-
extracted text
-
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IN THE PUGET SOUND:
CAN A NETWORK DESIGN OF MPA’S OFFER GREATER PROTECTION
THAN ISOLATED RESERVES FOR CRITICAL ROCKFISH POPULATIONS?
by
Stephanie L. Sparks
Thesis: Essay of Distinction
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Study
The Evergreen State College
December 2010
This page was intentionally left blank.
ii
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Study Degree
by
Stephanie Sparks
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Peter Dorman
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
iii
This page was intentionally left blank.
iv
ABSTRACT
In the Puget Sound, some rockfish species have been reduced to 10% of their
historic reproductive potential (Palsson 1998). Because of the drastic decline,
there has been a major push for the use of marine protected areas (MPAs) as a
management tool for this complex species. Previous literature has looked at the
benefits that MPAs may have on threatened rockfish populations. Current gaps in
MPA knowledge surround the question of whether individual or networked MPAs
offer greater protection for fisheries populations. Several models have been
developed to try to assess the potential benefits of these various designs of
reserves. In addition, long-term MPAs have been established at Edmonds Marine
Park and a network of MPAs has been established in the San Juan Islands.
Review of these two ventures and other MPAs in the Puget Sound show that
marine reserves have shown benefits, but are conflicted over design. Models that
reflect MPA potential benefits lean towards the use of a networked design to
promote rockfish species. Real world case studies and biological surveys at
Edmonds Marine Park and the network of San Juan reserves have not necessarily
mimicked models successes. Because of this, determining whether individual or
networked reserves will show more benefit for rockfish species may be more
situational than a definitive answer based on several environmental and social
factors. Outside of modeling, current research has not clearly shown how MPAs
interact with surrounding fished areas and is an essential component to the
individual or networked reserves debate. Continued science needs to determine
the effects of source and sinks, larval and adult spillover and compliance of MPAs
before a clear distinction between individual and networked MPAs can be made.
v
This page was intentionally left blank.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................v
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
Where the Problem Begins - Critical State ........................................................................3
Rockfish Biology................................................................................................................5
Reproduction Strategies ............................................................................................... 5
Problems with Typical Fisheries Management ........................................................... 7
What is a MPA? .................................................................................................................9
Categories of MPAs .........................................................................................................11
No-Take Areas ........................................................................................................... 11
Feature-Specific MPAs.............................................................................................. 12
Multiple Use MPAs ..........................................................................................................13
Fisheries Benefits and Optimal Design of Marine Reserves ............................................14
Case Study: Looking at the Puget Sound ...........................................................................19
Individual MPA’s – Edmonds Underwater Park ..............................................................22
Networked MPAs – San Juan Islands Marine Reserves ..................................................26
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................34
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................36
Works Cited .......................................................................................................................39
vii
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES
Figure 1. 1. “Spill over” effect from a marine reserve to a non-marine reserve ............................ 18
Figure 2. Map of San Juan County Voluntary No-Take Marine Reserves .................................... 29
Figure 3. Map of WDFW Bottomfish Refuges (Palsson 1994) ..................................................... 30
Table 1: Existing MPAs for Rockfish in Puget Sound ................................................................. 20
viii
I would like to thank my parents and amazing grandparents for their love and
support through this effort. To my parents for continuing to make sacrifices so
that their children could have all the opportunities that they could ask for. I want
to also give a special thanks to Peter Dorman who encouraged me and stuck by
research explorations and dead ends. Thank you for your time, encouragement
and support. Thanks to my sisters, Tyler, and friends who continually offered
advice and love through this endeavor.
ix
This page was intentionally left blank.
x
INTRODUCTION
In recent years considerable emphasis has been placed on the
establishment of marine reserves, marine protected areas and no-take zones as
fishery management tools for exploited rockfish populations. Marine closures can
have multiple objectives, including protection of habitat, but the primary goal is
the augmentation and protection of exploited fish stocks (Boersma and Parrish
1999; Bohnsack 1993). The efficacy of marine closures as fishery management
tools remains hotly debated with some arguing that protected areas should form a
core element of future fisheries management (Allison et al. 1998; Lauck et al.
1998), while others argue protected areas are simply one element of fisheries
management (Hilborn et al. 2004).
Despite the debate, the use of marine
protected areas has been shown a productive way to protect ecosystem structures
and function, while also benefiting fish populations (Agardy 1994; Lauck et al.
1998). Evaluations of the effects of marine protected areas have shown promise
for long-lived and slow reproducing species such as rockfish. Several small
reserves have been developed in California and Washington, which protect
species from commercial fishing (McArdle 1998, Palsson 1998) and have shown
benefit. For Washington, a network system protecting 20% of marine habitat is
likely needed to protect 40% of the un-fished biomass, which is currently a
management goal for rockfish in Puget Sound (Palsson 2001). Despite this, very
few existing MPAs offer protection to rockfish species.
1
Previous literature has focused heavily on the scientific aspects of MPAs
as a reserve for threatened species. Research has evaluated the use of MPAs as a
tool for fisheries management (Agardy 1994; Allison et al. 1998). Research has
focused on MPA scale and design requirements (Adron and Haggarty 2001;
Bloch 2003; Don 2002; Eisenhardt 2001; Klinger and Ebbesmeyer 2001; Nowlis
and Roberts 1998), larval spillover and recruitment (Botsford et al. 2001; Chasco
et al. 2000), and assessment of current MPA sites (Roberts and Polunin 1991; Soh
et al. 1998; Tuya et al. 2000). This current base of knowledge has inferred and
led into the presumption that a network design of MPAs may offer greater benefit
than isolated MPAs. Similar arguments have been made in the terrestrial world as
well. Over the past twenty years, discussions have evolved regarding the benefits
of wildlife corridors and green spaces to minimize habitat fragmentation. This
debate continues as resource managers attempt to determine whether maximum
benefit will come from protecting single large reserves or several pocket reserve
areas. These questions now arise in the marine world. McNeil and Fairweather
(1993) described an experimental evaluation of the single large or several small
(SLOSS) debate by comparing the diversity and abundance of fish and
macroinvertebrates associated with small and large seagrass beds. While results
of this study were inconclusive, research did emphasize that processes affecting
species’ recruitment need specific consideration throughout the reserve design
and analysis. The paper also highlighted the challenges of studying reserves in
the marine environment, which is a continued theme with research involving
aquatic resources.
2
Despite the current efforts in research on marine protected areas, the
current body of literature has largely ignored the current piecemeal collection of
MPAs nationally and around the world. Research has not investigated the varying
benefits or potential detriments that are associated with isolated and networked
MPA designs. This information signifies a major gap in the current base of
knowledge on this topic and needs to be explored in order to understand the
significance of MPAs and to determine whether they will be an effective
management tool in the northwest and in other management areas around the
world.
This thesis will investigate whether a networked design of marine
protected areas can offer greater protection than individual reserve areas for the
protection of threatened and endangered rockfish species by examining case
studies of various management strategies at Edmonds Underwater Marine Park
and the San Juan Marine Reserves in Puget Sound.
Where the Problem Begins - Critical State
Rockfish in the Puget Sound are one of the many species that have
become victims of overfishing. Today many stocks of rockfish are either below
average, depressed, or at critical stock conditions (Palsson 1998). These stock
assessments refer to the determination of the abundance of a fish population,
whether the abundance is stable over time with the estimation of natural and
fishing-related mortality. Several studies have identified significant problems for
Puget Sound’s groundfish resources. Schmitt et al. (1994) reported the lowest
groundfish catches in Puget Sound in fifty years and that there were five fishery
3
collapses due to low fish abundance. The 1995 Status of Stocks Document
(Palsson 1996) found the majority of groundfish stocks are at ‘below average’
abundance. Studies of rockfish and lingcod populations show these species are
overfished in many areas of Puget Sound (Palsson and Pacunski 1995). These
reports supported the federal listing of three Puget Sound rockfish species under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
April 2010, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced the designation of canary and
yelloweye rockfishes as “threatened” and bocaccio rockfish as “endangered”
under the ESA. In addition to this, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) has listed 13 different rockfish as Candidate Species under their lists of
Species of Concern.
Because of the critical state at which rockfish populations remain in the
Puget Sound, many groups and agencies have taken an active role in attempting to
revitalize groundfish resources to historically average or above historic levels.
