MPA Program Master Plan 2012

7/30/2019 MPA Program Master Plan 2012

1/41

Marine Protected Area

Program

Master Plan

Fully revised in 2012

By Lucy Jacob and Risa Oram

Department of Marine and Wildlife

Resources,

Pago Pago, American Samoa, 69799

Biological Report Series lucy0008


2/41

2

Executive Summary

Purpose of this master planThe Marine Protected Area (MPA) Program Master Plan is meant to be a simple and easy to

follow guide for the American Samoa Government (ASG), Department of Marine and Wildlife

Resources (DMWR) MPA Program. It is intended to provide an overview of the process that

should be followed in order to meet the goal of protecting unique, various and diverse coral reef

habitat and spawning stocks. This will also assist efforts to meet the late Governors direction to

designate twenty percent of American Samoas coral reefs as totally protected no-take Marine

Protected Areas (MPAs). It is hoped that this plan will help to minimize the loss of institutional

memory due to high staff turnover within DMWR.

In addition to guiding the activities of the MPA Program, this Master Plan will enhance the

transparency of DMWRs activities to the public both within and outside American Samoa. This

long-term plan will help to guide the writing of future grant proposals and can assist the

coordination of activities with other natural resource agencies and entities. The previous Master

Plan (Oram, 2008) was of great use when outside agencies requested information about the No-

take Program. In addition to sending a brochure or informal information, this plan provides an

official document that can be cited in others publications.

How the manual is organizedThis manual was first written by the former MPA Program Leader (2006-2008), Risa Oram

(Oram, 2008). However, it was fully updated in 2012 by Lucy Jacob who was the Program

Leader between 2008-2012. Therefore, this manual is now a combined effort by the two Project

Leaders. It is hoped that future project leaders will do the same and in turn the manual will

evolve into a combined effort of all MPA Program Leaders. Many of the details from the originaldocument can now be found in the supplemental documents, or by reviewing the original

document (Oram 2008). However, the MPA designation process has now evolved based on

experience and new scientific information (e.g. MPA network design principles) and some parts

are significantly changed.

Section one: Update on MPA Program Designation Process

Section 1 contains background information to events that have taken place over the last four

years, in attempts to follow the MPA Designation Process (Oram 2008). A number of issues (1A

to 1F) are explained in full regarding the reasons that it was not able to meet all of the

objectives. These range from the multiple MPA agencies in the Territory to the impact that the

tsunami of September 2009 had. At the end of each subsection is an Action Box containingrecommendations that are based on past experiences and designed to help future Program

Leaders.

Section two: Principles for Resilient MPA Network Design

Section two presents The Nature Conservancys (TNC) Resiliency Principles. These are: Habitat

representation and replication; inclusion of critical areas; connectivity and effective

management. It then proceeds to explain how the MPA Program is working towards each

principle and what else needs to be done to follow them. This information is provided with the


3/41

3

knowledge that technical GIS and 1MARXAN expertise may not be available to the program.

However, if funds or resources are made available for to take advantage of such software, the

MPA Network design can only be improved.

Section three: Revised MPA Network Implementation Process

Based on the information in sections one and two, the third section of this Master Plan provides

a revised MPA network designation process. There are four ways that a site could be prioritized

(biological hotspot; opportunistically; oceanographic hotspot or habitat hotspot). Following

identification of a site, there are a series of five steps to work though in order to successfully

design and implement MPA Management Plans. These steps begin with getting approval from

the village council or stakeholders to consider the area for MPA designation and end with

implementation of the activities in the management plan. The order of events can be seen in

figure 3 (page 28).

Section four: Supplemental DocumentationIn efforts to keep the total number of pages in this document to a minimum, a number of

supplemental documents have been put in the Appendices (contained in a separate document).

In this way, it is hoped that the guide will be manageable and easy to understand with the

reader only needing to consult the supplemental documentation if they require detailed

information on a particular topic.

1MARXAN is software designed to aid systematic reserve design for conservation planning.


4/41

4

List of acronymsASCC American Samoa Community College

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

ASG American Samoan Government

CCCAS Congregational Christian Church of American Samoa

CFMP Community Based Fishery Management

CMP Coastal Management Program

CRAG Coral Reef Advisory Group

CRI Coral Reef Initiative

CZM Coastal Zone Management

GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

DMWR Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources

DOC Department of Commerce

DMP Draft Management Plan

EPA Environmental Protection AgencyFJLMMA Fiji Locally Managed Marine Protected Area Network

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

KRSP Key Reef Species Monitoring Program

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPA Marine Protected Area

NMS National Marine Sanctuary

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS National Parks Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation ServicePADI Professional Association of Diving Instructors

PIFSC Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center

PIMPAC Pacific Islands Marine Protected Area Community

PIRO Pacific Island Regional Office

PLA Participatory Learning and Action

SEM Pasifika Socioeconomic Monitoring Pasifika

SMA Special Management Area

SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community

TMP Territorial Monitoring Program

TNC The Nature Conservancy

USCRTF United States Coral Reef Task Force

USDOC U.S. Department of Commerce

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

WCPA World Commission on Protected Areas

WPRFMC Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council

WSFR Wildlife and Sport fish Restoration Grant

WWF World Wildlife Fund


5/41

5

PrefaceIn 2000, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF) adopted the Coral Reef National Action Plan

that set the goal of establishing 20% of all U.S. coral reefs as no-take MPAs (USCRTF, 2000).

Following the recommendation by the USCRTF, late Governor Tauese Sunia requested a plan be

developed for protecting twenty percent (20%) of Territorial coral reefs as no-take MPAs

(Sunia, 2000). The late Governor Sunia directed the Coral Reef Advisory Group (CRAG2) to

develop the plan. Numerous planning efforts continued from this point and have resulted in a

marine protected area network specialist being hired on behalf of the CRAG.

The Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources has the power and duty to manage, protect,

preserve and perpetuate the marine and wildlife resources in the Territory (ASC, 2007a).

Consequently, DMWR is the primary agency responsible for making regulations on take of

marine resources and for no-take MPA management and enforcement in territorial waters.

DMWR, utilizing Coral Reef Initiative (CRI) funds, began a No-take MPA program in 2000 to

implement the Governors 20% no-take MPA declaration. This was part of their FederalAssistance for Sports Fish Restoration 2000-2005 five-year plan.

In 2006, DMWR hired Risa Oram to lead the No-take MPA Program (hereinafter referred to as

the MPA Program) at DMWR. At that point, the primary source of funding for the No-take MPA

Program was changed from CRI to Federal Assistance for Sports Fish Restoration. This continues

to be the primary source of funds for the MPA Program and has been approved for the current

five year plan (2012-2017). Risa Oram left DMWR in January 2008 and Lucy Jacob was hired to

take over in July of the same year.

Two positions have been created to support the MPA Program: An Environmental Specialist and

a MPA Technician. However, in 2012, upon departure of Lucy Jacob as MPA Program Leaderand promotion of the Environmental Scientist (Tafito Aitaoto) to the position of acting Program

Leader, it has been stated there are not sufficient funds (due to budget cuts) to replace the

Environmental Specialist. It will be a great challenge for the MPA Program to continue to be

effective with only two members of staff, but suggestions and modifications to program

activities are contained in this document. It is anticipated that in the future, the MPA Program

should have three or four full time members of staff.

In 2010, the first official no-take MPA in American Samoa was declared. The village of Fagamalo

signed a Cooperative Agreement to establish a no-take area of 2.9 km2which will be reviewed

after ten years of management. The No-take area in Fagamalo adjoins their existing Community

Based Fishery Management Program VMPA (Village based MPA) which has been in place since

2003. This is therefore a good example of co-management (between the village and the

Government) and of collaboration between MPA Programs.

