|
Article Excerpt
Introduction
Marine protected areas (MPA's) are an important tool for managing fisheries and other human activities in the ocean. As defined by Executive Order 13158 (Clinton, 2000), a marine protected area is "any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by Federal, State, tribal, territorial, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein."
MPA's have been established to meet several goals, including conservation of biodiversity and habitat, increased scientific knowledge, educational opportunities, enhancement of recreational activities, maintenance of ecosystem services, protection of cultural heritage, and managing fisheries (National Research Council, 2001; Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee, 2005). For fisheries management, marine protected areas have been implemented to control exploitation rates of target species, protect spawning and nursery areas, improve sustainable yields, reduce bycatch of nontarget species, protect benthic habitat from perturbations due to fishing gear, ensure against uncertainties, conserve genetic diversity, or to achieve other objectives (National Research Council, 2001). MPA's are a critical element of ecosystem-based fishery management, which is being developed and promoted as the new approach to managing fisheries in the United States and elsewhere (Pikitch et al., 2004; Fluharty, 2005; Hoff et al., 2005).
Regional fishery management councils, established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, have the primary authority to develop marine protected areas that restrict fishing in Federal waters (5.6-370 km, or 3-200 n.mi. from the shoreline) of the United States. Regulations developed by the councils are subject to approval by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), acting on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, before they can be implemented. NMFS can also restrict fishing activities if actions taken by a regional council are insufficient to meet legal requirements for fisheries management. The International Pacific Halibut Commission has authority to enact conservation measures, including MPA's, for the Pacific halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepis, fishery. States can also develop MPA's in Federal waters to restrict activities of fisheries managed by the state and for those fisheries not subject to approved Federal fishery management plans.
Restrictions on fishing in state waters of Alaska (0-5.6 km or 0-3 n.mi. of the shoreline), including closure of areas to certain gear types or harvest of particular species, are enacted by the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Establishment of no-take reserves in state waters requires action of the Alaska State legislature.
Many marine protected areas have been implemented by fishery managers in the Federal waters off Alaska, and they are an important component of the precautionary management system (1) established to provide sustainable fisheries in the Alaska region (NMFS, 2001b). These MPA's are permanently designated in the Federal fishery management plans (FMP's) and in the implementing regulations governing the crab, Chionoecetes spp., Lithodes spp., and Paralithodes spp.; scallop, Patinopecten caurinus; Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp.; and groundfish (Gadidae, Scorpaenidae, Hexagrammidae, Anoplopomatidae, and Pleuronectidae) fisheries.
State water closures to commercial fishery harvests have been enacted by the Alaska Board of Fisheries for research purposes and to conserve fish stocks, protect habitats, reduce bycatch, and provide subsistence and recreational harvest opportunities. These closures are enacted through regulations governing invertebrate dive fisheries, scallop dredge fisheries, crab pot fisheries, shrimp, Pandalus spp., fisheries, and various groundfish fisheries. There are also many closures affecting nearshore Pacific herring, Clupea pallasi, and Pacific salmon fisheries; however, these are primarily used to regulate harvests, such as prohibiting harvests in terminal areas for salmon, and are not included in this paper.
Fisheries management in the North Pacific region (Fig. 1) has generally been successful in achieving the conservation and management objectives of the Magnuson Stevens Act and is considered to be a model for other U.S. waters (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004). Strict catch quotas for all managed target and nontarget species, coupled with an effective monitoring program, form the foundation of the Federal fishery management program. Other management measures, including MPA's, effort limitation, rights-based programs, community development programs, and protected resources considerations combine to provide a comprehensive conservation and management program (Witherell et al., 2000). As a result of these measures, sustainable production has been maintained. Annual groundfish harvests have been in the 3- to 5-billion pound range for the past 30 years (NPFMC, 2004a). Additionally, all groundfish, salmon, and scallop stocks, and most crab stocks managed by Federal FMP's, are considered to be above established minimum stock size thresholds (NMFS, 2004a).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
This paper provides a comprehensive inventory and classification of MPA's in Federal waters off Alaska, a brief history of their development, and an examination of their effectiveness to date at achieving objectives. We also provide an accounting of adjacent state water MPA's for marine fisheries using the same classification scheme.
