Marine Protected Areas in Alaska Status Report and

Marine Protected Areas in Alaska: Status Report and Options for a Public Process MPA Task Force, Kristin Mabry, Doug Woodby, chair Alaska Department of Fish and Game Juneau, Alaska

Definitions l Marine Protected Areas designated for special protection to enhance the management of marine resources (NRC 2001) with “year-round protection” l Marine (NOAA 2001) Reserve zones within an MPA where removal or disturbance of fish resources is prohibited = “no-take” areas (NRC 2001)

MPA Task Force l Purpose: – Provide options to the Board of Fisheries – Not recommending specific closed areas at this time l Approach: – Science-based – Focus on Reserves in relation to fisheries management

Task Force Composition l Commercial Fisheries Division – Earl Krygier, Denby Lloyd, Kristin Mabry, Tory O’Connell, Charlie Trowbridge, Doug Woodby (chair) l Habitat and Restoration Division – Janet Hall Schempf l Sport Fish Division – Scott Meyer l Wildlife Conservation – Bob Small l Commissioner’s Office – Rob Bosworth

MPA Task Force Report 1. Goals and uses of MPAs in Alaska 2. Site selection, size, and other design criteria 3. Monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness 4. Catalogue and GIS maps of existing areas 5. Literature review of the scientific basis 6. Review of programs in other jurisdictions CA, OR, WA, BC 7. Legal process for designating reserves (Board and Council)

Options for Process (pt 1) l Definitions and Scope: Degree of protection – No-take reserves (closed to harvest of all fish species) s Round Island sanctuary – Multi-species closed areas s Pinnacles near Sitka – closed to groundfish, not salmon – Single species closed areas s Sea cucumber closed areas in Southeast AK

Options for Process (pt 2) l Proposal Consideration – Status quo Cyclic (annual) submission of individual proposals s Pros: process is in place s Cons: not as deliberate or as comprehensive – Enhanced, focused approach Infrequent process dedicated to reserves, MPAs s Pros: allows more comprehensive, effective planning s Cons: time and resource intensive – Combination of above

Options for Process (pt 3) l Public involvement “Stakeholder” process – Public panel appointed by the Board s Perhaps similar to Sustainable Salmon process – Public meetings and workshops s s Informational: findings and recommendations of ADF&G report Information gathering: issues, candidate areas – Combination of above

Options for Process (pt 4) l Legislative approval s Draft a plan under APA, don’t adopt plan, but submit a bill; Legislature then authorizes Board to designate a reserve. s Draft a plan under APA, adopt as a recommendation, and submit as a bill. * per AS 16. 05. 251(a), the Board may set aside fish reserve areas subject to legislative approval.

Timeline Options (pt 1) Public Process Approach ADF&G Mar 02 PUBLIC BOARD Review progress; clarify needs for further work Options for public process Comment on options for public process Oct 02 Specify public process approach

Timeline Options (pt 2) Goals and Site Selection Criteria ADF&G Jun 02 Sep 02 Oct 02 Dec 02 PUBLIC BOARD Draft report out for Board/public review Submit comments on draft report Review report and public recommendations Decide on policy or regulations

Timeline Options (pt 3) Proposal Development ADF&G Nov 02 Evaluate current closures Gap analysis of needs Apr 03 Jan 04 Mar 04 PUBLIC Public/Panel meetings BOARD Call for proposals 2003/2004 Submit proposals Evaluate proposals against criteria Action on proposals; Forward for Legislative review/approval