2CRAG is a collaboration of five different agencies in the Territory, all of which have some link to the coral

reef environment: The Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR); the Department of

Commerce (DOC); American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA); the American Samoa

Community College (ASCC); and the National Park of American Samoa (CRAG, 2007).


6/41

6

The first version of this document was completed by Oram in 2008 and after four years of

attempting to fulfill the objectives of the original Master Plan, the document has been fully

updated by Jacob in 2012. Whilst the goal of the MPA Program remains unchanged, the

strategy has been updated to satisfy some of the local limitations and to incorporate resilienceprinciples into the MPA network design.

In order to keep this document to manageable length, much of the material has been included

in the supplemental documentation (appendices 1-8). In this way, only readers with a keen

interest in certain topics need to refer to the detailed information in the appendices.


7/41

7

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 2

PURPOSE OF THIS MASTER PLAN ................................................................................................................. 2HOW THE MANUAL IS ORGANIZED .............................................................................................................. 2

LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................... 4

PREFACE ......................................................................................................................................... 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... 7

TABLE OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ 8

TABLE OF FIGURES....................................................................................................................... 8

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 9

FISHERIES IN THE TERRITORY..................................................................................................................... 9

MANAGEMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES THOUGH MPAS ......................................................................... 10REVIEW OF TWENTY PERCENTNO-TAKE TARGET.................................................................................... 10THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARINE PROTECTED AREA PROGRAM IN AMERICAN SAMOA ...................... 11DEFINITION OF ANO-TAKE MPA ............................................................................................................. 11MPAPROGRAM GOAL ............................................................................................................................. 11

SECTION 1. UPDATE ON MPA DESIGNATION PROCESS ........................................................ 12

SECTION 2 PRINCIPLES FOR RESILIENT MPA NETWORK DESIGN..................................... 14

2A)PRINCIPLE 1:HABITAT REPRESENTATION AND REPLICATION............................................................. 162B)PRINCIPLE 2:CRITICAL AREAS .......................................................................................................... 202C)PRINCIPLE 3:CONNECTIVITY ............................................................................................................. 202D)PRINCIPLE 4:EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................... 22

SECTION 3 REVISED MPA NETWORK IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS............................... 26

STEP 1:VILLAGE COUNCIL ORSTAKEHOLDERGROUP AGREE IN PRINCIPLE TO MPA ............................. 28STEP 2:COLLECT ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL DATA AND PRESENT TO VILLAGE COUNCIL OR

STAKEHOLDERS........................................................................................................................................ 29STEP 3:GET COMMITMENT FORMPA FROM VILLAGE COUNCIL ORSTAKEHOLDERS .............................. 30STEP 4:USE PARTICIPATORY LEARNING AND ACTION (PLA)TOOLS TO DESIGN THE MPA AND DRAFT

THE MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................................................... 30STEP 5:IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................. 33

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 36

REFERENCES................................................................................................................................ 37


8/41

8

TABLE OF TABLES

TABLE 1. RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENHANCE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MPA PROGRAM

BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF THE LAST SIX YEARS (2006-2012). . ................................................. 12

TABLE 2. HABITAT TARGETS ACCORDING TO REEF RESILIENCE PRINCIPLES USING DATA DERIVED

FROM THE BIOGEOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT AND BENTHIC HABITAT MAPS(KENDALL ET AL. 2011).................................................................................................................................................. 17

TABLE 3. GUIDELINES TO ASSIST WITH MPA DESIGN. ................................................................ 31

TABLE OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. REEF RESILIENCE MODEL FROM THE NATURE CONSERVANCY.14

FIGURE 2. BENTHIC HABITAT MAP OF TUTUILA. SOURCE: KENDALL, M. 2011.19

FIGURE 3. HABITAT MAP FOR FAGAMALO NO-TAKE MPA SHOWING PROPORTION OF

DIFFERENT HABITAT TYPES THAT ARE REPRESENTED INSIDE THE NO-TAKE AREA....19

FIGURE 4. UPDATED MPA PROGRAM DESIGNATION PROCESS (2012). FULL DESCRIPTIONS OFTHE PROCESS CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 29.27


9/41

9

IntroductionAmerican Samoa is a tropical island located at approximately 14 degrees south and 170 degrees

west in the South Pacific Ocean. It is an unincorporated, unorganized territory of the United

States (U.S.) and is the only U.S. jurisdiction in the South Pacific. The territory consists of five

volcanic islands, one remote coral atoll and one remote low lying island. The most recent

population estimate according to the U.S. Census of 2010 was approximately 55,500. The main

islands of American Samoa are surrounded by steeply sloping coral reefs inhabited by over 250

species of coral and over 961 species of fish (Craig 2009). The majority of the population lives

on the main island of Tutuila. Tutuila has a land area of 138 km2 and has steeply sloping terrain

which provides very little cultivable land for the inhabitants.

The culture in American Samoa is Polynesian and the islands have been inhabited since

approximately 1000 B.C. (Craig, 2009). Like other Pacific Island cultures, the Samoans have

depended on coral reef resources for much of this 3000 year time period. Systematic fish catchdata for the coastal area is not available prior to 1950 but anecdotal evidence suggests a heavy

reliance on marine resources in the past (Bindon 1995). Not surprisingly therefore, the

relationship between Samoans and their marine environment is closely interconnected. The

introduction of western culture in American Samoa has led to a shift from a subsistence style of

living based on daily farming and fishing, to a cash-based economy where families rely on jobs

for income to buy many imported foods.

Fisheries in the TerritoryOverall, the shoreline coral reef fishery on Tutuila Island appears to be slightly decreasing (both

catch landings and CPUE) over the last 19 years (Sabater and Tulafono 2011) although this is not

true for all species or methods (e.g. spearing Surgeonfish and Parrotfish and using Rod and Reelfor Grouper; Sabater and Tulafono 2011). A lack of Apex predators and large fish species is

often reported (Green 1996, Craig et al. 2005) and intensive SCUBA spearfishing in the 1990s led

to a rapid reduction in Scarids amongst other fish families (Green, 2002). However, as pointed

out by Sabater and Carroll (2009) these conclusions were often drawn from fishery independent

data such as underwater surveys (Green 1996) and reconstruction models (Zeller et al. 2006).

Analysis of inshore creel data from 1991 - 1995 has shown a decrease in catch, value of landings,

effort and catch per unit effort (Adams and Dalzell 1999, Saucerman and Kinsolving 1995).

Therefore, although CPUE has decreased for many species, the fact that total catch has also

decreased indicates that recovery of some species could take time and there may be other

underlying factors, such as habitat degradation (Saucerman and Kinsolving 1995), negatively

affecting fish and invertebrate populations. It is also becoming more widely known that coral

reef fish stocks can take many years to recover from high fishing pressure even within no-take

areas (McClanahan and Graham 2005) and small areas with less permanent protection are

limited in the protection they offer to target species and ecological processes (McClanahan et al.

2007). The fact that very few no-take areas exist in American Samoa could therefore delay the

recovery of reef fish stocks from high levels of fishing that occurred in the past.

Another factor that could contribute to relatively low fish stocks is the degradation of marine

habitat due to rapidly increasing human population and associated anthropogenic pressures. In

addition to this, there are natural disturbances that have contributed greatly to a decline in the


10/41

10

health of coral reef resources (Craig et al. 1997) over the years (e.g. hurricanes and crown of

thorns outbreaks). Live Coral cover in American Samoa declined from 60 percent in 1979 (Wass

1982) to 3 13 percent in 1993 (Maragos et al. 1994) after a Crown of Thorns (COTs) outbreak

and several severe hurricanes.