Fishery managers want to ensure that harvests are at levels that do not risk
overfishing or that cannot fulfill natural ecosystem functions. Typical fishery
management strategies have not worked for Puget Sound rockfish populations.
Management tools such as limiting the season, size limits, as well as the catch and
release methods have simply not worked because of rockfish’s unique biology. In
general, rockfish have long life spans, often exceeding 50 years, are slow to
mature and have a very low first year survival, which all results in long generation
times. In addition, rockfish are relatively easy to locate and catch, and they have
a swim bladder that does not adjust to the rapid pressure changes when reeled up
4
from deep water. As a result, the mortality of hooked rockfish is close to one
hundred percent (Parker et al. 2000).
Rockfish Biology
Puget Sound is home to approximately 30 different species of rockfish
(Love et al. 2002). The geomorphology of Puget Sound, including rocky highrelief areas, crevices for hiding, and numerous eelgrass and kelp beds for larvae
development, provides the ideal environment for rockfish populations. Rockfish
are a very successful species of fish, however, their reproduction strategy and
long lifespan makes them vulnerable to overfishing and other anthropogenic
pressures. For the scope of this paper, three rockfish species were researched;
quillback rockfish (Sebastes maliger), yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus),
and canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger). These species were chosen because they
are all classified as “depleted” in the Puget Sound (WDFW 2009), but were once
so plentiful that they were a significant part of Washington’s local commercial
fishery (Williams et al. 2010). In addition, all three species can be found in the
north and south Puget Sound, which makes them comparable as we review MPAs
in various parts and habitats of the Georgia Basin. Understanding the biological
and life cycle requirements is the foundation of understanding the importance of
establishing marine reserves to recover populations and protect rockfish habitat.
Reproduction Strategies
Quillback, canary, and yelloweye rockfish species are all long-lived
species. Canary is the youngest lived species, despite it living up to 84 years,
5
quillback lives to 95 years, and yelloweye rockfish live up to 118 years (Williams
et al. 2010). In general, rockfish become sexually mature much later than other
bony fish in the Puget Sound. The species of focus typically mature between the
ages of seven to eleven years, but it can be up to 20 years for longer-lived species.
Maturity usually occurs when they reach approximately 30-40 centimeters.
Rockfish have a viviparous reproduction strategy, which means that fertilization
and embryo development is internal and young are born free swimming (Love et
al. 2002). A mature rockfish can give birth to over a half a million young, which
float on and feed in tidal currents, settling in sheltered bays and inlets (Love et al.
2002; Palsson 1996).
Marine protected areas have been recommended as a way to preserve
older female fish, which have higher fecundity. Past studies have found that
larger female rockfish produce the largest and highest number of eggs compared
to smaller females. For example, a female copper rockfish that are 8 inch (20 cm)
in length produce 5,000 larvae, while a female 20 inches (50 cm) in length may
produce 700,000 larvae (Palsson et al. 2009). New studies are also showing the
age of the female that relates to increased larval growth and survival rates. Steven
Berkeley (2004) conducted an experiment between larvae from older and younger
black rockfish females, which are similar in size and have similar life histories of
quillback rockfish. During this fed treatment, the larvae of the older females grew
in length and mass three times faster than the younger female’s larvae. The oldest
female larvae were able to survive starvation two times longer in the unfed
treatments. The results found older females produced the highest quality larvae.
6
The larvae performance was highly correlated to the volume of oil globule present
within the rockfish (Berkeley et al. 2004a). This research supports the goals of
marine protected areas in retaining older fish populations within reserves as a
recruitment source of rockfish outside of reserve areas. By removing larger, older
fish the reproduction potential is impacted significantly. Therefore, MPAs have a
critical effect on rockfish populations by protecting larger, older female rockfish
and encourages reproduction ability. Protecting older fish may benefit fisheries in
the long term as fecundity increases in a greater population of fish. The spillover
of protected adults, juveniles, eggs, and larvae offers the potential to also maintain
or improve fishery yields in areas adjacent to marine protected areas. Currently,
rockfish are commonly caught before they reach sexual maturity, eliminating their
entire reproductive potential (Palsson et al. 2009).
Problems with Typical Fisheries Management
Currently, commercial fishing of rockfish is not allowed and recreational
fishing has a one fish bag limit per day.
Despite these restrictive fishing
regulations, fishery management techniques have not been sufficient in protecting
rockfish populations in the Puget Sound. Bycatch of rockfish has continued to be
a problem because of the biology of the fish. Rockfish have swim bladders that
contain gas that is slowly regulated to allow the fish to maintain buoyancy at
various depths, primary in deep waters with high pressure. Rockfish, unlike other
species such as salmon, do not have a mechanism to rapidly expel gas from their
swim bladder. When the rockfish are brought to the surface, from deep water
7
(high pressure) to the surface (low pressure), the gas within the bladder expands,
causing internal injuries to the fish which almost always leads to death. Because
of this, typical fisheries management techniques, such as “catch and release”
cannot be used as a management tool for rockfish.
Despite fishery restrictions, rockfish stock trends have continued to
decline over the years. Comparisons of no-take areas to fished areas strongly
indicate that overfishing is the primary cause of the declines in abundance within
the rockfish community (Palsson 1998).
Fishery management is based on
uncertain estimates of fish abundance that are derived from infrequently
conducted surveys, and on uncertain estimates of fishing mortality and effort all
of which are subject to weather, the market, and fisherman’s reports. An essential
purpose for MPAs designed for use as a fisheries management tool is to provide
insurance against these many different uncertainties (Fujita 1998).
A study
conducted by Wayne Palsson (1995) evaluated seven MPA sites within Puget
Sound to monitor the response of rockfish to no-take refuges.
These sites
included: Edmonds Underwater Park (established in 1970), four sites around the
San Juan Marine Preserves (established in 1990), Sund Rocks in Hood Canal
(established in 1994), and Titlow Beach in Tacoma, WA (established in 1994).
Higher densities of rockfish were recorded within all study sites in comparison to
nearby fished areas. A temporal pattern also began to evolve in relation to
rockfish lengths and their reproduction potential, and the duration of time the
reserve has been in existence. The reproduction potential of rockfish within
Edmonds Underwater Park, which has been established for over 40 years,
8
exceeded the average fished sites by a ratio of fifty-five to one. The younger
reserves length distribution of rockfish was not significant enough to have a
reproduction potential greater than the fished areas. These studies reiterate the
fact that rockfish populations increase slowly, so sufficient time is needed before
judging a MPAs success. The relationship between the biology of rockfish and
MPAs are important for the recovery of the species. Preserving natural habitats
helps ensures that following generations will benefit from their existence.
Because of these many biological limitations, many consider marine protected
areas the most productive way to protect rockfish populations in the Puget Sound.
What is a MPA?
MPAs are areas specially managed to protect species, habitats and
ecosystems. The official federal definition of an MPA is derived from Executive
Order 13158: “any area of the marine environment that has been reserved for
Federal, State, tribal, territorial, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting
protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.” MPAs
have become a popular means for management because of the many potential
advantages that they provide including: protection of spawning stock biomass,
providing a recruitment source for surrounding areas, supplemental restocking of
fished areas through emigration, maintenance of natural population age structure,
maintenance of areas of undisturbed habitat, protection of genetic diversity,
insurance against management failures in fished areas, reduced data-collection
needs, simplified enforcement, and ease of public understanding and acceptance
9
of areas of management, as well as much more other incidental benefits (Roberts
and Polunin 1991).
Marine protected areas can offer varying amounts of protection. MPAs
can be established as marine reserves which are no-take areas to multi-use
reserves that could include fishing. Management designations of the MPA would
be determined based on local goals and objectives. Marine protected areas can be
an effective mechanism for increasing fish catches and maximizing conservation
of heavily harvested and highly vulnerable fish populations that are threatened by
unselective multi-species fisheries (Roberts 1998). In the last few decades there
has been a number of field studies done that show the benefits of MPAs. In
Kenya, the establishment of a reserve covering sixty percent of the former fishing
grounds showed a 110% increase in catch per unit effort after just two years
(McClanahan and Kaunda-Arara 1996). Similar benefits were observed on Apo
Island, Philippines, where total fish density and species richness had increased by
over 400% in both the reserve and the fishing grounds after 11 years of reserve
protection (Russ and Alcala, 1996). These same authors also show that overall
harvests dropped more than 50% two years after the re-opening of the reserve in
the Philippines (Alcala and Russ 1990), suggesting that the reserve had provided
enhancements to surrounding fishing grounds.
