Marine Protected Areas in Alaska: ADF

1
Marine Protected Areas in AlaskaADFGs Program

• Doug Woodby
• Alaska Department of Fish and Game
• Juneau, Alaska
• with help from Cori Cashen, Kristen Mabry, Janet
  Schempf, Ellen Fritts, Lance Trasky, Glenn
  Seaman, Carol Barnhill, Kerri Tonkin, Kimberly
  Phillips, and Tim Haverland

2
Topics

• Public demand and Industry Concern
• Public process for selection of Marine Protected
  Areas
• MPA Task Force Report to the Board of Fisheries
• Implications/Applications
• Fishery management
• Ecosystem monitoring

3
Definitions

• Marine Protected Area Areas designated for
  special protection to enhance the management of
  marine resources (NRC 2001) with year-round
  protection (NOAA 2001)
• Marine Reservezones within an MPA where
  removal or disturbance of resources is
  prohibited no-take areas (NRC 2001)

4
Trawl and Special Groundfish Closures
5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
Cape Edgecumbe (Sitka) Pinnacles

• Closed to taking of all groundfish
• Protects significant concentrations of lingcod

7.7 km2
8
State Game Refuges and Sanctuaries
9
State Critical Habitat Areas
10
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat

• Areas defined by radius and season

11
Impetus for MPA Public Process

• Public concern with fishery failures
• At least 25 of worlds fisheries are overfished
• Examples of recent Alaskan fishery failures
• Dungeness crabs Yakutat, PWS, Cook Inlet
• Red king crab Kodiak
• Shrimp PWS, Cook Inlet, Kodiak/Westward
• Rockfish local depletions
• Historic Alaskan fishery failures
• Bowhead whale
• Stellers sea cow

12
Impetus for MPA Public Process (2)

• Executive Order 13158 (2000)
• Directive to develop national system of MPAs
• Public proposals to Board of Fisheries, 2001/02
• Proposals 42 402 (incl. PWS), 424 for Marine
  Reserves
• ADFG staff interest in MPAs as fishery
  management tools
• Mitigation to meet provisions of Magnuson-Stevens
  Act (1996)
• Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
• Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC)
• VS.
• Industry concern for further loss of fishing
  areas

13
ADFGs Role

• Recommendations to the Board of Fisheries
  Focus on reserves in relation to
  fisheries
• Recommendation for process
• Goals and uses of MPAs in Alaska
• Enhanced public participation
• Site selection, size, and other design criteria
• Monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness
• Literature review of the scientific basis
• Catalogue and GIS maps of areas
• Review of legal process for designating MPAs
• Review of programs in other jurisdictions
  Federal U.S., BC, WA, OR, CA

14
ADFG Task Force

• Commercial Fisheries Division
• Earl Krygier, Denby Lloyd, Kristin Mabry, Tory
  OConnell, Charlie Trowbridge, Doug Woodby
  (chair)
• Habitat Division
• Janet Hall-Schempf
• Sport Fish Division
• Scott Meyer
• Wildlife Conservation
• Bob Small
• Commissioners Office
• Rob Bosworth
• Not a public body
• Recommendations out for review, 2-3 months.

15
Goals for MPAs and Reserves

• Habitat protection
• e.g., corals
• Conserve biodiversity
• Improve fishery management
• Bet hedging against risk
• Reduce exploitation rate
• Protect spawning andnursery areas
• Provide baseline environmental data

16
Conserving Biodiversity (Inside Reserves)

• Reserves are effective for increasing
• Fish abundance 2X (Halpern in press)
• Average fish size
• Species richness (usually)
• These results are from mostly sedentary species
  in tropical reef systems
• Results not surprising (in hindsight)
• Exponential increase in fecundity with fish size

17
Reserves as Fishery Management Tools

• Q Does fishery yield increase outside reserves?
• A major concern for industry
• A Depends on many factors, including dispersal
  of larvae, juveniles, and adults.
• In theory, depends on assumptions (Hastings and
  Botsford 1999, Guénette et al. 2000)
• Experimentally, hard to assess
• In practice
• sometimes yes (Murawski et al. 2000, Roberts et
  al. 2001)
• sometimes no (Frank et al. 2000)

18
Trawl Effort, 91-93
Courtesy of Paul Rago et al., NMFS, Woods Hole
19
50 Increase in SSB since 1994
closure
Courtesy of Paul Rago et al., NMFS, Woods Hole
20
400 Increase in SSB since 1994
closure
Courtesy of Paul Rago et al., NMFS, Woods Hole
21
800 Increase in SSB since 1994
closure
Courtesy of Paul Rago et al., NMFS, Woods Hole
22
1600 increase since 1994
Courtesy of Paul Rago et al., NMFS, Woods Hole
23
Courtesy of Paul Rago et al., NMFS, Woods Hole
24
Courtesy of Paul Rago et al., NMFS, Woods Hole
25
Some Lessons from Georges Bank

• All four species had been heavily exploited
• Greatest benefits for most sedentary species
  mobility CodgtHaddockgtFloundergtScallop
• Placement of closed areas is important
• Spawning areas
• Juvenile rearing areas
• Source areas as opposed to Sinks
• Not a controlled experiment
• Other restrictions contributed to increases in
  SSB
• Fishing effort is still excessive

26
Alternative Lesson Scotian Shelf

• Juvenile haddock closed area, 1987 (Frank et al.
  2000)
• No effect on recruitment or survival
• Previously over-exploited hard to recover
• Large-scale environmental changes (cooling)
• Older fish not protected (outside closed area)
• Not a complete closure fixed gear allowed until
  1993
• Closed areas alone are not sufficient
• Need additional control measures

27
Reserves as Controls

• Purpose
• to distinguish fishing or other human-induced
  effects from environmental effects
• Examples
• Glacier Bay worlds largest temperate marine
  reserveUSGS, NPS, ADFG cooperative research
  agreement
• Sea urchin and sea cucumber fishery control areas
  SE

28
Dive Fishery Closed Areas - SE Alaska

• Sea cucumber closures for subsistence protection
  (14)
• Sea lion rookeries (4)
• Research controls (4)
• sea urchins
• sea cucumbers
• Sampling for
• density
• growth
• recruitment

29
Reserves as Controls

• Needs
• Review existing closures and available data
• Funding issue
• Review the existing fisheries and needs for
  closures
• Fisheries as experiments most lack controls
• Public support
• Careful experimental design
• Consider effect of displaced effort

30
Summary Conclusions

• ADFGs program
• Recommending a public process
• Significant public (stakeholder) process needed
• Not recommending specific closed areas
• Opportunity to learn from mistakes elsewhere
• Reserves are
• No panacea for fisheries
• Tools, useful in combination with other fishery
  management measures
• Important for ecosystem monitoring