Other human-induced impacts such as eutrophication, solid waste pollution, and heavy

sedimentation from poor land-use practices were cited by Saucerman and Kinsolving (1995) to

be inhibiting recovery of the reefs in American Samoa and to be a major restriction to coral reef

fish abundances. Saucerman and Kinsolving (1995) also pointed out the depleted state of

Lobster and Giant Clam stocks and recommended that existing DMWR regulations are not

enough to protect these species. They therefore recommended no-take areas and/or seasonal

closures as management measures. Enhanced fisheries management through methods such as

better enforcement of existing regulations, continuation of community-based fisheries

management and plans for the likely closure of the tuna canneries were also recommended by

Jacobs et al (2004) at the conclusion of their economic valuation of coral reefs in AmericanSamoa. They estimated that the current total coral reef annual value (at 2004 market prices) in

American Samoa was US$10,057,000 per year.

Management of Marine Resources though MPAsThe use of marine reserves or no-take Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the management of

fisheries in general, and fisheries on coral reefs in particular, has been advocated by many as a

cost-effective strategy to sustain fish stocks (e.g., Alcala, 1988; Alcala and Russ; 1990, Polunin

and Roberts, 1993; Rowley 1994; Evans and Russ 2004; Williamson et al 2004; Lester et al.

2009). No-take marine protected areas are proposed to maintain parts of certain populations

and ecosystems in natural states and for exploited species, it is assumed that the protection of

spawning biomass will lead to a net export of adults and propagules that will sustain, andenhance fisheries outside reserves in the long-term (Russ et al 2005). No-take marine reserves

offer the greatest protection for marine resources and ecosystems (Lester et al 2009) and for

that reason, are the focus of many international efforts to conserve reefs in the face of

overexploitation, climate change, marine pollution, coastal development and many other global

issues.

Review of Twenty Percent No-take TargetNo-take networks encompassing twenty to thirty percent of the coral reef and associated

habitat (e.g. mangroves, sea grass beds and algal flats) in representative and replicate

proportions are supported based on scientific evidence from fishery models of spawning

potential ratio (Bohnsack et al. 2003). In general, managers do not have sufficient detailed

information on target species density and spatial distribution to be able to identify the exact

proportion of the habitat that should be protected in order to sustain fisheries. The Durban

Action Plan which resulted from the IUCNs 5th World conference on Protected Areas in 2003

called for targets to establish a network of protected areas by 2010. It recommended

establishing protected areas for 20 to 30 percent of the world's oceans by the goal date of 2012.

In addition, in 2004 the member nations of the United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed to the establishment of a comprehensive and ecologically

representative national and regional system of Marine Protected Areas by 2012 (CBD 2004). The

national targets therefore recommended and now adopted by many countries to sustain fish

stocks and protect habitat (UNEP-WCMC, 2008) are a minimum of twenty to thirty percent of all


11/41

11

habitat types inside fully protected areas. American Samoa is leading the way in the Pacific by

partaking in this international targets. However, being a Pacific Island with a strong indigenous

culture, twenty percent no-take will be a great challenge to meet. Strong political support for

the target is necessary if the goal is to be met. This includes support from the Governor ofAmerican Samoa, the Coral Reef Advisory Group, the Director of DMWR, the Office of Samoan

Affairs and the Fono3 as well as the village chiefs.

The Development of the Marine Protected Area Program in American SamoaIn 2004, Oram began the research phase for the MPA Program with a literature review and

consultation with experts regarding potential sites. This process resulted in the development of

a matrix which can be viewed in the Appendix of Oram (2008). The matrix included detailed

information about each site which was then used to prioritize locations in a territorial planning

meeting in 2005. Sites that were prioritized as very high and high priority were recommended

for standardized biological evaluation. However, it should be noted that sites were prioritized

for a variety of factors ranging from coral cover to the presence of unique or rare organisms.The Biological Reconnaissance survey was designed to obtain a standardized semi-quantitative

overview of the biological and ecological attributes of the sites with the intentional that

scientists to provide objective and standardized observations from all sites which the managers

could use to base recommendations on for creating no-take MPAs. Surveys were carried out a

total of fifteen sites in Tutuila. The results can be found in a full report (Jacob 2012).

3The Fono is The Legislature of American Samoa. It is a bicameral legislature with a House of

Representatives and a Senate.

Definition of a No-take MPA

Any area of the marine environment within territorial waters that is closed to all

forms of extractive use for a period of not less than five years, after which time,

management will be reviewed.

MPA Program Goal

Establish a network of no-take areas in order to ensure protection of unique, various

and diverse coral reef habitat and spawning stocks and enhance the resilience of

American Samoas coral reefs to the impacts of climate change.


12/41

12

SECTION 1. Update on MPA Designation ProcessIn 2008 Oram created a strategy for the No-take Program which included a multiyear process for

No-take MPA designation in multiple locations. The full process can be found in the original

MPA Master Plan (Oram 2008). Efforts have been made to work through this process since 2006

and much progress has been made in certain areas. However, according to the timeline, the

MPA Program should be at the end of the proposal phase, proposing multiple MPAs

simultaneously, having carried out biological and socioeconomic research and written a full site

description for each proposed site. Whilst one no-take MPA has now been implemented

(Fagamalo), it has not been possible to follow the MPA Designation Process (Oram 2008) fully.

This is because of a variety of factors that are explained in sections 1A to 1F of Appendix 1.

Table 1 contains a list of recommendations that have been made to assist the MPA Program

staff with implementation based on the experiences laid out in Appendix 1 (i.e. from the last 6

years).

ISSUE Recommendations

1A) Multiple MPA

Programs in the territory

Follow process on page 24 Collaborate to enhance Ecosystem

Based Management

Continue collaborations with NPS and CFMP

Develop a formal process for introducing the concept of no-

take areas to existing MPA communities in the territory.

1B) Resource

requirements of

socioeconomic surveys.

Delay socioeconomic assessment until after the Village Council

or stakeholder group has accepted the Program

Use PLA activities to assist with MPA design and development

of management planCarry out biennial socioeconomic surveys in each No-take MPA

using the survey in Appendix 2 as a basis.

Carry out adaptive management based on results of

socioeconomic surveys.

1C) The Tsunami of 29th

September 2009.

Support research to investigate community and resource

vulnerabilities

Incorporate questions on community resiliency to

socioeconomic surveys in MPA villages and use results to assist

with enhancing resilience.

Design effective MPA network (taking into account resilience

principles (page 23) to enhance resilience of coral reefs to

climate change and other natural disasters.

1D) Expertise and resource

requirements for

biological surveys

Collaborate with Key Reef and CFMP Programs to streamline

monitoring currently being facilitated by the Chief Fisheries

Biologist.

Follow recommendations in Section 1E (Appendix 1) to try to

reduce the amount of staff turnover.

Ensure that rigid scientific protocol is used so that statistical

testing can be carried out on future biological data. If in


13/41

13

doubt, seek assistance from the Chief Fisheries Biologist.

Prioritize training and practice of underwater skills for all staff

members

Ensure that all staff members have safe diving equipment thatfits correctly. Store it securely!

1E) High staff turnover Provide salary increases for staff where possible and when

deserved

Promote long-term staff members by providing opportunities

for training, further study and other staff development

opportunities

Look for grants to pay for assistance from a GIS/connectivity

specialist and local interns (particularly from ASCC)

Continue to seek alternative funding to pay for contractors

and other activities (e.g. enforcement etc).

1F) Village councils are

decision making body.

Continue territory wide advertising campaigns to try to change

commonly held misconceptions about No-take MPAs

Involve Village Councils and stakeholder groups from the

outset

Enlist the assistance of the DMWR Director (who is widely

respected amongst village councils) to present information

about the program and to ask the village councils to hold back

on making a decision until they have all available information

Use all biological and physical data that is available (from

different sources) to present to village councilsDelay collection of socioeconomic data until after the village

council has agreed to establish a no-take area.

Continue with outreach programs on MPAs in priority villages

Table 1. Recommendations to enhance the implementation of the MPA Program based on

experience of the last six years (2006-2012). Recommendations are made in relation to six issues (1A

1F) and full description of these issues can be found in Appendix 1.