Methods
MPA's have been classified many different ways. The most recent classification system was developed by the National MPA Center, established within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The MPA Center classifies MPA's based on six fundamental characteristics of design and management: primary conservation goal, level of protection, permanence, constancy (year-round or seasonal), scale, and allowed extractive activities as detailed in Table 1 (National MPA Center, 2005). We classified MPA's in the Federal and state waters off Alaska using this system.
Further, we categorized the MPA's based on their primary management objective. Adapting from the categories developed by Coleman et al. (2004) for Gulf of Mexico fishery MPA's, we categorized the North Pacific fishery MPA's into five groups: those primarily intended to protect ecological structure and function, establish control sites for scientific research studies, conserve habitat, protect vulnerable stocks, or protect cultural resources.
We researched the history and development of marine protected areas by examining available literature and reviewing the analytical reports and meeting records of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Additionally, we augmented these reports and records with personal observations (Witherell) as an analyst for the Council. We evaluated the effectiveness of the MPA's from a conservation perspective by examining available reports and reviewing the most recent information (biomass trends, trends in year-class strength) on the status of the stocks, including nontarget species (e.g. NPFMC, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d).
Based on the MPA Center criteria, MPA's are not included here if they were closed primarily to avoid fishing gear conflicts or if area-based regulations were established solely to limit fisheries by quota management or to facilitate enforcement. These include areas designated for testing trawl gear, regulatory areas and subareas, TAC allocation areas, harvest limit areas, sector allocation areas, and other types of designated marine managed areas. These sites may not meet the MPA definition of Executive Order 13158 in that they do not provide "lasting protection" for the natural or cultural resources.
Results
Area closures have long been used as a fishery management tool off Alaska, and the application of MPA's (the current term for area closures) has evolved to meet changing management needs. Beginning in 1939, trawling for red king crab, Paralithodes camtschaticus, was prohibited in Cook Inlet and all waters east of long. 150 [degrees] W to limit the catch of red king crab and Pacific halibut taken by foreign trawl fleets. Later, in 1961, Japan established a no-trawl zone in Bristol Bay to limit interactions between its trawl fleet and its crab pot fleet. Many other MPA's were established off Alaska in subsequent years through international agreements with Japan, the Soviet Union, Republic of Korea, and Poland prior to implementation of preliminary fishery management plans in 1977 ([Fredin.sup.2]). The preliminary groundfish fishery management plans closed many areas to foreign trawling year-round and/or seasonally to protect domestic fisheries for crab, sablefish, Anoplopoma fimbria, and Pacific halibut from that competition. As the domestic fisheries phased out the foreign fisheries in the 1980's, MPA's were primarily developed to control bycatch of species whose harvest is legally limited to other gear types (e.g. crabs can only be harvested with pot gear, but they are taken incidentally in trawl fisheries). By the 1990's, fishery managers off Alaska began to use MPA's to protect sensitive benthic habitat from the effects of mobile gear (particularly scallop dredges and bottom trawls), and to address concerns regarding potential competition with Steller sea lions, Eumetopias jubatus.
The current suite of MPA's developed for fisheries in the North Pacific can be categorized into several groups on the basis of the primary management objective identified. In many cases, the MPA's achieve multiple objectives, but in this study they were categorized based on their primary objective. An inventory list of the North Pacific fishery MPA's, grouped by category, is provided in Table 2. Table 3 shows how these MPA's are classified using the system developed by the National MPA Center (National MPA Center, 2005).
Details are provided for each MPA in the following sections, which are discussed by category of the primary management objective. We provide information, where available, on 1) the background and objective for the MPA, 2) the process to designate the MPA, 3) the size and location of the MPA, 4) the estimated costs to the fishing industry to implement the MPA, and 5) an examination of how well the MPA has achieved its objectives to date.
