ADF&G’s Program for Marine Protected Areas in Alaska Doug Woodby, MPA Task Force chair Alaska Department of Fish and Game Juneau, Alaska

Purpose: Make recommendations to the Board of Fisheries Approach: Science-based Focus on Reserves in relation to fisheries MPA Task Force

Task Force Composition 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

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)

Impetus for MPA Public Process Executive Order (2000) –Directive to develop national system of MPAs Public proposals to Board of Fisheries –Proposals 42, 402, 424 for Marine Reserves ADF&G staff interest in MPAs as management tools Provisions of Magnuson-Stevens Act (1996) –Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) –Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) Industry concern for further loss of fishing areas

1. Recommendation for process 2. Literature review of the scientific basis 3. Catalogue and GIS maps of areas 4. Legal process for designating MPAs 5. Review of programs in other jurisdictions: Federal U.S., CA, OR, WA, BC MPA Task Force Report

1. Recommendation for process Goals and uses of MPAs in Alaska Enhanced public participation (by March 2002 for April proposal deadline) Site selection, size, and other design criteria Monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness MPA Task Force Report

2. Literature review of the scientific basis Conserving biodiversity (inside reserves) Improving fishery yields outside of reserves Design criteria: size and location MPA Task Force Report

3. Catalogue and GIS maps of Existing MPAs Type of protections History Jurisdiction and legal basis Boundaries MPA Task Force Report

4. Legal process for designating MPAs Board process Council process Joint Board and Council, IPHC Legislative MPA Task Force Report

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

5. Review of other programs: Federal U.S., CA, OR, WA, BC Public and legal processes Learn from mistakes and successes MPA Task Force Report

Recommending a process to the Board –Science-based, focused on reserves –Significant public (stakeholder) process Not recommending specific closed areas Opportunity to learn from mistakes and successes elsewhere Summary