Case studies of MPAs in the northwest also have shown benefit to targeted
rockfish species. A number of voluntary reserves have been established in the
San Juan archipelago in 1990.
In addition, the establishment of Edmonds
10
Underwater Park in 1970 has served as an effective reserve area for rockfish and
other bottomfish species (Palsson 1995). These reserve areas have been shown to
enhance both the abundance and size of individual fish in the reserves. For
example, it was shown that outside the reserve areas rockfish rarely reaches a size
greater than forty centimeters. Conversely, inside the reserves the majority of
individuals were greater than forty centimeters in length (Palsson 1995). Other
fish populations, such as lingcod, were also shown to benefit from the reserves,
showing greater numbers and sizes of individuals within the reserves (Palsson
2001). These findings strongly support the idea that an MPA system can provide
effective management for declining rockfish populations in Puget Sound.
Categories of MPAs
Marine protected areas offer varying protections to rockfish based on the
goals and objectives of the reserve when it is established. Marine protected areas
can be established as No-take areas, Feature Specific MPAs, and Multiple Use
MPAs.
Each has different goals for implementation and management.
The
various management goals of various MPAs can be used as a way to work with
various stakeholders and work around issues that may not be able to be solved
simply through joint discussions.
No-Take Areas
No-take areas are places where the extraction of all marine life is
prohibited. No-take areas are designed to counter the exploitation of marine
resources and related impacts. They are established for a number of reasons
11
including biodiversity protection, protection of endangered species, protection of
critical fisheries habitats or stocks, and protection of representative ecosystems.
These restrictions apply to commercial fishing, as well as recreational and
traditional fishing.
Activities such as research, education and other non-
consumptive uses are often also limited. No-take areas are not as restrictive as
“no-intrusion” areas set up to protect sensitive areas such as breeding areas.
Currently, Edmonds Underwater Park is the only no-take area in the Puget Sound.
Feature-Specific MPAs
Feature-specific MPAs are designed for a multitude of specific resource or
activity management purposes. These purposes can include recreational features
or attractions; protection of historic, archaeological or cultural features; specific
fishery management objectives, such as harvest refugia for a single species or
group of species; and scientific research use.
The San Juan Bottomfish Recovery Program’s eight Bottomfish Recovery
Zones are examples of MPAs that have been designed and implemented for the
protection of an isolated species (such as rockfish). The San Juan sites are all
fairly small, individually ranging from 27 to 136 acres. Collectively they cover
about 527 acres of rockfish habitat. These feature specific marine protected areas
are good in the fact that they are designed to be used as a sanctuary and a
protection area for rockfish. Nevertheless, fishing of salmon and other fish is
allowed. Although greatly reduced, this policy does not protect rockfish from
bycatch mortality that can still occur at these reserve areas.
12
Multiple Use MPAs
Most MPAs have been designed as Multiple Use reserves. These MPAs
consider the needs of many different stakeholders and provide a mechanism for
addressing a wide range of marine resources and habitat management conflicts.
Multiple use MPAs are generally larger than no-take areas and may provide an
increased ability to protect mobile organisms over wider geographic areas. This
type of protection can help prevent conflict between several uses of the marine
environment including recreation, tourism, and fishing. Multiple activities can be
allowed to take place in the same area. Multiple use MPAs are beneficial because
it allows for many uses and users, but it does not necessarily provide special
protection to sensitive or critical areas.
MPAs that incorporate no-take zones or harvest refugia (for a single
species or a group of species) can ensure the continuance of fisheries by
protecting spawning stocks and population exploitation (Bohnsack 1993). These
types of MPAs can help ensure against stock collapse. They provide a buffer
against the risk and uncertainties associated with traditional fishery management,
such as the lack of the precautionary principle in management decisions. They
also can assists in rebuilding depleted stocks after a collapse faster than possible
with other means. One of the major issues with rockfish protection in the Puget
Sound is incidental bycatch mortality. No-take MPAs eliminate or at least greatly
reduce bycatch mortality and protect these vulnerable and/or declining species.
13
The use of several different types of MPAs has been established around
the Puget Sound with varying success in restoring rockfish populations. Models
have been developed to help explain some of the many different factors that go
into MPA design. The use of MPAs have shown promise for rockfish species, but
the questions of efficacy between individual and networked MPA designs are still
looming. The Puget Sound use of both individual and networked MPA designs
makes it an ideal source to compare the effects of these designs on threatened
rockfish populations.
Fisheries Benefits and Optimal Design of Marine Reserves
Fishery population models have been developed to assess the potential for
marine fisheries reserves to enhance long-term fishery yields. Models have
included life history data and can allow for a more general analysis of the
conditions under which reserves are likely to produce benefits and of the design
attributes that will maximize these benefits. Several authors have built and
analyzed models of MPAs which support the use of reserves.
Models were created to examine the role of marine reserves in the
management of shortraker (Sebastes borealis) and rougheye rockfish (S.
aleutianus) in the Gulf of Alaska (Soh et al. 2000). Shortraker (common) and
rougheye (rarely) are also found in the north Puget Sound in the deepwater shelf
assemblage.
Models compared the future of biomass and fishing mortality
between the current system with no harvest refuges and management with a
refuge system in place over a twenty-year projection from a population dynamics
14
model. Results under a fixed exploration rate for acceptable biological catch
(FABC) found that the ending biomass of shortraker rockfish would increase by
about 800 metric tons (t) in twenty years, but the stock would decrease by over
7000 t if current fishing intensity were continued (Soh et al. 2000). Rougheye
rockfish scenarios were even more bleak. Under the FABC and the actual fixed
exploration rate (F) fishing scenarios, rougheye rockfish declined by about 500012000 t (Soh et al. 2000). Even though the actual fishing mortality was much
lower than the fishing intensity for the recommended acceptable biological catch
(ABC), rougheye stocks still declined. Under the refugia management strategy,
ending biomass in the twenty-year future projections increased for both the FABC
and F.
Under the FABC scenario, ending biomass increased about 12% for
shortraker and 16% for rougheye rockfish. Under the F scenario, ending biomass
increased about 44% for shortraker and about 8% for rougheye rockfish when
refugia management was employed (Soh et al. 2000). Biomass increases were
found under various fishing intensity trajectories and size differences for the
harvest refugia were found to have relatively little impact on the ending biomass
estimates (Soh et al. 2000). This study essentially said that placing reserves in
species richness hotspots would have two conservation benefits. Fist, they found
that continuous depletion of high-density areas would be prevented. Secondly,
they found that “topping off” of the bycatch allowance (these rockfish are only
allowed to be harvested as a bycatch) would be more difficult because the fleet
would be displaced to lower density areas where they could not as efficiently
target these species to reach their bycatch limits.
15
One of the biggest proponents for establishing MPAs is the potential effect
that they may have for supporting fisheries in the future. Primarily, two types of
models have been looked at for enhancing fisheries outside of reserve areas,
including adult spill over models and larval transport models.
Models
examining adult spillover (Polacheck, 1990; Nowlis and Roberts 1999) have
looked at the likelihood of grown adults migrating outside of the park boundary
to increase fisheries harvest catches.
Eisenhardt (2003) expanded on this
research and looked at home ranges for rockfish using acoustic telemetry.
Acoustic transmitters were put on 14 adult copper rockfish off the west side of
San Juan Island. During the two-month study, all but one fish stayed within 100
m2 .
The single fish only moved about 1 km outside of the reserve area.
Eisenhardt’s research generally supports previous findings by Matthews (1990)
of home range size and habitat use for rockfish. Matthews (1990) did transect
studies and found that a high-relief natural habitat type was the only habitat type
that is utilized consistently by rockfish throughout the year. Some movement
into low-relief rocky reefs, artificial reefs, and eel grass beds happened during
summer months, coincident with seasonal vegetation growth of bull kelp,
understory kelps, and eelgrass. When vegetation died back, lowest densities of
rockfishes were observed in these areas, suggesting only seasonal use of these
habitat areas. Presumably, rockfishes utilize these habitats when structure and
prey availability are highest. Home range size remained around 30m2 in Puget
Sound on patch reefs with high substrate complexity, although fish did show
16
range extension in the San Juan Islands where continuous, high substrate
complex, rocky reef habitat is available.
