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

Marine Protected AreaAreas 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 fish resources is prohibited

= “no-take” areas (NRC 2001)

Purpose: – Provide options to the Board of

Fisheries– Not recommending specific closed

areas at this time

Approach:– Science-based– Focus on Reserves in relation to

fisheries management

MPA Task Force

Task Force Composition

Commercial Fisheries Division– Earl Krygier, Denby Lloyd, Kristin Mabry, Tory O’Connell,

Charlie Trowbridge, Doug Woodby (chair)

Habitat and Restoration Division– Janet Hall Schempf

Sport Fish Division– Scott Meyer

Wildlife Conservation– Bob Small

Commissioner’s Office– Rob Bosworth

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 jurisdictionsCA, OR, WA, BC

7. Legal process for designating reserves

(Board and Council)

MPA Task Force Report

Options for Process (pt 1)

Definitions and Scope: Degree of protection– No-take reserves (closed to harvest of all fish

species) Round Island sanctuary

– Multi-species closed areas Pinnacles near Sitka – closed to groundfish, not salmon

– Single species closed areas Sea cucumber closed areas in Southeast AK

Options for Process (pt 2)

Proposal Consideration– Status quo

Cyclic (annual) submission of individual proposals

Pros: process is in place Cons: not as deliberate or as comprehensive

– Enhanced, focused approachInfrequent process dedicated to reserves, MPAs

Pros: allows more comprehensive, effective planning Cons: time and resource intensive

– Combination of above

Options for Process (pt 3)

Public involvement“Stakeholder” process

– Public panel appointed by the Board Perhaps similar to Sustainable Salmon process

– Public meetings and workshops Informational: findings and recommendations of ADF&G

report Information gathering: issues, candidate areas

– Combination of above

Options for Process (pt 4)

Legislative approval

Draft a plan under APA, don’t adopt plan, but submit a bill; Legislature then authorizes Board to designate a reserve.

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)

Options for public process

Public Process Approach ADF&G PUBLIC BOARD

Mar 02

Oct 02

Comment on options for public process

Review progress; clarify needs for further work

Specify public process approach

Timeline Options (pt 2)

Draft report out for Board/public review

Goals and Site Selection Criteria ADF&G PUBLIC BOARD

Jun 02

Dec 02

Submit comments on draft report Review report

and public recommendations

Decide on policy or regulations

Sep 02

Oct 02

Timeline Options (pt 3)

Evaluate current closures

Proposal Development ADF&G PUBLIC BOARD

Nov 02

Mar 04

Submit proposals

Call for proposals2003/2004

Action on proposals;Forward for Legislative review/approval

Apr 03

Gap analysis of needs

Public/Panel meetings

Jan 04 Evaluate proposals against criteria