14/41

14

Section 2 Principles for Resilient MPA Network Design.

BackgroundOver the last four years, the MPA Program has moved towards the creation of an MPA network

model based on reef resilience principles. This stemmed partly from series of workshops and

trainings attended by the MPA Program Leader including:

Workshop: Principles and practices for designing resilient MPA networks prior to the 2nd

International Marine Protected Areas Congress (IMPAC 2) (Washington DC in May 2009).

Conference: Pacific Science Congress in Kuala Lumpur, 2011. Presentation title: Towards

the Development of an MPA Network in American Samoa

Training for trainers on reef resilience principles in Palau, 2011 (TNC)

This workshop in D.C. was partly facilitated by the authors of Establishing Resilient MPA

Networks, Making It Happen (IUCN WCPA 2008) which is a publication that was supported by

NOAA, TNC, WWF, Natural England and the GBRMPA and is a great resource for the No-take

MPA management staff (http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/mpanetworksmakingit happen

_en.pdf). Since attending these events. The MPA Program Leader developed several proposals

for reef resilience workshops, one for ASG agency staff which took place in June 2012 and one

under the umbrella of the Two Samoas Environmental Collaboration for MPA Managers, to take

place in 2013. She has also worked to refine the MPA Program in American Samoa so that it can

incorporate resiliency principles (see below)

The Nature Conservancys model for resilient MPA design can be seen in Figure 1, along with

their descriptions of each component.


15/41

15

Principles:

Principle 1: Representation and Replication (and risk-spreading) can help increase likelihood of

reef survival. By ensuring that resilient species and habitats are well represented and replicated

throughout an MPA network, coral reef managers can decrease risk of catastrophic events, likebleaching, from destroying entire reef ecosystems.

Principle 2: Critical Areas are vital to survival and sustainability of marine habitats. These areas

may provide secure and essential sources of larvae to enhance replenishment and recovery of

reefs damaged by bleaching, hurricanes or other events. They also include high-priority

conservation targets, such as fish spawning aggregations and nursery habitats.

Principle 3: Connectivity influences the design of marine protected area networks. Preserving

connectivity among reefs and their associated habitats ensures replenishment of coral

communities and fish stocks from nearby healthy reefs, and may enhance recovery.

Principle 4: Effective Management is essential to meeting goals and objectives of an MPA, and

ultimately keeping reefs vibrant and healthy. Reducing threats is the foundation for successful

conservation and the core of our resilience-based strategies. Measuring effective managementprovides the foundation for adaptive management. Investments in human capacity and long-

term financing are also crucial to sustaining effective management for the future.

Source: The Nature Conservancy (http://www.reefresilience.org/Intro_to_Resilience.html)

Figure 1 Reef Resilience Model from The Nature Conservancy.

The following descriptions outline the progress that has been made towards achieving each of

these principles by DMWRs MPA Program. However, it is also recommended that to some

extent, the MPA Program staff need to exercise the precautionary principle by taking advantage

of opportunities to develop new No-take MPAs when they arise. This is due to the high target of

20% that has been set and the fact that it is hard to get permission from villages to create newno-fishing areas. In this way, new areas can be established whilst more data is being collected

and incorporated into GIS layers etc. for the purposes of designing a resilient network.


16/41

16

Fortunately GIS data on marine habitats has recently been updated by the NOAA Biogeographic

team to extend out to the shelf edge (figure 6). Using these maps (and the GIS data availablethat accompanies them), it is possible to calculate exactly what percentage of each habitat is

included in MPAs. This was done for all existing MPAs in chapter 5 of the recently completed

Biogeographic Assessment (Kendall et al. 2011). The Biogeographic team took 150 meters to be

the maximum depth for coral reef habitat (i.e. the recognized depth limit of mesophotic coral

communities). Within that depth range, they found a total area 394 km2 in American Samoa of

which 29 percent (115 km2) was made up of coral reef and hard bottom substrate categories.

As an example, Figure 3 shows the calculations that were done for Fagamalo No-take MPA.

Using this type of analysis, the Biogeographic team was able to identify that 44 percent of the

area within the No-take MPA was comprised of coral reef structures (aggregated patch reefs,

~39 percent and aggregate reef, ~5 percent). The majority of this coral reef structure was foundin the bank that is included within the no-take area (90 percent is in the bank). Over half of the

mapped benthic habitat (52 percent) within the no-take area is covered by algal plain. It is

possible to do this analysis for all future no-take areas. However, it should also be noted that

other MPAs developed in the territory (e.g. the new proposals by the NMS or the National

Marine Monument at Rose Atoll) can also contribute towards the 20 percent target if they

create real no-fishing areas (see definition on page 10). For this reason, it is important to

collaborate with these managers in order to keep the statistics up to date. A GIS specialist would

be of great benefit to the program.

It is generally recommended to protect 20-30 percent of each target habitat type (Bohnsack et

al 2000, Airame et al 2003, Fernandes et al 2005, World Parks Congress 2003). Habitat types can

be categorized in many different ways and this process can become long and resource

consuming if conservation targets require information that is not available. At this stage, it is

recommended to use the data that is available from NOAA and work towards the targets

outlines in Table 1. However, it is important to ensure that the no-take areas represent all types

of reef morphology adequately. For example, if all of the coral reef habitat is on offshore banks,

this would not adequately represent the reefs in American Samoa.

Value of offshore banks

While these mesophotic banks represent vibrant coral reef communities (Bare et al 2010) that

could assist with the regeneration of damaged shallow water corals, particularly in the face of

climate change (Riegl and Piller 2003), one offshore bank has already been represented in

Fagamalo. This region was found to be a biological hotspot by Kendall et al 2011 for three out offour variables (coral cover, fish biomass and fish richness). This area was also categorized as a

distinct bioregion (out of 20 in American Samoa, 15 in Tutuila) with similarities in coral

communities to Masausi, Sailele and Aoa in the Northeast. In addition, deep water Toad Optical

Assessment Device (TOAD) surveys in Tutuila found dense and flourishing coral reefs,

particularly on mid-shelf patch reefs and on banks around the periphery of the shelf, including

the bank inside Fagamalo No-take MPA. Coral cover on the surveys was highest at depths of

3040 m although corals were observed as deep as 102 meters (PIFSC 2011).

However, despite the value of offshore banks, they should not be over represented in the

network. In addition to protecting coral reefs on replicate areas of offshore bank, other reef

2A) Principle 1: Habitat Representation and Replication


17/41

17

morphologies (i.e. fringing reefs, reef flats, and back reef lagoons etc.) should make up the

target of 30 percent in representative proportions. It may be necessary for the MPA Program to

enlist the assistance of a GIS specialist (or the NOAA Biogeography team) to assist with this.

Habitat Conservation Targets

The Biogeographic Team categorized the benthic habitat into the following categories: algal

Plain, mud, sand, coral reef (includes aggregate patch reef, aggregate reef and spur and groove),

hard bottom (pavement and pavement with sand channels (Table 1, Column B). Other

categories were also in there catalogue but were not summarized in the analysis leading to the

assumption that they were not found in large quantities. Column C in Table 1 shows the

percentage of the total area that is covered by each habitat type (Kendall et al 2011). Column D

gives the area in square kilometers that is needed to meet the following targets:

Algal Plain = 10%; Mud = 20 %; Sand = 10 %; Coral Reef = 30 %; Hard bottom = 20 %.

Algal Plain

The area covered by algal plain is 59 percent of the total area shallower than 150 meters in

American Samoa. As this habitat does not have abundant coral, is not particularly diverse and is

relatively deep, it is not thought to have high value as a conservation target (Roberts et al.

2003). However, it is undoubtedly still important for some species and provides the linkages

between near-shore and off-shore areas. In addition, drop camera surveys carried out by

DMWR have found surprisingly large amounts of coral and fish on these algal plains in American

Samoa (Marlowe Sabater, pers. Comm.). It is therefore recommended that the MPA Program

work towards protecting 10 percent of this habitat (one percent is included in Fagamalo no-take

area) which is a relatively large area.