Models have also been developed to look at larval transport.
These
models examine the dispersion of larvae outside of MPA boundaries when adults
are sedentary within the reserve. With older, more productive fish protected,
research has shown how marine reserves can act as a broodstock in certain areas,
increasing production of larvae and juveniles that are dependent on the current
and tidal movements to be exported to the surrounding area. This has been
modeled to cause total biomass and landings in exploited fisheries to increase
and length frequency distributions to shift upward (Bohnsack 1996). Several
papers examine fisheries movements through larval transport (Quinn et al. 1993;
Man et al. 1995; Holland and Brazee, 1996). In such studies, larva dispersed
widely across reserve boundaries, resulting in an even density of new fish
settlement in reserve and non-reserve areas. In fact, it has been found that most
aquatic species disperse more widely as larvae than as adults (Boehlert, 1996).
Consequently, larvae are more likely to have an impact on outside fishing than
grown adults. Hastings and Botsford (1999) used a simplified larval transport
model to examine the benefits of reserves in regards to traditional fisheries
management. They demonstrated that a roughly equivalent yield is expected
under traditional fishery management (fixed harvest rate) as compared to a notake reserve.
In the outline of this study they did make the conservative
assumption that fecundity did not increase for fish protected by reserves, as
opposed to fish outside of reserves (which we know is not true in the case of
17
long-lived rockfish species). They showed that the fraction of habitat to remain
open to fishing is always at least as great as the optimal proportion of adults
harvested under traditional fishery management. When the authors allowed for
harvest rate management outside of the reserves, the proportion of open areas
could be larger and still provide equivalent yield. This result suggests that
reserves could be either a cost-effective alternative or a supplement to more
traditional measures used to achieve harvest rate. Nowlis and Yaklovich (1998)
also used a larval transport model to look at bocaccio rockfish (Sabastes
paucispinus) in fisheries off central and northern California. Research in this
study also found that reserves enhanced fishery yields whenever the fishery was
overfished. They also found that the optimum size of the reserve increased as
fishing mortality increased.
Figure 1. 1. “Spill over” effect from a marine reserve to a non-marine reserve
The spillover effect has been an advocated for all types of reserves, both
individual and networked. Individual reserves have potential for the spillover of
18
adults crossing reserve boundaries, as well as have the older population of fish
that can act as a broodstock for the open fisheries. The networked reserves have
these benefits too, but networked design focuses on MPAs that are close enough
together where reserves can interact through larval transport, bringing in a
greater genetic diversity into the reserves. Although different mediums, the
concept of networked MPAs mirrors the theory of island biogeography by
Robert MacArthur and E.O. Wilson. A protected marine reserve becomes an
‘island’ of species richness to outside fished areas. Immigration and emigration
are affected by the distance of a MPA ‘island’ from another source of colonists
(distance effect). The farther the distance of the ‘island’, the more isolated and
less likely it is to receive immigrants to the ‘island’ area. As pointed out by
MacArthur and Wilson, these isolated areas are more susceptible because
neighboring source populations cannot immigrate and add biodiversity to prevent
the risk of extinction. With networked MPAs, various reserves are better able to
interact with each other with immigration and emigration of larvae and juvenile
species. Larvae are free floating and at the mercy of the currents. Some will
drift to the open ocean, some will drift into open fishing areas, some will eddy
back into the original reserve area, but some will also drift to neighboring
reserved areas increasing biodiversity to that site.
Case Study: Looking at the Puget Sound
Much of the previous literature has discussed the fact that the design of the
MPA will have a significant impact on the success of the marine reserve and the
recovery of strained fish populations. Science has looked at the importance of site
19
selection, size, areas of sinks and sources, and scale for MPA placement
(Eisenhardt 2001; Bloch 2003; Ardon and Haggarty 2001; Botsford et al. 2001;
Klinger and Ebbesmeyer 2001; Nowlis and Roberts 1999; Roberts 1998).
Previous science has led to the assumption that a networked design of MPAs will
increase the benefit of the reserves, but current literature has not compared
networks to single MPAs. Networked designed MPAs have been theorized to
increase fish populations because of increased connectivity and distribution
between reserve sites, but this deduction not been properly reviewed in the current
literature. In the Puget Sound, both individual and networked marine protected
areas have been established, creating a diverse collection of protected intertidal
and subtidal areas. These MPAs have developed incrementally and inconsistently
into a patchwork of sites that vary considerably in their designation, purpose,
resource protection offered, and level of management provided.
There are
currently over 100 marine reserves around the Sound. Most of the reserves are
waters off of state parks which have no fishing restrictions. Only 21 MPAs have
some type of ban on fishing of rockfish, with one reserve offering complete
fishing protection.
Table 1: Existing MPAs for Rockfish in Puget Sound
Name/Location
Designation
Agency/organization
Bare island
Voluntary No-Take Bottom Fish
Recovery Area
San Juan County
Point Lawrence
Voluntary No-Take Bottom Fish
Recovery Area
San Juan County
Gull Rock
Voluntary No-Take Bottom Fish
Recovery Area
San Juan County
20
Kellett Bluff
Voluntary No-Take Bottom Fish
Recovery Area
San Juan County
Limekiln Lighthouse
Voluntary No-Take Bottom Fish
Recovery Area
San Juan County
Pile Point
Voluntary No-Take Bottom Fish
Recovery Area
San Juan County
Charles Island
Voluntary No-Take Bottom Fish
Recovery Area
San Juan County
Bell Island
Voluntary No-Take Bottom Fish
Recovery Area
San Juan County
Edmonds Underwater
Park
Underwater Park
City of Edmonds
Waketickeh
Bottom Fish Refuge
WDFW
Octopus Hole
Bottom Fish Refuge
WDFW
Sund Rocks
Bottom Fish Refuge
WDFW
Orchard Rocks
Bottom Fish Refuge
WDFW
Colvos
Bottom Fish Refuge
WDFW
Titlow
Bottom Fish Refuge
WDFW
False Bay
Bottom Fish Refuge
WDFW
Friday Harbor
Bottom Fish Refuge
WDFW
Argyle Lagoon
Bottom Fish Refuge
WDFW
Yellow & Low Islands
Preserve
Bottom Fish Refuge
WDFW
Shaw Island
Bottom Fish Refuge
WDFW
Woodard Bay
Natural Resources Conservation Area
Department of Natural
Resources
21
Individual MPA’s – Edmonds Underwater Park
Individual MPAs are the most common form of MPAs in the Puget Sound
and around the nation. These MPAs have primarily been established based on
important habitat areas or for protection of a specific species. Individual MPAs
are typically larger than smaller networked MPAs and it has been argued that they
are easier to enforce because they are more widely known and boundaries are
easier to define. Although several MPAs have been established in the Puget
Sound, Edmonds Underwater Park is the only no-take area reserve and has sense
been repeatedly used as an example for MPA assessments. In 1970, the City of
Edmonds established the 27 acre subtidal park. The City enacted ordinance
specifically prohibits the taking of any marine life from the underwater park and
the use of any boat or watercraft of any kind within 200 feet of park boundaries
(City of Edmonds Ordinance 5.32.070).
City ordinance also prohibits the
possession of devices for taking fish or any other marine life in or near the park.
Supervision is provided by a group of local volunteers. The presence of scuba
divers and their influence on visitors and the public have provided supervision
and enforcement through peer-pressure when city police and beach ranges are not
on site. Because of this, takings at Edmond Underwater Park are essentially zero.
Although Edmonds was designated a Recreational Marine Preserve, which
was established and managed to provide a safe recreational site for scuba diving,
the park has had direct effects on the increasing size and abundance of rockfish
population in the area. Edmonds Underwater Park has now been in operation for
22
40 years and has become a baseline for studies that show that no-take MPAs can
increase fish density, fish size, and reproductive output for surveyed bottomfish
species within the protected park boundary in comparison to fished sites (Palsson
and Pacunski 1995). Since 1992, WDFW has been monitoring and conducting
scuba and video surveys at Edmonds, as well as at other Puget Sound MPAs and
fished areas.