Ecosystem MPA's
Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve
Off Cape Edgecumbe near Sitka, two small pinnacles rise from about 160 m, reaching to within 40m of the ocean surface. Extensive observations made from submersible dives (O'Connell et al., 1998) have shown that the boulder field at the base of the pinnacles provides refuge for adult yelloweye rockfish, Sebastes ruberrimus; other demersal rockfish, Sebastes spp.; prowfish, Zaprora silenus; and lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus; as well as giant Pacific octopus, Octopus dofleini. The sides and top of the pinnacles are composed of columnar basalt, and gorgonian corals, Primnoa sp., grow on the steep walls of the pinnacles. Juvenile pelagic rockfishes, Sebastes spp., are abundant at the top of the pinnacles and in the water column above the pinnacles. The top of the pinnacles are covered with sessile invertebrates including anemones, tunicates, and hydrocorals, and adult lingcod aggregate there during the late spring and early summer (O'Connell, 1993).
In 1991, a few commercial fishermen had discovered the concentrations of lingcod on these pinnacles and experienced unusually high catch rates. Underwater investigations of the area by state fisheries biologists confirmed the large aggregations of lingcod and revealed the unique nature of the pinnacle area. State fishery biologists and managers were concerned about the risk of overfishing the concentrations of lingcod on these pinnacles and, beginning in 1997, implemented an emergency order to prohibit retention of all groundfish by commercial vessels in the vicinity of the pinnacles. However, the pinnacles quickly became a primary fishing ground for the charter boat and sport fleet, and in 1998, the Alaska Board of Fisheries permanently closed the pinnacle area to all state managed fisheries at the request of the local Fish and Game Advisory Committee. Public support for establishing a reserve was widespread as a result of a public outreach initiative (that included showing underwater footage from submersible dives on the pinnacles) by the local biologists and managers.
The state biologists also petitioned the Council to prohibit fishing for Federally managed species (including Pacific halibut) in the pinnacle area, thereby creating a comprehensive marine reserve. The Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve was implemented in 2000 as Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Groundfish FMP Amendment 59 (NPFMC, 1998). Regulations prohibit the use of all recreational and commercial fishing gear (except pelagic troll gear used for salmon), and anchoring by fishing vessels within a 10.3 [km.sup.2] (3 n.[mi.sup.2]) rectangular area encompassing the pinnacles (Fig. 2).
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
This MPA appears to be effective at protecting a post-spawning aggregation of lingcod, although comprehensive surveys of the lingcod population are lacking. Closure of this area is supported by the local fleet of commercial, charter, sport, and subsistence fishermen. Compliance with the MPA regulations appears to be high. Although there have been a few anonymous reports of violations to state biologists, no citations have been issued by enforcement personnel (O'Connell (3)).
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve
In 1998, President William J. Clinton signed into law sweeping restrictions on commercial fishing in marine waters of Glacier Bay National Park in Southeast Alaska (Fig. 2). The law established a 449.3 [km.sup.2] (131 n.[mi.sup.2]) MPA closed to commercial fishing (effective in 1999) and another 885 [km.sup.2] (258 n.[mi.sup.2)] undergoing a commercial fishing phase-out. Closed areas include 216 [km.sup.2] (63 n.[mi.sup.2)] of wilderness [waters.sup.4] that formerly supported a productive Dungeness crab, Cancer magister, fishery and 233 [km.sup.2] (68 n.[mi.sup.2]) in the bay's upper reaches where tidewater glaciers have been receding. The remaining commercial fisheries for Tanner crab, Chionoecetes bairdi, halibut, and salmon will continue only for the lifetimes of the existing permit holders with a qualifying history. Fisheries for groundfish and king crab were ended, while the Tanner crab and Pacific halibut fisheries are restricted to just the middle and southern ends of Glacier Bay proper during the phase-out. Fisheries in Icy Strait and outside waters within three miles of shore continue as before.
The closures were enacted to protect park values, which were considered incompatible with commercial extraction and were not due to conservation concerns associated with commercial fishing. Recognizing the economic hardships imposed by the commercial fishing closures, the U.S. Congress approved an $8 million buy-out program for Dungeness crab fishermen and a compensation package of $23 million for other affected entities representing fishing permit holders (46.5%), crewmembers (8.4%), processors (21.1%), processor workers (1.7%), businesses (7.5%), communities that lost tax revenues (1.7%), and communities that suffered indirectly (13.1%).