Mud and Sand

Mud and Sand provide links between habitats, are important for the ecology of some species

and are also homes for particular species such as certain fish species and crabs etc.. Mud is

likely to be present in areas where there are wetlands and mangroves which are integral parts of

the marine ecosystem. For this reason, it is recommended to protect 20 percent of the mud

habitats (0.8 km2), of which none is currently inside Fagamalo no-take area and 10 percent of

the sand habitats.

Coral Reef

The coral reef categories have been combined together (from aggregate reef, aggregate patch

reef and spur and groove categories) giving a total coral reef area of 70.9 km2 in American

Samoa. These are valuable and diverse parts of the marine ecosystem that support the majorityof fish and invertebrate life, and are also extremely vulnerable to various anthropogenic and

natural threats. It is therefore recommended to protect at least 30 percent of this habitat type

(21.2 km2) of which 2 percent (1.3 km2) is already protected inside the Fagamalo No-take area.

Other hard bottom categories.

Additional important habitats are those described as pavement and pavement with sand

channel (total area in America Samoa is 35.5km2). These substrates support coral and algal

species, provide links between habitats, provide protection for the land and are favourable

substrate for settlement of coral larvae. The target for this habitat type is therefore 20 percent


18/41

18

(7.1 km2) of which such a small portion is included inside the no-take area (0.1 km 2) that the

percentage is still rounded down to 0 %.

Importance of ReplicationIt is recommended to have a minimum of three representations of each habitat types within the

MPA network. In this way, if a catastrophic event (such as a hurricane of COTSs) impacts the

area, there will be another two that may persist and assist with recovery of impacted areas

(through reproduction).

Habitat type

(A)

Area in

American

Samoa, Km2

(%)

(B)

Target

percentage

for MPA

Program

(Km2)

(C)

Fagamalo

No-take

area, km2

(%)

(D)

Percent

remaining to

meet target

(Km2)

(E)Algal Plain 232.5 (59%) 10% (23.3) 1.5 (1%) 9% (21.7)

Mud 3.9 (1%) 20% (0.8) 0.0 (0%) 20% (0.8)

Sand 35.5 (9%) 10% (3.6) 0.1 (0%) 10% (3.5)

Unknown 3.9 (1%)

Aggregate Reef 19.7 (5%) 30% (21.3) 1.3 (2%) 28% (20.0)

Aggregate Patch Reef 27.6 (7%)

Spur and Groove 23.6 (6%)

Pavement and Sand

Channel

27.6 (7%) 20% (7.1) 0.1 (0%) 20% (7.1)

Pavement 7.9 (2%)

Table 2: Habitat targets according to reef resilience principles using data derived from the

Biogeographic Assessment and benthic habitat maps (Kendall et al. 2011). Column A = habitats present

in American Samoa; B = Area (Km2)covered by each habitat in American Samoa (and percent of total); C

= Target percentage set by MPA Program; Area included in Fagamalo No-take area, Km2

(percent of

total); Column E = Percent remaining to meet target (area in Km2). All coral reef categories (aggregate

reef, aggregate patch reef and spur and groove) are grouped into one category and the target is 30

percent for this high value category.Pavement and Sand Channel are also grouped with Pavement andthe target is 20 percent.

In other locations, software programs such as MARXAN are used as planning tools to assist with

the design of MPA networks based on principles such as habitat targets. However, in American

Samoa, because of the strong influence that the Village Councils have, this process may not

work. Also, the expertise to run a program such as MARXAN does not currently exist inAmerican Samoa. It would therefore be better to exercise the precautionary principle and

implement MPAs in the most scientific and socially appropriate way possible at the time, rather

than wait for future expertise.

Actions

Collaborate with other MPA managers in the territory to ensure that all no-take

areas are accurately recorded and represented in the MPA network

Obtain technical GIS assistance to assist with MPA network design

Work towards achieving the targets in Table 1 ensuring that all reef

geomorphologies are proportionally represented.

Protect at least three separate portions of each habitat type.


19/41

19

Figure 2: Benthic habitat map of Tutuila. Source: Kendall, 2011.

Figure 3. Habitat map for Fagamalo No-take MPA showing proportion of different habitat types that

are represented inside the No-take Area. Source: Kendal et al., 2011.


20/41

20

This principle includes protecting areas such as but not limited to:a) Nursery areas

b) Spawning grounds

c) Turtle grounds or nesting beaches

d) Mangroves

e) Seagrass areas

f) Areas with high biodiversity

g) Areas with rare/vulnerable species (e.g. Humphead Wrasse, Bumphead Parrotfish,

Sharks, large corals etc.).

h) Areas identified to have important oceanographic features (e.g. upwellings, eddies etc.)

Limited information is available about some of these features but the Biological ReconnaissanceSurveys have provided valuable information on the relative biological value of the fifteen

priority sites selected in 2006 (Oram 2008, Jacob et al. 2012). They used a semi-quantitative

(ranked) scale to evaluate the coral and fish species at each site, along with other variables

related to physical disturbance, algae, invertebrates and rare or vulnerable species. By following

recommendations in Jacob et al. (2012), the MPA Program can ensure protection of areas with

high biodiversity, minimal human impacts and where rare or vulnerable species are present.

Mangroves, lagoons and reef flats in general are known to be important nursery areas for many

fish species, so by including these habitats in the network, some nursery areas will be included.

However, in order to get more information on recruitment and spawning, further studies are

needed and it is recommended that the MPA Program collaborate with scientists to write

proposals to find funding for this work.

Important oceanographic features are currently being identified by work being carried out as

part of Principle 3 (section 2C, below). Areas identified to have eddies, upwellings and other

important oceanographic features would be prioritized for inclusion in the network.

Connectivity in terms of animals making use of different

habitats as they mature or based on daily/seasonal

movement patterns can be incorporated into the network by attempting to include contiguous

habitats inside no-take areas. This is partly taken care of by representing all habitat types (in

multiples of 3) as described in Principle 2. It is also recommended to design MPAs that have a

number of different habitats inside to attempt to incorporate these movement and migration

patterns (i.e. habitat heterogeneity as described at length in Roberts et al 2003).

2B) Principle 2: Critical Areas

Actions

Write proposals to fund research on recruitment and spawning areas.

Follow recommendations from Biological Reconnaissance survey report (Jacob et al.

2012).

Work to protect important oceanographic areas identified in principle 3 (below)

2C) Principle 3: Connectivity


21/41

21

Fagamalo No-take MPA accounts for this by including an area that extends from the shoreline,

out to the reef slope and onto the offshore bank and it is recommended to design future no-

take areas in a similar fashion. At the very least, they should include the linkage between

shoreline, reef flats and reef slope.

Fish tracking studies

It will be useful to carry out acoustic telemetry studies of target species in order to find out the

actual home ranges. Funding has already been attained to carry out a small scale passive

acoustic tracking study of four target species inside Fagamalo No-take area. The study is

planned for 2012/13 and will deploy an array of receivers on the reef (and offshore bank) which

will be triggered by signals sent from trackers inserted into a sample of target species from the

area.

Such studies in other areas have provided useful information for the design of MPAs. For

example, in Guam it was found that some species (e.g. Naso unicornis and N. litteratus) haverelatively small home ranges that should be protected inside small MPAs (Marshell et al 2011).

The importance of designing MPAs based on natural habitat boundaries was also emphasized in

this study, rather than breaking contiguous habitat at the MPA boundary. Conversely, a study

by Meyer et al. (2007) in Hawaii tracking Caranx nobilis (and Apex predator) found that the

home ranges were so large (they made excursions up to 29 kilometres) that the whole islands or

atolls would have to be protected in order to include the home range. Interestingly though,

through this study, they were able to identify critical areas for the species such as their

spawning sites and recommended that smaller MPAs focusing on these areas could be a more

realistic target, and also still valuable for protecting breeding stock .