Fish density and size are dramatically greater for surveyed
bottomfish species within the protected park boundary in comparison to fished
sites. Studies showed that copper rockfish abundance was 15 times greater at
Edmonds than at other fished areas. At Edmonds, 85% of the copper rockfish are
40 cm in length or greater and 95% of the lingcod measure 70 cm or greater. Fish
of these lengths were uncommon at fished sites despite being very common at
Edmonds. The median density of copper rockfish at Edmonds was 0.25 fish per
square meter. These targets are now being used as targets for newly established
MPAs (Palsson 2001). The size and age of rockfish found in Edmonds suggest
that these fish will have greater reproduction potential than fish outside of the
reserve (Palsson et al. 2009; Berkley, 2004) and will be a source for larval
transport as was displayed spillover models (Quinn et al. 1993; Man et al. 1995;
Holland and Brazee, 1996).
Design elements for individual refuges (and networks) typically include
biological criteria which included size and location (Yoklavich 1998, Palsson,
2001). The size of the MPA is important to assure that the refuge incorporates the
extent of horizontal movements and territories occupied by the target species
(Yoklavich 1998).
As discussed earlier, Matthews (1990) estimated that the
23
territory size of copper, quillback, and brown rockfishes living on natural, highrelief rocky reefs was 30 m2, and that these rockfish has high site fidelity. The
persistence of high densities of large rockfish and lingcod at the 7-hectare refuge
at Edmonds Underwater Park (Palsson and Pacunkski 1996; Palsson 1998)
suggests small refuges are appropriate for the small home ranges of these fish.
The location of refuge needs to take into account a number of biological factors
including ocean currents, heavily and lightly exploited populations, habitat
characteristics and functions, and resources that are required to support spawning
biomass (Yoklavich 1998). Some of these factors have been investigated for
rockfish in the Puget Sound. Mathews 1990, found that site locations of MPAs
should focus on high relief rocky habitats, but artificial reefs have also been found
to be beneficial for rockfish, such as is found at Edmonds. Ocean currents are
also identified as an important factor for planning marine refuges for rockfishes
(Yoklavich 1998).
Sites including coastal upwelling zones are considered
beneficial because waters are typically nutrient rich. Upwelling zones (coastal)
do not exist in Puget Sound proper, but other oceanographic features such as tidal
gyres, tidal pumps, wind forcing, and estuarine circulation may be significant to
the success of marine refuges. Tidal gyres were described by Ebbesmeyer (1999)
along the eastern shore of the central Puget Sound basin between West Point and
Mukilteo, WA. The gyres overlaid with the results of a one-time survey for
young of the year rockfish suggest that young rockfish settle in the presence of the
gyres on the east side of central Puget Sound while the opposite shore lacking
tidal gyres has few if any young of the year rockfish (Doty 1995). Coincidentally,
24
Edmonds Underwater Park is located centrally to the distribution of the gyres and
where the young of the year were found. While the study did not know the source
of the young of year rockfish, it does suggest that water circulation plays an
important part of MPA design and may be contributing to the success at
Edmonds.
Edmonds is not the only individual marine reserve that has shown promise
to marine species. Dungan and Davis (1993) reviewed studies of existing marine
parks and reserves that impose harvest restrictions and concluded that the higher
abundance of target species within protected areas was the most detectable effect
of MPA successes.
They found that target species of fish, crustaceans and
molluscs were as much as 25 times more abundant and mean individual size was
as much as 200% greater within protected areas than outside of park boundaries.
Evidence from existing marine reserves indicates that increased abundance,
individual size, reproductive output, and species diversity occurred in a variety of
marine species in refuges of various sizes and locations in communities ranging
from coral reefs to temperate kelp forests.
The theory behind these marine
reserves is that fish populations can recover from the effects of intense fishing and
act as a safeguard against overexploitation within reserve boundaries if fishing is
banned. Once fish size, density, and fecundity increase, the reserve can act as
source of larvae, juveniles, and adult fish for populations outside the reserve. In
this way, the individual MPA can act as an “insurance policy” against overfishing
for an entire stock (Botsford et al. 2001).
Modeling approaches have also
suggested that MPAs may increase resilience to overfishing (Quinn et al. 1993,
25
Man et al. 1995, Lauck et al. 1998). However, in order for MPAs to be successful
in this, it is necessary that the sub-population within an MPA be capable of
restocking a fishery outside of the MPA boundary (Carr and Reed 1993, Tegner
1993) and that the MPA has a successful spillover and recruitment rate in order to
replenish outside fishery stocks while also maintaining fecundity success within
the reserve boundary.
Networked MPAs – San Juan Islands Marine Reserves
A network approach to marine reserves is largely supported in the
scientific community in order to replenish depressed fishery populations. The
concept of networked design takes into account the requirements of individual
refuges (such as shape and location), but has additional qualities that link and
enhance refuge benefits that a single refuge cannot necessarily provide alone.
Isolated marine reserves offer direct protection to all species within their borders,
but networked MPAs have gained popularity because of their promise of
protecting connectivity of marine populations. Connectivity is recognized as a
key factor in maintaining viable populations on large geographic scales in the
ability to provide recruits or migrants for each other. As stocks decline, once
continuous populations can become restricted to isolated island like areas
(individual MPAs). As species populations become reduced and isolated, they
become more vulnerable to environmental change. Networks of marine reserves
present a way to maintain biodiversity, spawning locations and continuous fish
populations. Connectivity also allows resident populations to interact through
26
dispersal and migration, which is often referred to as the “spillover” effect of
MPAs. Spillover is discussed as a benefit from both individual and networked
MPAs, but networked MPAs can act as connected source of population sources
and sinks, rather than just a population source as described above with Edmonds
Underwater Park.
Evidence, which shows the extent a MPA can actually act as a source for
spillover, is unclear (Polacheck 1990, Russ and Alcala 1996).
Nevertheless,
MPAs ability to fulfill fisheries objectives centers on its ability to replenish both
itself and non-protected areas. A marine reserve that is entirely self-replenishing
will not be able to repopulate an exhausted stock, whereas a reserve that exports
its entire larval production will not provide a secure insurance because it will lose
its broodstock to outside fishing (Lundberg and Jonzén 1999). These factors may
be minimized if MPA’s are organized in a network design.
The San Juan County Bottomfish Marine Reserves were established on
these principles in order to create a network of MPAs that would interact with
each other, increasing rockfish populations in and outside of the reserve areas.
The San Juan County Marine Resources Committee responded to conflicting
concerns from stakeholders regarding tribal treaty rights, recreational fishing, and
the threatened population of rockfish and habitat concerns by enacting the Bottom
Fish Recovery Program to compromise between stakeholder concerns and to
further explore the effectiveness of using MPAs for the protection and recovery of
rockfish and other local marine resources.
27
Part of the Bottom Fish Recovery Program implemented eight Voluntary
No-Take Bottom Fish Recovery Zones (BRZs) in June of 1997. The BRZs’
purpose was to recover populations of bottomfish through voluntary restrictions
on bottomfishing. The unique aspect of these county-established MPAs is that
their “no take” status for bottomfish was a community based, grassroots effort and
compliance was on a voluntary basis only. Rather than enforcing through fines
and regulations, bottomfish recovery is supported through education and
community monitoring. In addition to the Voluntary No-Take Reserves, there are
several other reserve sites that create an MPA network, including the San Juan
Islands Marine Preserves that were formed in 1990 that restrict all forms of
fishing except for salmon, herring, and in certain areas crab; and five WDFW
Bottomfish Recovery Zones that are located in the San Juan Islands. Directed and
commercial fisheries for rockfish using jig and troll gears were prohibited in the
San Juan Islands in 1984. Commercial trawling is allowed outside of reserves,
but rarely occurs in the San Juan Channel. The result of this is a total annual
rockfish catch of less than 100 pounds since 1994 (Palsson 1997).
28
Figure 2. Map of San Juan County Voluntary No-Take Marine Reserves
Developing a networked system of MPAs, such those in the San Juan
Archipelago, may be a way to support fishery recovery through habitat
connectivity and to take a precautionary approach to endangered fish populations.
Circulation patterns and other fundamental oceanographic features in the San Juan
Islands imply a strong linkage between San Juan Reserves.
Klinger and
Ebbesmeyer (2001) observed strong oceanographic linkages between the San
Juan Archipelago and Victoria, Dungeness Spit, and the northwest shore of
Whidbey Island. The study reported that existing MPAs such as the San Juan
Reserves are potentially “capable of supplying larvae to and receiving larvae from
sites throughout the archipelago, and therefore are capable of functioning as a
local network”.