Glacier Bay provides unique research opportunities on the effects of fisheries. Research in the reserve is focused on the effects of the closures on commercial fish species, including the potential efficacy of the reserves for crab and Pacific halibut that may cross reserve boundaries, and comparisons of Dungeness crab populations inside and outside of protected areas. Preliminary results indicated that, as expected, unfished areas accumulated larger populations of legal-sized male crabs (Shirley (5)). Notably not different between fished and unfished areas was limb loss, primarily the front claws, which was suspected to be an effect of handling in a commercial fishery and which affects survival, molting, and mating. In this case, the controlled experiment suggested the cause of limb loss was large predators, such as Pacific halibut; sea otters, Enhydra lutris; river otters, Lutra canadensis; and Pacific octopus.
Walrus Islands Closure Areas
Pacific walrus, Odobenus rosmarus divergens, occur throughout the Chukchi and Bering Seas, with the southernmost major haulouts occurring in northern Bristol Bay on the islands of Round Island and the Twins, as well as on Cape Pierce. These haulouts are occupied by adult males during the spring and summer months when resting between foraging trips for invertebrates throughout Bristol Bay. Although the incidental catch of Pacific walrus in groundfish fishing operations was rare, the potential disruption of animals on their haulout sites or during feeding was of concern to Federal biologists and also to Alaska natives who hunt Pacific walrus for subsistence uses.
Biologists studying Pacific walrus at these haulouts had noticed that their numbers declined over the season, coincident with fishing effort by trawl vessels targeting yellowfin sole, Limanda aspera, in the spring once the ice sheet had retreated. Biologists believed that sound from the vessels could potentially be disrupting acoustic communication of these animals, both in the air and water environments, and proposed a 22.2 km (12 n.mi.) boundary around haulouts to reduce acoustical disruption.
Based on an analysis of this proposal, the Council developed regulations to prohibit all vessels from fishing for groundfish species within 22.2 km (12 n.mi.) of Round Island, the Twins, and Cape Pierce in northern Bristol Bay, during the period from 1 April through 30 September (Fig. 2). It was estimated that this regulation cost the fleet up to $4 million in lost ex-vessel revenues, based on 1988 catches and prices (NPFMC, 1991). This MPA, which totals 3,087 [km.sup.2] (900 n.[mi.sup.2]), was first established as a temporary measure in 1989 under Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Groundfish FMP Amendment 13, and it was implemented as a permanent measure under Amendment 17 in 1992 (NPFMC, 1991). In conjunction with the Federal action, a no-transit zone, except by permit, was established by the Alaska Board of Game for vessels within 5.6 km (3 n.mi.) of Round Island in the Walrus Island State Game Sanctuary.
The Walrus Islands closures may have substantially reduced effects of acoustic disturbance based on observations that more Pacific walrus occupy the haulouts throughout the summer now than before the closures (Seagars (6)). Nevertheless, it may be impossible to ascertain the impact of the MPA on the Pacific walrus population as a whole. The population had been reduced by commercial exploitation to a low in the mid 1950's, and by the late 1970's it had apparently recovered to pre-exploitation levels of 200,000 to 250,000 animals (Angliss and Lodge, 2002).
Steller Sea Lion Mitigation MPA's
The western stock of Steller sea lions declined about 80% between the 1950's and the late 1980's, and was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1990 by emergency rule. Multiple factors, including fishery related effects, likely played a role in the decline (National Research Council, 2003). At the time of listing, NMFS enacted several regulations to reduce direct mortality as a result of fishing, including no shooting at sea lions, a reduced incidental catch limit, and establishment of 5.6 km (3 n.mi.) radius no-entry buffer zones around all rookeries to reduce disturbance and reduce opportunities for shooting at sea lions.
In 1991, NMFS completed a consultation on proposed groundfish...
|