In addition to incorporating contiguous habitats inside single MPAs, it is also important to look

at emigration of species (animals moving from one MPA to another) and connectivity through

larvae of fish and invertebrate species. The former can be done by looking for results from

other studies at the home ranges or target species, habitat preferences and also though tracking

studies. However, the latter requires information on localized currents and larval behavior. The

following studies have therefore been initiated and are ongoing.

ADCP Surveys

An Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) was purchased with the assistance of a grant

provided by the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council (WPRFMC, see

Appendix 2). Current surveys were carried out at four priority locations throughout 2010/11.

These sites were Amanave, Aunuu, Taema Bank and Fagamalo (the newly designated no-take

area). Various publications have been produced from this data including reports of the data(e.g. Wiles et al. 2010, 2011) and an educational booklet (Jacob et al, 2012).

The results of the surveys indicated that eddies form around headlands such as Amanave and

therefore highlight the value of these areas for protection (other similarly important areas could

include Pola, Tula, Fogamaa and the tips of the Manua islands). Conclusions from the studies

also indicated that larvae coming from Fagamalo no-take area could be carried southeast to the

south coast of Tutuila (i.e. the villages from Amanave to Leone). For this reason, Leone or

nearby villages could be considered as priority areas for no-take MPAs. In this way, efforts to

protect both the source and the seed would be made.


22/41

22

Taema Bank was characterized by relatively low current speeds with the effect of the changing

tides effectively spreading larvae along the south shore of Tutuila. It is therefore proposed that,

in addition to the value of this habitat (as discussed in section 2A), it could also be a good source

of larvae for the south shore of Tutuila. This validates recommendations made in Oram (2008)regarding Taema Bank.

ADCIRC Model

The data from the ADCP surveys will be used to validate a circulation model in a project funded

by NOAA (Appendix 2). Funding was sought to purchase a coastal circulation model (ADCIRC),

GPS drifters with waterproof casings and a high specification computer on which to run the

model. The DMWR No-take staff are collecting drifter data opportunistically. It is anticipated

that particle tracking software will be set up in the future to enable larval simulations from one

proposed or established no-take area to another. In this way, it should be possible to gain some

insight into the connectivity between existing (e.g. Fagamalo) and proposed (e.g., Taema,

Amanave) no-take areas, with other surrounding areas in American Samoa.

In addition to the information above, it is also necessary to have some knowledge of larval

behavior, rather than assuming it to be passive. Such factors may be able to be built into

advanced larval simulation software. However, it also recommended that the MPA Program

leader reads up to date scientific journals and enlists the assistance of experts (e.g. Dr. Eric

Treml from University of Melbourne who initially set up the ADCIRC model for Tutuila) prior to

initiating this type of modeling project.

In addition to these oceanographic connectivity studies, genetic studies can also give an idea of

the connections between different marine areas. For these reasons, funding has been attained

by the Chief Fishery Biologist within DMWR, to begin to establish genetic markers for certain

coral reef fish species in American Samoa (Ochavillo pers. comm.). This is expected to take place

in 2013-14 and can be used to further validate the results of the circulation model.

If resources become available, surveys of plankton around the coast of Tutuila would be

valuable to identify the species of larvae present, and therefore estimate their swimming

capacity and possible destinations or origins (using the results from the current surveys). The

Pacific Island Global Ocean Observing System Coordinator in Samoa (Dr. P Wiles) could provide

technical assistance and grant writing assistance for this.

In order to collate all of this information and make it usable by the MPA Program (and to assist

with MPA Network design), it is recommended that a GIS Specialist with technical knowledge

about MPA network design (and ideally MARXAN) be contracted by the No-take Program.

Despite the fact that is the fourth principle in TNCs reef resilience model, it is the most

important for ensuring successful MPA network implementation. In order to carry out effective

management, there needs to be positive collaboration between DMWR, the

community/stakeholders and other management authorities in American Samoa. Most of the

activities involved in effective management will be detailed in the management plan and are

explained in section 3 (Step 5: Implementation of management plan). Detailed descriptions of

some of these activities can be found in Appendix 3 (Page 14 of supplemental documents).

2D) Principle 4: Effective Management


23/41

23

In addition to some of the more obvious activities such as monitoring and enforcement, there

are other activities that are essential to ensuring long term success of MPA implementation.

These include but are not limited to:

Education and Outreach

Education and Outreach are overarching activities that will be carried out, before during and

after MPA implementation. They can be done with the MPA community directly, with the

general population or with specific user groups (e.g. boat based fishermen). To date, the MPA

Program has a wide ranging education program (led by the MPA technician with guidance from

the MPA Program leader). This includes a quarterly newsletter (The Marine Reserves News); an

MPA Program blog (www.asmpa.blogpot.com), poster development (a new poster was recently

developed and enhanced by SPC); workshops targeted at community leaders (e.g. Lam Yuen et

al. 2012); presentations for communities on topics such as MPAs around the world and

Currents and tides in American Samoa; an MPA Program brochure (updated in 2010) inSamoan and English; education through collaborative workshops (e.g. Watershed Management

group outreaches and PLA workshops in Nuuuli and Fagaalu); presentations in schools and at

education activities carried out within DMWR.

An education strategy was created by Oram (2008) as part of the original MPA Program Master

Plan. A copy of this strategy can be found in Appendix 4 of the supplemental documents.

Training and Staff Development

Building the capacity of staff members through trainings will increase retention of skills and

information in DMWR and will promote the long-term sustainability of the MPA Program.

Examples of suitable trainings include, progressive dive training; species identification training;

data analysis and report writing; grant writing; community based management; climate

resiliency; facilitation skills; land based activities to conserve coastal areas; management plan

development.

Scientific Exchange

DMWR staff need access to professional publications and meetings to present their work,

participate in professional review processes, gather information, and keep current with scientific

developments regarding MPAs. There is a need to improve scientific communication both in

and out of the Territory by facilitating direct communication between DMWR staff and out-of-

territory partners. The MPA Program Leader will engage in scientific exchange at regional and

international conferences to share information about DMWRs MPA Program. Important

lessons that were learned during the development of the MPA Program will be written inreports and presented at these meetings.

Conduct cross-site visits

This is useful for both communities and MPA Program staff. Capacity building for DMWRs MPA

Program may involve cross-site learning exchanges with MPA managers and staff and regional

partners. Examples include the WCPA/IUCN for their work on the Establishing Resilient MPA

Networks publication, Western Regional Pacific Fisheries Management Council (WRPFMC), Fijis

Locally Managed Marine Area Network (FLMMA), Palaus Protected Areas Network, Cook Island

National Environment Service, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, and the Pacific Island

Marine Protected Area Community (PIMPAC). PIMPAC has developed regional priorities and a


24/41

24

work plan for providing assistance to MPAs in American Samoa. PIMPAC may be able to

facilitate cross-site visits in the future.

Exchange visits for the MPA communities themselves can also be seen as a best managementpractice and should be facilitated by MPA staff. A successful Marine Stewardship Learning

Exchange was carried out in 2011 (funded through CRI funds). A group of twelve leaders from

CFMP and No-take MPA villages were taken to Samoa to meet MPA leaders in villages there.

Successful interaction between the communities took place and lessons were learned regarding

MPA implementation in Samoa. A follow up workshop in American Samoa facilitated the review

of lessons learned and involved some villages developing priority actions that they would like to

carry out in their villages in order to improve the management of their MPAs. Full reports are

available from DMWR.

