Marine Protected Areas in Alaska: ADF&G’s 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

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

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 Reserve “zones within an MPA where removal or disturbance of resources is prohibited” = “no-take” areas (NRC 2001)

Trawl and Special Groundfish Closures Monashka Bay Pinnacles

Cape Edgecumbe (Sitka) Pinnacles Closed to taking of all groundfish Protects significant concentrations of lingcod 7.7 km 2

State Game Refuges and Sanctuaries

State Critical Habitat Areas

Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat Areas defined by radius and season

Impetus for MPA Public Process Public concern with fishery failures At least 25% of world’s 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 –Steller’s sea cow

Impetus for MPA Public Process (2) Executive Order (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 ADF&G 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

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 ADF&G’s Role

ADF&G Task Force Commercial Fisheries Division –Earl Krygier, Denby Lloyd, Kristin Mabry, Tory O’Connell, Charlie Trowbridge, Doug Woodby (chair) Habitat Division –Janet Hall-Schempf Sport Fish Division –Scott Meyer Wildlife Conservation –Bob Small Commissioner’s Office –Rob Bosworth Not a public body Recommendations out for review, ~ 2-3 months.

Goals for MPAs and Reserves Habitat protection –e.g., corals Conserve biodiversity Improve fishery management –Bet hedging against risk –Reduce exploitation rate –Protect spawning and nursery areas Provide baseline environmental data

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

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)

Trawl Effort, ’91-’93 Courtesy of Paul Rago et al., NMFS, Woods Hole

~50% Increase in SSB since 1994 closure Courtesy of Paul Rago et al., NMFS, Woods Hole

~400% Increase in SSB since 1994 closure Courtesy of Paul Rago et al., NMFS, Woods Hole

~800% Increase in SSB since 1994 closure Courtesy of Paul Rago et al., NMFS, Woods Hole

~1600% increase since 1994 Courtesy of Paul Rago et al., NMFS, Woods Hole

Some Lessons from Georges Bank All four species had been heavily exploited Greatest benefits for most sedentary species mobility: Cod>Haddock>Flounder>Scallop 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

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

Reserves as Controls Purpose: to distinguish fishing or other human-induced effects from environmental effects Examples: –Glacier Bay – world’s largest temperate marine reserve USGS, NPS, ADF&G cooperative research agreement –Sea urchin and sea cucumber fishery control areas – SE

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

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

ADF&G’s 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 Summary & Conclusions