The likelihood of the refuge being self-sustaining will be
increased with the inclusion of additional sites to fill in gaps of habitat
representation and replication. Despite the networked design, questions arise on
whether greater benefits to the region would come with the inclusion of the San
29
Juan Reserves in a larger regional network of MPAs. Studies such as these may
be able to help define geographic parameters for regional MPA networks.
Despite the theoretical studies that continually show the benefits of a
networked approach to MPAs, actual survey data of the population responses
within the network are mixed. In 1994, WDFW began research to study the
effects of the networked bottomfish recovery reserves on fishery resources. The
goal of the research was to determine whether bottomfish within WDFW refuges
throughout the San Juan Islands and central Puget Sound were more abundant,
larger, and have a greater reproduction potential than outside of the reserve
boundary.
Figure 3. Map of WDFW Bottomfish Refuges (Palsson 1994)
Part of this study examined Shady Cove, a natural reef in the San Jan
Islands which was established as a marine reserve in 1990. Several comparable
and nearby fished areas, including a natural reef area, were also surveyed for
comparison. Shady Cove was a refuge for only a few years when the study
30
began. Despite the short establishment, copper rockfish were about twice as
dense at Shady Cove as opposed to nearby fished sites, but there was no
difference in size. Lingcod were more abundant and larger lingcod were more
frequent too. Lingcod surveyed during the spawning season had three times the
number of nests in the Shady Cove refuge than other fished areas. This research
shows recovery, but also suggests that the responses of rockfish and lingcod to the
creation of a refuge may take some time to be fully observed.
Biological assessments were also conducted in 2001 and 2006 to assess
the effectiveness of the San Juan County’s BRZs, which were created in 1997,
compared to
non-reserve controls by conducting visual band transects by
observers utilizing SCUBA (Eisenhardt et al. 2002; Eisenhardt and Sea Doc
Society 2006). Results from the study showed that there were no statistically
significant differences in fish density between the BRZs and the associated nonreserve control sites with two exceptions. Copper rockfish were more abundant at
one BRZ (Lime Kiln) compared to its control (Edwards Point). It was also found
that both Puget Sound and quillback rockfish were less abundant at the BRZ
(Charles Island) compared to the non-reserve reference site (Long Island).
Habitat characterizations conducted for each BRZ and reference site pair revealed
similar findings for substrate cover, densities of marcroinvertebrates, algal species
composition, reef slope, aspect, and substrate complexity (Eisenhardt and Sea
Doc Society 2006). The 2001 and 2006 results seem to show a consistent pattern
of few differences in fish density and mean lengths of rockfish in reserve and nonreserve sites.
31
Similar limits on success have also been shown in Tuya, Soboil, Kido
(2000).
The abundance and body sizes of commonly collected fish and
invertebrate species were collected at eight networked sights in the San Juan
Archipelago. Three of the researched sites were located at an MPA established
eight years prior, two sites were newly established MPAs, and three sites were
unprotected. The study found that newly established MPAs and unprotected sites
showed similar levels of abundance and size frequency distributions for the target
species (including rockfish). Differences in abundance and size were not found
among the three categories of sites. Because none of the protected areas had a
significantly larger abundance in small urchins, scallops, sea cucumbers, lingcod
and rockfish, it could imply that the protected areas have not enhanced population
abundance within the refuges. This result was similar to that obtained by Cole et
al. (1990), except that his study showed an increase in the number of lobsters in
the protected areas. This heterogeneity could be attributed to poorly situated
protected areas in which larval supply is inadequate due to unfavorable currents
and poor recruitment. Authors also question the short time that these MPAs have
been established and whether lack of effective protection and enforcement could
be contributing to the lack clear success.
The issue of compliance was also questioned in an assessment done for
San Juan Islands Marine Resources Committee, discussed above, on the successes
of the bottomfish recovery program and voluntary marine reserves (Eisenhardt
and Sea Doc Society 2006). Despite MPA being in existence for almost ten years,
surveys of three bottomfish recovery zones and their respective reference sites
32
revealed scant evidence for successful recovery of bottomfish inside the BRZ.
The BRZs did appear to slightly benefit copper rockfish, but also showed a
decrease in Puget Sound and quillback rockfish in comparison to non-reserve
areas. The lack of differences in fishing pressure between the BRZs and the nonreserves sites was mentioned as potential reason for lack of recovery in reserve
areas. Prior studies have shown little or no difference in fishing effort between
BRZs and reference sites (Kaill 2001, Koski 2001, Davis 2003). Studies found
limited fishing pressure on bottomfish in San Juan County in general, but did
document anglers disregarding the voluntary fishing regulations inside the BRZ.
In 2004, Kritzer investigated the effects of noncompliance on the success of
alternative designs of marine protected areas for conservation and fisheries
management. Studies examining the efficacy of MPAs rarely take into to account
the potential for noncompliance, which can alter findings on successes and
failures of reserve sites. The study found that violation of MPAs will typically
occur near boundaries, so perimeter-to-area ratios will be important determinants
of actual protection. As non-compliance increases, the protected population in the
network of several small MPAs approaches zero, whereas the single, large MPA
population declines much less. Going back to the SLOSS debate, several smaller
reserves will have a higher perimeter-to-area ratio, which will potentially increase
non-compliance than with larger reserves. Nevertheless, if we focus on larval
dispersal, studies have shown that MPAs will need to be more numerous,
widespread, and likely smaller in order to replenish many fished areas, which
would support the networked approach of MPA design. Thus, there is a discord
33
between the MPA network that would best achieve external replenishment and
that would maximize compliance. Results of this study highlight the effects of
noncompliance on MPA benefits and may explain why observed and expected
effects from reserved areas may not correspond.
This model shows the
importance of compliance, but with lack of continued monitoring at MPA sites, it
is impossible to determine whether it plays a role in the lack of success at some of
the networked sites in the Puget Sound.
DISCUSSION
While there is great enthusiasm for creating a network of MPAs in the
Puget Sound, the debate continues on whether MPA design should create larger
isolated MPAs or whether a networked approach will be more beneficial to
threatened rockfish populations. The life history and biological characteristics of
rockfish require that they be managed more conservatively than most marine
fishes. Sustainable fishing of rockfish is difficult because of their low sustainable
yield. Rockfish are long lived, slow growing and have a low natural mortality,
which makes MPAs an insurance policy against critical stock populations. There
is consensus throughout the current research that MPAs are an important factor in
conserving rockfish populations from overfishing. MPAs can reduce the risk of
stock collapse by serving as a precautionary control on fishing mortality. They
also conserve biodiversity and enhance fishery yields through larval dispersal,
adult and juvenile spillover, and protection of spawning and nursery areas. But
with limited resources, are efforts best placed in developing individual MPAs or
34
should a network of protected areas be established to protect rockfish
populations?
Currently, there are 21 marine protected areas that provide specific
protection for rockfish in the Puget Sound. With Edmonds Underwater Park
being the only marine protected area offering complete protection, the other sites
are beneficial, but still allow rockfish to be caught as bycatch from salmon and
other fishing within the reserves. Individual MPAs, much like all reserved areas
may act as a source for replenishing depressed fisheries through juvenile and adult
spillover, but without a networked source of protected areas these MPAs may
become population sinks that cannot replenish themselves. More studies need to
be conducted to fully understand these concepts in regards to MPAs and
population recruitment and dispersal.
The San Juan Island marine reserves have shown promise to act as a
network for marine protection. Highly circulated waters are hypothesized to
distribute larva between MPAs sites, which potentially have the benefit of
increasing populations and species biodiversity. In addition, spillover of juvenile
and grown rockfish into non-reserved areas may benefit the fisheries with
increased populations. With several smaller reserves located in an area, you are
more likely to run into the issue of people not knowing about the reserve or
compliance with MPAs going down. These networked reserves have not had the
same clear successes as individual reserves such as Edmonds. Non-compliance,
35
the younger age of the networked reserves, or the smaller size of the reserve sites
may explain differences in size and abundance of fish.
CONCLUSION
Despite the emphasis of networked designed MPAs, which is reiterated in
the current research on the topic, literature review of real-world monitoring efforts
and site evaluations have not confirmed theoretical evidence from modeled
research. Successes have been mixed for both networked and individual MPAs
and with varying controls in which we are evaluating sites, it is difficult to
determine performances of the various designs. Determining whether individual
or networked reserves will show more benefit for rockfish species will have to
take into account several different environmental factors, many of which are still
unknown.
