Group 3: Ocean zoning (Ocean Management Areas) and E-bFM
GOAL:
Increase the use of spatially explicit management measures in fisheries using ocean zoning and
coordinate with other entities with other managers of non-fisheries uses and activities to place
fisheries within a larger ocean management area program.
DEFINITION:
Ocean zoning is the authoritative regulation [and allocation] of access and use to specific marine
geographic areas.
BACKGROUND:
Ocean zoning is the marine analogue to terrestrial zoning. Many federal and state agencies have
jurisdiction over activities on/in the water column and the seabed [USDC (NMFS, NMS) USDOI
(NPS, FWS, MMS), DOD, EPA etc.]. Frequently these authorities are for single use regulation
for non-fisheries uses of the ocean like oil and gas production, ocean mining, ecotourism, marine
transportation, marine defense and water quality protection measures. Sometimes they may
overlap with use by fisheries. No comprehensive authority for ocean zoning exists in the United
States. However, fishery managers have used this tool for many years for a variety of
conservation and management purposes. When set in context, the patchwork of fisheries
management areas, if adequately coordinated with jurisdictions of other agencies, could be one
tool to use in implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management.
Fisheries management makes extensive use of zoning for such purposes as; regulation of gear
conflicts, protection of nursing and spawning areas, protection of habitats, species specific
measures, reduction of gear impacts, avoidance of by-catch, marine no-take areas, etc.] These
management measures constitute real and de facto marine reserves that range is size from small
[e.g., Edgecumbe Pinnacles 4 sq.n.mi.] to large [e.g., SE Alaska no-trawl zone 43,000 sq.n.mi.]
that have many positive spill-over effects in conservation and protection of marine biodiversity
besides the immediate fishery management objective.
Presently, the greatest use of zoning in fisheries management is for identification and protection
of Essential Fish Habitat [EFH] and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern [HAPC] and this effort
constitutes a potential building block for ecosystem-based fishery management. Identification of
habitat areas utilized by fish throughout their life cycle and taking measures to protect these
areas through consultative procedures is one component of this activity that focuses on
fish/habitat interactions. A second component is identification and mediation of fishing effects
on the marine environment.
Interest is increasing in the use of Marine Protected Areas [marine protected areas networks] as
tools in fisheries management and for sustaining marine ecosystems [Caribbean FMC, PCFMC,
SAFMC]. Experience in the Florida Keys NMS and the Dry Tortugas process as well as
Channel Islands NMS/NP may be instructive. Conceptually, the management of fish stocks on a
genetic basis, may make much greater use of spatially and temporally explicit measures.
Fisheries management may increasingly need to form partnerships with other agencies with
marine management jurisdictions. Examples of potential cooperation [in some cases expanding
on existing relationships, e.g., consultative requirements under the FWCA, NEPA, with MMS,
EPA] are many and can be explored. Given that marine ecosystems extend across federal and
state boundaries and can be dependent on watershed and estuarine areas consideration needs to
be given to mechanisms for coordination among local, state, tribal and federal jurisdictions.
Some states, Oregon, Florida ? and Maryland ? have already developed zoning for their
territorial seas. The Oceans Commission 2000 has on its agenda the investigation of marine
zoning. Internationally, Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management [ICOM] is gaining ground as
a concept for management of competing uses in marine areas. It employs ocean zoning as a
major tool.
OCEAN ZONING – NEXT STEPS
Further exploration of opportunities for use of ocean zoning as part of an ecosystem-based
fishery management approach.
1. Identification and systematic assessment of the existing use of geographically based fishery
management measures in the US, including EFH. Document and map using GIS.
Assessment could consider how areas and habitats are protected from fishing and other
impacts as well as consider how fisheries are given priorities in certain areas [e.g., gear
limited areas] (link Group 2, 4)
2. Examination of state-level and foreign country experience with ocean area zoning for
multiple uses, including fisheries and for fisheries within comprehensive ocean plans [e.g.,
Australia, Philippines, South Africa] for possible models.
3. Research on hierarchical relationships/ marine zoning on different spatial scales. (link Group
2)
4. Research on spatially explicit management measures for fishing in areas surrounding/outside
of marine reserves [fully-protected, partially protected]. (link Group 2)
5. Development of technologies required to implement large scale spatially explicit fisheries
management, e.g., GIS tools, vessel tracking and positioning equipment.
6. Explore social patterns of use and social components of geographic-based mgmt measures
(link Group 1,6)
7. Examine interagency [state, local, and tribal, incl domestic/international, and task forces]
coord efforts for multiple zoning instances (link group 5)
CASE STUDIES
Possible Case studies of Great Lakes, Coastal Watershed Restoration [Mel Moon’s discussion],
Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Ecosystem Plan, Caribbean Council’s MPAs in Virgin Islands.
Oculina Banks.
HOW TO MOVE AHEAD:
1. Identify, if necessary, additional members for Group 3 with suitable expertise.
2. Write White Paper/ component of report that focuses on spatially-based fisheries
management and evaluate effectiveness MPAs as a tool for managing fisheries in large
regions [see Hastings and Botsford, Hannesson responses to Roberts et al. in Science] at
commercial scale.