West Hawai’i Aquarium Project: Fishery Management of

18 Pages·2002·0.91 MB·English

West Hawai’i Aquarium Project:
Fishery Management of Marine Protected Areas
Brian Tissot, Washington State University Vancouver
William Walsh, Hawai’i Division of Aquatic Resources
Leon Hallacher, University of Hawai’i Hilo
WHAP was developed to meet the
mandates of Act 306 (1998)
Which created The West Hawai`i
Regional Fisheries Management Area
extending from Upolu Pt. to Ka Lae.
And designated that > 30% of coastal waters
be established as Fish Replenishment Areas (FRAs)
where aquarium fish collecting is prohibited
The FRAs shall be evaluated for effectiveness
after 5 years in cooperation with the University
of Hawai`i.
Fish Replenishment Areas
• Established by the legislature in 1998
• Closed Dec. 31, 1999:
1. North Kohala (4.8 k)
2. Puako (7.0)
3. Ka’upulehu (4.3)
4. Honokahau (3.4)
5. Kailua-Kona (7.8)
6. Red Hill (1.1)
7. Napo’opo’o (6.4)
8. Ho’okena (7.2)
9. Miloli’i (7.2)
Created 49.1k 27.8%
Pre-Existing 13.1 7.4%
Total 62.2 35.2%
WHAP Monitoring Program utilizes a powerful Before/After -
Control/Impact Design (BACI) which permits multiple
comparisons between open and protected areas and tracks
areas through time
5k
Lapakahi
Control
MLCD
Observational
Open
design block Kamilo
North Kohala
FRA
FRA
WHAP Monitoring Program
Study sites (23)
- established March 1999
16 fish surveys (n= 1,472 transects)
•
Six baseline (pre-reserve closure)
Ten post-reserve closure
•Also survey major macro-
invertebrates
• Benthic video analysis
Goal: evaluate effectiveness of FRAs
as a management option
• Do reserves increase fish stocks?
• How do reserves differ?
• What are important processes?
• How does it affect the fishery?
Prior to their establishment, the FRAs were heavily collected and
several collected species at these sites were significantly less
abundant relative to existing protected areas. This difference
provides an estimate of the impact of aquarium collecting.
Effects of Aquarium Collectors
Pre-reserve baseline, 1999
20 n = 6 surveys
* * * * * * *
0
e
c
n
e -20
e
g
r
ne
af
f
hi
d
C -40
l
o
%
r
t
n
n
o
a
C
e -60
M-
A
R
F
-80
-100 * P < 0.05
F o u r-s p ot ABcFhille s tLa on ng g n o s e MB Fo o ris h IYd oelllo w TP aotntge r's A n gGelold rin g B FO r n ate MBulFti-s p ot B F
Species
Zebrasoma flavescens
30 Pre-closure Post-closure
)
2
m
25
0
0
1
Control
/ Pre-reserve
#
(
20
y effects of
t
i
s
n collectors
e FRA
D
15

n
a
e Open
M
10
9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M a r- M a y - J ul- S e p - O ct- D e c - F e b - A p r- J u n - A u g - N o v - F e b - A p r- J u n - A u g -
Survey
After first year of FRA establishment there was a significant decline
in Aquarium fish species within both protected FRAs and open areas.
Control-FRA-Impact Comparisons
Top 10 Aquarium Species Pooled
16 Pre-reserve closure
Post-reserve closure
-6%
* P < 0.05
)
2
m
0
0 14
1
/
# -10%*
(

y
t
i
s
n
12
e
D

n -14%*
a
e
M
10
Control FRA Impact
Treatment
Similar pattern in Non-Aquarium species
Control-FRA-Impact Comparisons
Non-Aquarium Species Pooled
16
Pre-reserve closure
0% Post-reserve closure
* P < 0.05
)
2
m
12 -14%*
0
0
1
/
#
(

y
t
i -11%*
s
n 8
e
D

n
a
e
M
4
Control FRA Impact
Treatment
Poor recruitment of many reef fishes occurred during Year One survey
period thus resulting in the failure of FRAs to increase fish populations.
Recruitment during year two increased substantially.
Density of New Recruits
Zebrasoma flavescens
4 FRA
establishment
2
0
)
2
m
0 Ctenochaetus strigosus
0 6
1
/
#
(
y 3
t
i
s
n
e 0
D
Chaetodon multicinctus
1
0
M ar-9 9 M a y-9 9 J ul-9 9 S e p-9 9 O ct-9 9 D e c-9 9 F e b-0 0 A pr-0 0 J u n-0 0 A u g-0 0 N o v-0 0 F e b-0 1 A pr-0 1 J u n-0 1 A u g-0 1
Survey Date