Research needs to continue to determine the effects of larval, juvenile, and
adult spillover in marine protected areas and to determine their effects on fishery
movements outside of the protected areas. Recruitment and spillover is closely
linked to the success of an MPA. Understanding the effects of larva, juvenile, and
adult distribution on a protected area is vital for understanding successes and
potential failures and is important for both networked and individual success.
With individual reserves, MPAs will act as a broodstock to outside fisheries.
Networked reserves will also act as a broodstock from protecting older fish, but
are also theorized to have the added benefit of working as a source and a sink with
other networked reserves.
This contributes the added benefit of increasing
36
biodiversity as populations interact with other reserves. Until the research is
completed to better evaluate larva, juvenile, and adult movements within a
reserve, it cannot be determined whether efforts in protecting rockfish populations
are best served through establishing larger individual MPAs or whether a
networked design of MPAs should be deployed.
Both designs have their benefits as well as challenges, especially with
potential enforcement issues. Current research has cited fishing pressures and
lack of enforcement as a potential explanation for the lack of replicated successes
in SCUBA studies, as is expected from modeled predictions.
Poaching has
always been and will continue to be an issue with fisheries management.
Kritzer’s models which investigated the effects of non-compliance found that
violations typically occur near boundaries, which means that perimeter-to-area
rations will be important determinates of actual protection. This would suggest
that larger reserves may offer greater protection to reserves. Compliance also
comes from the quality and quantity of protection and management of reserve
sites. In order to be effective, MPAs for rockfish must have clear boundaries that
are understandable to potential users. Fishing in reserved areas may simply come
from a lack of understanding of MPA boundaries. While larger reserves are
typically more known to potential users, increasing awareness of smaller
networked reserves may increase success of these sites.
Networked and single reserves sites are also difficult to evaluate because
the time differences in which our case studies have been in establishment. The
37
San Juan marine network has been in existence for over ten years in comparison
to Edmonds Marine Reserve, which has now been established for over forty years.
Because of the reproduction strategies of these long-lived fish, it is difficult to say
that the San Juan networked MPAs are not showing the same successes because
of the limited time that they have been established. It is true that ten years is
enough time where there would be some expectations of improvements in a
population, but research has not been completed to explain variations between
species populations at various sites.
The one fact that remains is that the percentage of waters protected needs
to increase in order to meet WDFW goal of protecting 20% of marine habitat
which is likely needed to protect 40% of the un-fished biomass. This is currently
the management goal for rockfish in Puget Sound (Paulson, 2001) and is going to
be a vital part in their recovery. With the goal of protecting twenty percent
habitat recommended for marine reserves, policy leaders should work to increase
marine protection in the Puget Sound. The remaining debate over the benefits of
individual versus networked reserves may prove unimportant in comparison to the
clear and eminent need to set aside protected and establish MPAs through various
designs and in diverse habitat areas. Until research can better determine the roles
individual and networked MPAs play on rockfish population recovery, policy
makers and resource managers should use a mix of designs, emphasizing larger
reserves and connected reserves in order to protect rockfish populations in the
Puget Sound.
38
Works Cited
Agardy, T. 1994. Advances in marine conservation: The role of marine
protected areas. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7: 267-70.
Alcala, A.C. and G.R. Russ. 1990. A direct test of the effects of protective
management on abundance and yield of tropical marine resources. Journal
of Marine Science 47(1): 40-47.
Allison, G. W., J. Carr, and M. H. Carr. 1998. Marine reserves are necessary but
not sufficient for marine conservation. Ecological Applications 8: 79-92.
Ardron, J., and J. Haggarty. 2001. “Designing a network of marine protected
areas in the central coast of British Columbia.” Living Oceans Society.
Berkeley, S., C. Chapman, and S. Sogard. 2004. Maternal age as a determinant
of larval growth and survival in a marine fish, Sebastes melanops.
Ecology 85(5): 1258-264.
Berkeley, S., M. Hixon, R. Larson, and M. Love. 2004. Fisheries sustainability
via protection of age structure and spatial distribution of fish population.
Fisheries Management 29: 23-32.
Bloch, P. L. “Aquatic Reserve Site Evaluation Criteria & Ecological
Framework”. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural
Resources, Aquatic Resources Division, 2003.
Bobko, S. J., and S. A. Berkeley. 2004. Maturity, ovarian cycle, fecundity, and
age specific parturition of black rockfishes. Fishery Bulletin 102: 418-29.
Boehlert, G.W. 1996. Larval dispersal and survival in tropical reef fishes. In
N.V.C. Polunin and C.M. Roberts (eds.), Reef Fisheries, p. 61-84.
Boersma, P. D., and J. K. Parrish. 1999. Limiting abuse: Marine protected areas,
a limited solution. Ecological Economics 31: 287-304.
Bohnsack, J. A. 1993. Marine reserves: They enhance fisheries, reduce conflicts,
and protect resources. Oceanus 36(3): 63-71.
Bohnsack, J.A. 1996. Marine reserves, zoning, and the future of fisheries
management. Fisheries 21(9): 14-16.
39
Botsford, L. W., A. Hastings, and S. D. Gaines. 2001. Dependence of
sustainability on the configuration of marine reserves and larval dispersal
distances. Ecology Letters 4(2): 144-150.
Carr, M.H. and P.C. Reed. 1993. Conceptual issues relevant to marine refuges:
Example from temperate reef fishes. Canadian Journal of Fishery and
Aquatic Sciences 50(9): 2019-2028.
Chasco, B., L. Weiss, and D. Cooper. 2000. The distribution and density of
larval marine protected area fishes in San Juan Channel. Undergraduate
Research Apprenticeship in Marine Fish Ecology, University of
Washington: 495-499.
Cole, R.G., Ayling, T.M., and Cuesse, R.G. 1990. Effects of marine reserve
protection at Goat Coast, northern New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of
Marine and Freshwater Resources, 24: 197-210.
Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan: City of Edmonds, 1987-1992.
Edmonds, Wash., 1987.
Cooke, S. J., A. J. Danylchuk, S. E. Danylchuk, C. D. Suski, and T. L. Goldberg.
2006. Is catch-and-release recreational angling compatible with no-take
marine protected areas? Ocean and Coastal Management 49(5-6): 342-54.
Crowder, L.B., S.J. Lyman, W.F. Figueria, and J. Priddy. 2000. Source-sink
population dynamics and the problem of siting marine reserves. Bulletin
of Marine Science 66: 799-820.
Davis, B. 2003. Bottomfishing effort survey around San Juan Island. San Juan
County Bottomfish Recovery Program. San Juan County Marine
Resources Committee, Friday Harbor, Washington.
Don, C. N. 2002. Evaluation of Near-shore Buffer Zones of the San Juan
Islands Nation Wildlife Refuge Relative to Their Function as a Marine
Protected Area Network. Thesis. University of Washington.
Doty, D.C., R.M. Buckley, and J.E. West. 1995. Identification and protection of
nursery habitats for juvenile rockfish in Puget Sound, Washington. Puget
Sound Research ’95 Proceedings. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority,
Olympia, WA.
Dugan, J. E., and G. E. Davis. 1993. Application of marine refugia to coastal
fisheries management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries Aquatic Science 50:
2029-042.
40
Ebbesmeyer, C.C. 1999. Oceanographic features of Juan de Fuca Strait and
Puget Sound. Pages 29-39. In: Strategies for developing and applying
marine protected areas science in Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force, 81 p.
Eisenhardt, E. 2001. A marine preserve network in San Juan Channel: Is it
working for nearshore rocky reef fish? School of Aquatic and Fishery
Sciences, University of Washington. Puget Sound Research.
Eisenhardt, E. 2003. Acoustic telemetry of rocky reef fish home range to
elevated marine protected area size. Proceedings of the Puget Sound
Georgia Basin Conference.
Eisenhardt, E.P., D. Bain and R.W. Osborne. 2002. 2001 Biological Assessment
Final Report to the San Juan County Bottomfish Recovery Program. San
Juan County Marine Resources Committee, Friday Harbor, Washington.
24p.
