1. 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

2. 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 fish resources is prohibited = “no-take” areas (NRC 2001)

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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) MPA Task Force Report

6. 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

7. 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 approach Infrequent process dedicated to reserves, MPAs  Pros: allows more comprehensive, effective planning  Cons: time and resource intensive –Combination of above

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

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