Collaborate to enhance Ecosystem Based Management (EBM)

The majority of American Samoas increasing population live on or near the coastal area. Someof the problems that are caused as a result of this increase in population include; erosion of soil

from mountainsides, contamination of water bodies from poorly managed agriculture (including

pig waste), pollution from poor waste disposal and lack of adequate sewage treatment, run off

from developed land into the lagoons/reef flats and algal growth on coral reefs as a result of

many of these practices.

The removal of fishing as a pressure from the coral reef allows coral and fish populations a

chance to recover. However, many of the impacts to the coral reef stem from the land based

issues mentioned above. It is necessary to take an ecosystem based approach to coral reef

management by managing activities both in the watershed and the water.

Over the period 2008-2012 the MPA staff have played an active role in Local Action Strategy

meetings and have assisted with various programs managed by land based and coastal resource

agencies (e.g. EPA and DOCs CMP). It is through this cooperation and collaboration that the

No-take Program can work to get assistance with the management of lands adjacent to no-take

areas. It is advised that the MPA staff continue to attend Land Based Sources of Pollution

meetings and work together with other agencies to try to identify ecosystem based projects that

can enhance the management of no-take areas. It is vital that the environment focused

agencies work together to enhance management in the entire ecosystem.

In addition to this collaboration, the ecosystem based management approach should include

monitoring the abundance of particular key species and algal cover in areas both within and

adjacent to MPAs. Regular monitoring will enable the detection of any changes within theecosystem and should trigger attempts to take reactive measures (e.g. limit fishing of

herbivores) in order to redress the balance.

Supporting the proposed ban on shark fishing in American Samoa waters will also play a role in

the ecosystem based management approach as these Apex predators play an important role at

the top of the food chain.

Climate Change and Disaster Resilience

Climate change impacts (e.g. coral bleaching, ocean acidification) and natural disasters

(hurricanes and tsunamis) are a fact of life in Pacific Islands that are likely to increase in future


25/41

25

years. To date, planning for climate change and other disasters has not been written into the

MPA Program Master Plan. This needs to be addressed by including activities in the

management plan that can help the communities to enhance their resilience to climate related

impacts. Whilst it is beyond the scope of the MPA Program staff to carry out many climaterelated activities by collaborating with the climate change LAS, it is proposed that activities such

as: vulnerability assessments, coastal inundation modeling and climate planning can be carried

out. In addition, the MPA staff can write grants to look for funding to do more research into

bleaching and acidification, and to carry out coral gardening projects etc.


26/41

26

Section 3 Revised MPA Network Implementation ProcessFigure 4 shows the schematic for the revised process that will be used by the MPA Program to

implement the MPA network in American Samoa. Due to the recommendations made in

Section 1 of this document and in attempts to follow the resiliency principles outlined in Section

2, there are four ways that a site could be prioritized by the MPA Program. These are:

Biological Hotspots (Box A, from Biological Reconnaissance Survey)

The Biological Reconnaissance surveys that were designed by Oram (2008) and analyzed and

written up into a full report by Jacob et al. (2012) identified certain sites as being of higher

biological value than others (e.g. Aunuu and Amanave). At appropriate times, the No-take MPA

staff should approach the Village Councils of these communities along with the DMWR Director

to present the results of the surveys (along with any other available ecological, physical,

socioeconomic or fisheries data available). See the description of Box 3 for a full explanation of

the information that could be presented here.

If the site in question is from the Biological Reconnaissance survey (there were 15 priority sites),

the MPA staff need not start the process at Box 1 because the ecological data (Box 2) should

already be collected. It is therefore only necessary to collate the information and approach the

village council to present the Program, the findings of the surveys and background research, and

to ask for their commitment to creating a No-take MPA.

It is recommended to carry out a general outreach presentation to the the village and village

council (about MPAs) prior to presenting the data and discussing the idea of a no-take area in

that village.

Opportunistic Sites (Box B)This option refers to the practice of exercising the precautionary principle (refer to page 25 for

an explanation of why this is recommended). It means that whilst the challenge of meeting the

20 percent no-take target is a great one, any village or community could establish a No-take

MPA either though their own request or though the No-take Program approaching them

(possibly though partaking in an outreach activity). Examples of where this could take place

could be the NOAA Priority sites of Fagaalu or Vatia. These sites were prioritized by managers

on island in 2010 for priority funding and management projects (NOAA 2010). Nuuuli, Ofu and

Aunuu were secondary villages that were prioritized and as a result of this prioritization,

extensive participatory workshops have been carried out in Fagaalu and Nuuuli of which the

No-take MPA team have been a part. These communities are both interested in MPAs but it is

yet to be confirmed whether or not they would consider establishing a No-take area.


27/41


28/41

28

Oceanographic Hotpots (Box C)

As explained in Section 2C (Page 20) on Connectivity, various oceanographic surveys are being

completed in order to better understand the near-shore oceanographic conditions and the

connectivity of different areas in Tutuila. From the results, certain hotspots have already beenidentified but more are expected by 2012 (from the ADCIRC modeling project). Any site that is

identified through these surveys as being a likely place of productivity or a larval source or sink,

would be considered an oceanographic hotspot. If this is the case, the MPA team would begin

the process at Box 1.

Habitat Hotspot (Box D)

See section 2A (Page 16) for a full description of habitat representation and replication. It is

recommended that the No-take team establish sites though the mechanisms described above

(in boxes A, B and C) and focus on keeping accurate records of the habitat types included inside

any No-take MPAs (and the cumulative records). In this way, it will be possible to assess

whether or not certain habitats are being over or under represented. At such a time that certainhabitats are almost fully represented (10 - 30 percent, see Table 2) and others are still far below

the target, it will be necessary to specifically focus on certain habitat types. This will be

considered a habitat hotspot (Box D). As for oceanographic and opportunistic sites, the MPA

team will need to start the process at the beginning (Box 1).

In general, this is not expected to be carried out widely until at least 2014 with the exception of

certain cases, such as the offshore banks. A new stakeholder engagement strategy has been

drafted in 2012 specifically focusing on offshore banks (see Appendix 5). This was because of

the recommendations of the DMWR Director and the CFMP Program Leader who advised that it

may be more feasible to establish a No-take area on the banks, than through some of the

villages. However, the meeting in October 2010 regarding Taema Bank, proved that this may

not be the case. It is hoped that the strategy will overcome some of the issues that were raised

during the Taema Bank public meeting (History Box 2 in Appendix 1).

Step 1: Village Council or Stakeholder Group Agree in Principle to MPAIn American Samoa, traditional land owners claim ownership over the coral reef areas adjacent

to their family land. Family chiefs, called matais, are entrusted with the management of any

claims made on these lands and any subsequent building or land use changes that may

transpire. Matais need to be involved with any and all planning that will affect their coral reef

area. Permission must be gained from these landowners before MPA management can

commence. Working with the village councils will be an important step in this process because

this is how decisions are made at the village level in American Samoa. It will be important to

educate the general public, and other people who use the resources in the village area (oroffshore banks) about decisions that are made at the village or territorial level.

When working in a Samoan village, a formal meeting will be set up between the DMWR

Director, MPA Program staff and the village councils (or fishermen and resources users in the

case of offshore banks) in the village of the targeted hotspot. The purposes of these formal

meetings are to: introduce the MPA Program; to educate the stakeholders about no-take MPA

networks and their benefits; and to explain the reason that their village has been targeted. This

could be opportunistic or because it is an oceanographic or habitat hotspot (see Boxes B, C and

D above or in Figure 4). In the latter cases, the summary data should be presented. This activity

may require several meetings to work toward the goal of gaining approval from the village


29/41

29

council to agree in principle to the MPA Program. This step does not require formal approval by

the Village Council to create an MPA and that should be made clear to them by the DMWR

Director. The purpose of seeking their permission is to gather more information regarding their

area prior to a formal decision being made.

