to fishing is adjusted accordingly.

For category name: Turns out there is no way to edit (or delete) an input category. I added a new input category with the new name, "MPA or No-Take Zone/Reserve", and replaced the old input cat in the options to fix the current issue. I will write a new GitHub issue to address the broader problem of not being able to edit/delete input categories.

— You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/shcaba/FishPath-updates/issues/158#issuecomment-614867734, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJRE225SC7F3KEX6VADLJPTRM5QNBANCNFSM4FUNUWCA.