Eisenhardt, E. and Sea Doc Society. 2006. 2006 Biological Assessment Final
Report tp the San Juan County Marine Resources Committee, Friday
Harbor, Washington. November 15, 2006.
Fujita, R. 1998. Marine Reserves: An Environmentalist's Perspective. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-255: 86-88.
Print.
Hilborn, R., K. Stokes, J. J. Maguire, T. Smith, L. W. Botsford, M. Mangel, J.
Orensanz, A. Parma, J. Rice, J. Bell, K. L. Garcia, S. J. Hall, G. P.
Kirkwood, K. Sainsbury, G. Stefansson, and C. Walters. 2004. When can
marine reserves improve fisheries management? Ocean Coastal
Management 47: 197-2005.
Holland D.S., and R.J. Brazee. 1996. Marine reserves for fisheries management.
Marine Resources Economy. 11:157-171.
Kaill, W.M. 2001. Bottomfish Recovery Project Final Report 2000. San Juan
County Bottomfish Recovery Program. San Juan County Marine
Resources Committee, Friday Harbor, Washington. 185 p.
Klinger, T., and C. Ebbesmeyer. 2001. Using oceanographic linkages to guide
marine protected area network design. School of Marine Affairs and
Friday Harbor Laboratories, University of Washington.
41
Koski, K. 2001. Bottomfish Recovery Program: Bottomfish Recovery Project
Coordination: Final Report, 2001. Friday Harbor, WA: Marine Resources
Committee, 2001.
Kritzer, J. P. 2004. Effects of noncompliance on the success of alternative
designs of marine protected-area networks for conservation and fisheries
management. Conservation Biology 18: 1021-031.
Lauck, T., C. W. Clark, M. Mangel, and G. R. Munro. 1998. Implementing the
precautionary principle in fisheries management through marine reserves.
Ecological Applications 8(1): S72-78.
Love, Milton S., Mary Yoklavich, and Lyman K. Thorsteinson. 2002. The
Rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California. Berkley,
CA.
Lundberg, P., and N. Jozen. 1999. Optimal population harvesting in a sourcesink environment. Evolutionary Ecology Research Vol. 1(6): 719-729.
Man, A., R. Law, and N.V.C. Polunin. 1995. Role of marine reserves in
recruitment to reef fisheries: A metapopulation model. Biol. Cons. 71:
197-204.
Matthews, K.R. 1990. An experimental study of the habitat preferences and
movement patterns of copper, quillback, and brown rockfishes (Sebastes
spp.). Environmental Biology of Fishes 29: 161-178.
Matthews, K.R. 1990. A telemetric study of the home ranges and homing routes
of copper and quillback rockfish on shallow rocky reefs. Canadian
Journal of Zoology 68: 2243-2250.
Matthews, K.R. 1990. A comparative study of habitat use by young-of-the-year,
subadult, and adult rockfishes on four habitat types in central Puget
Sound. Fishery Bulletin 88: 223-239.
McArdle, D. A. 1998. The Status of California Marine Protected Areas. Taking
a Look at California's Ocean Resources: An Agenda for the Future. 74-85
p.
McClanahan, T.R., and B. Kaunda-Arara. 1996. Fishery recovery in a coral-reef
marine park and its effect on the adjacent fishery. Cons. Biol. 10:11871199.
42
"MPAs in the Inland Waters of British Columbia and Washington." Seadoc
Society. Web. 10 June 2010.
<http://mehp.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/mpainlandwaters.html>.
Murray, Mike, and Lillian Ferguson. The Status of Marine Protected Areas in
Puget Sound. Olympia, WA: Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team,
1998.
Nowlis, J. S., and C. M. Roberts. 1999. Fisheries benefits and optimal design of
marine reserves. Fishery Bulletin 3: 604-616.
Palsson, W.A. 1995 Status of Puget Sound Bottomfish Stocks. Olympia, Wash.:
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 1996.
Palsson, W.A. 1998. Monitoring the response of rockfish to protected areas. In:
Marine harvest refugia for West Coast rockfish: A workshop. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWSSC-244: 6471.
Palsson, W. A. 2001. The Development of Criteria for Establishing and
Monitoring No-take Refuges for Rockfishes and Other Rocky Habitat
Fishes in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Research.
Palsson, W.A., T.J. Northup, and M.W. Barker. 1998. Puget Sound Groundfish
Management Plan, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Olympia, WA.
Palsson, W. A., and R. E. Pacunski. 1995. The Response to Rock Reef Fishes to
Harvest Refugia in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 1:
224-34.
Parker, S. J., S. A. Berkley, J. T. Golden, D. R. Gunderson, J. Heifetz, M. A.
Hixon, R. Larson, B. M. Leaman, M. S. Love, J. A. Musick, V. M.
O'Connell, S. Ralston, H. J. Weeks, and M. M. Yoklavich. 2000.
Management of Pacific Rockfish. AFS Policy Statement 25.3.
Polacheck, T. 1990. Year round closed areas as a management tool. Natural
Resources Model 4:327-354.
Quinn, J.F., S.R. Wing, and L.W. Botsford. 1993. Harvest refugia in marine
invertebrate fisheries: models and applications to the red sea urchin. Am.
Zool. 33:537-550.
43
Roberts, C. M., and N.V.C. Polunin. 1991. Are Marine Reserves Effective in
Management of Reef Fisheries? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries
1(1): 65-91.
Roberts, C. M. 1998. Sources, sinks and the design of marine reserves networks.
Fisheries 23: 16-19.
Roger-Bennett, L. 1997. Metapopulation theory and the design of marine
protected areas for fishery management. Fisheries Centre Research
Reports 5.12.
Russ, G.R., and A.C. Acala. 1996. Do marine reserves export adult fish
biomass? Evidence from Apo Island, central Philippines. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 132: 1-9.
San Juan County Marine Resources Committee: San Juan Island, Washington.
Web. 07 June 2010. <http://www.sjcmrc.org/programs/bottomfish.htm>.
Schmitt, C. S., J. Schweigert, and T. P. Quinn. 1994. Anthropogenic influences
on fish populations of the Georgia Basin. Canadian Technical Report of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1948: 218-52. Print.
Sethi, S. A. 2007. Poaching and the Performance of Marine Reserves as Ocean
Management Tools. Thesis. University of Washington.
Smukler, K. 2002. Achieving a scientifically-based regional system of marine
protected areas in the Northwest Straits: a nearshore perspective.
Prepared for the Northwest Straits Commission.
Soh, S., D. R. Gunderson, and D. H. Ito. 1998. Closed areas to manage
rockfishes in the Gulf of Alaska. In M.M. Yoklavich, Ed. Marine Harvest
Refugia for West Coast Rockfish: a Workshop, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC255 La Jolla, CA: 118-24.
Strategies for Developing and Applying Marine Protected Area Science in Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin, May 17 & 18, 1999 Workshop, Bellingham, WA.
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force, 1999.
Tegner, M.J. 1993. Southern California abalones: Can stocks be rebuilt using
marine harvest refugia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 50(9): 2010-2018.
Tuya, F. C., M. L. Soboil, and J. Kido. 2000. An assessment of the effectiveness
of marine protected areas in the San Juan Islands, Washington, USA.
Journal of Marine Science 57: 1218-226.
44
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fish Program. DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement for the Puget Sound Rockfish
Conservation Plan. Olympia, 2009.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Puget Sound Groundfish
Management Plan. By W. A. Palsson, T. J. Northrup, and M. Wayne.
Barker. Olympia, WA: Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Fish
Management Program, Marine Resources Division, 1998.
"WDFW - Species of Concern List." Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. 2009. Web. 08 June 2010.
<http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildlife/management/endangered.html>.
West, J. E. 1997. Protection and restoration of marine like in the inland waters
of Washington State. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin Environmental Report Series 6: 144p.
West, J. E., R. M. Buckley, and D. C. Doty. 1994. Ecology and habitat use of
juvenile rockfishes (Sebastes Spp.) associated with artificial reefs in Puget
Sound, Washington. Bulletin of Marine Science 55: 344-50.
Williams, G.D., P.S. Levin and W.A. Palsson. 2010. Rockfish in Puget Sound:
An ecological history of exploitation. Marine Policy 34(5): 1010-1020.
Yoklavich, M. M. 1998. Marine harvest refugia for west coast rockfish: a
workshop. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-255 La Jolla, CA. 159 p.
45