Step 2: Collect Ecological and Social Data and Present to Village Council or

Stakeholders.If there is no ecological data available for the site from other sources then the MPA team can

carry out their own biological reconnaissance surveys. In this case, it is recommended that the

team should continue the biological reconnaissance surveys that were carried out at the fifteen

priority sites (Jacob and Oram, 2012). The method can be reviewed in Oram (2008) or Jacob and

Oram (2012). However, if the team are not able to carry out this method of survey due to lack

of experience, a second method is recommended.

Two divers carry out a timed swim at gradually decreasing depth. The first diver uses andunderwater camera to take a photograph every one minute. A snorkeler on the surface follows

the diver with a GPS in waterproof housing (one has been built and is housed in DMWR Fisheries

Division). The time on the camera should be exactly the same as the time on the GPS. In this

way, the photos can be GPS linked subsequently, and shown on a map to the communities. The

free internet based software www.gpsed.com can be used and an example of how the results

will look can be seen at: http://gpsed.com/track/7203076968370548403#photos. This site

shows photos from a survey that was done in Fagamalo no-take area.

The second diver uses basic substrate categories to make a judgment of the substrate type

every 1 minute. Substrate categories can include but are not limited to: HC: Hard Coral; SC: Soft

Coral; CA: Coralline Algae; AL: Algae; NIA: Nutrient Indicator Algae; BR: Bare Rock; RU: Rubble;SG: Spur and Groove; TA: Turf Algae; SA: Sand. Other categories to note are debris, physical

damage, bleaching. This is similar to the reef check method, and it gives a semi quantitative

assessment of the reef over a large area (using the timed swim method). This method is ideal

because a large area can be covered and the photos are useful for showing to the communities

when working on MPA design. It will also help to know what habitats are present and where

certain habitats end (which is useful to know when designing the MPA).

However, as mentioned above, other ecological and social data may already exist for the site

from programs such as:

Key Reef Species Program (KRSP) and the Territorial Monitoring Program (TMP)

Information on hotspots and bioregions from the Biogeographic assessment (Kendall et al.2011)

Socioeconomic information from any surveys, outreach evaluations, workshops etc.

Relevant information on local fisheries

Oceanographic information from surveys done locally or from other sources.

Census data

In this case, it may not be an efficient use of resources to gather new data. The information

collected should be put into a simple format (e.g. using GIS maps) to present to the community.


30/41

30

ACTION ITEMS

Summary description of ecology and socioeconomic conditions at the site, if possible, in

context of other sites.

Powerpoint presentation of data (making use of pictures) to present to Village Council or

Stakeholders.

Step 3: Get Commitment for MPA from Village Council or StakeholdersThis will be the first step for villages or stakeholder groups that were part of the Biological

Reconnaissance Surveys (Box A in figure 4). As with Step 1, in the case of these sites,

background information on MPAs and their benefits should be presented along with the data

and the reasons that their village has been selected. It may be necessary to carry out some

targeted education and outreach within the village prior to approaching the village council, or

with the village council prior to asking for the formal commitment.

However, for other sites, such as those that are identified opportunistically, or as oceanographic

or habitat hotpots, this will be the third step. The data collected in step 2 along with the details

and evaluation results of any education programs, will be presented to the village councils, and

they will be asked whether or not they agree to the establishment of a no-take area. If they

agree on principle, they will sign a Cooperative Agreement between them and the DMWR

Director to agree to work together (see Appendix 6).

ACTION ITEMS

A signed Cooperative Agreement between the DMWR Director and the Village Council

stating that they agree to work together to protect marine resources by creating a no-

take MPA.

Step 4: Use Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) Tools to Design the MPA and Draft

the Management Plan

A) PLA workshopsStep 4 will begin with PLA activities to identify needs and issues in the village. Working group(s)

will be identified though the workshop to finalize MPA design and draft the management plan.

It is recommended to encourage the participation of the village council members in these

workshops and working groups as ultimately they are the decisions making body that will sign

the management plan.

Ideally, one workshop targeting all the people in the village should be carried out but if this is

not possible (for example in large villages), then separate workshops can be held with different

sectors of the community (e.g. church groups). Effort should be made to include sectors of the

community that will be particularly affected by the MPA (e.g. fishermen) and it may be

necessary to target them separately.

Appendix 7 lays out guidelines of the types of activities that are recommended to carry out with

the community. These activities will each produce a set of flip chart sheets, or maps that can be


31/41

31

used to assist with the MPA design and the development of the management plan. The

resource map can be converted to a GIS file which will be useful for presenting back to the

village, and for the management plan.

For examples of PLA workshops that have been successfully carried out using these activities

see, Jacob and Sauafea-Leau (2009) for the results of a PLA workshop in Aunuu and Aitaoto et

al. (2011) for the results of a PLA workshop in Ofu, Olosega and Sili.

ACTION ITEMS

PLA report from the workshop with priority issues and consolidated resource maps for

the community

GIS map showing stakeholders knowledge of resource availability, resource use, and the

resource conflicts in the priority area

B) MPA DesignIt is recommended that MPA design is carried out collaboratively with the Village Council or

stakeholder group. However, it will be necessary for the MPA staff to provide options and

technical information on recommended size and design of the MPA. This will somewhat depend

on other MPAs that have already been developed in the locality and what the localized current

patterns are identified to be. The information provided in section 2 will be used for this process.

However, below are some more guiding principles to assist with this process:

Focus Recommendations

Habitat Incorporate high quality and varied habitat if possible

Include range of depths and contiguous habitats (e.g. coastline, reef flat,

reef slope and deeper water)

Try to establish boundaries that are in line with natural habitat boundaries

(i.e. try not intersect contiguous habitat at MPA boundary).

Size and shape In general, recommended sizes for MPAs are large in the context of

American Samoa (10-20 km in diameter at minimum width Shanks et al

2003). This is unfeasible in American Samoa (because of the culture of

village ownership and small village size) so aim for as large as possible,

balancing out the needs of the resource users.

Design a shape that minimizes edge effect (i.e. fact that edges are fished

heavily)

Regular shapes with straight lines are easier to enforce.

Location Protect the source and the seed (i.e. spawning and nursery areas) and

areas through to be connected through larval transport.

Identify sites using criteria from figure 4 and guidelines in chapters two and

three.

Management Try to balance protection with resource use

Have a buffer zone around the no-take area

Follow guidelines in chapter 2 (section D) and chapter 3 (step 5).

Table 3. Guidelines to assist with MPA design.


32/41

32

C) Write a site-level management planThe information and maps generated during the PLA workshops should be used in the

development of the management plan. Other documented information, including reports,

planning and legal documents, maps, satellite images, and photographs should also be tracked

down. A site description can be drafted from these documents that will be used directly in the

management plan or can be attached to the management as a supplementary document. Some

things to include in this site description are:

1. Marine resources and local fisheries that can be found in the area. (Maps can be used

to show ecological data and the data collected about fishermens knowledge). This

section should describe why the site is biologically important.

2. Types of fishing and resource-use activities occurring in the area. Data can also be

gathered from the shoreline and boat-based creel surveys by contacting Mike Quach at

NOAA ([email protected]) who manages the database for all the creel data

from American Samoa.3. Frequency that fishing and resource-use activities occur in the area.

4. Local threats to the area. (Data collected during step 2 and the PLA results can be

combined in this section). It may be important to also include a description of land-

based sources of pollution, development, and other threats that are not specifically

described in data sets collected in step 2.

5. Existing natural resource management activities occurring in the area. This should

include activities conducted by village council, youth group, other government and non-

government agencies and other projects within DMWR.

6. Natural resource management activities missing from the area that can help to

address the threats. This section should describe proposed management activities that

should occur in the area and what sorts of benefits they may expect to gain from this

increased management. The PLA activity problems causes and solutions will be useful

for this section.

7. Anything else that the MPA Program staff deems relevant.Drafting a management plan will take multiple meetings over time in order to come up with a

site-level management plan agreeable to all parties. The MPA Program will be responsible for

coordinating these meetings, facilitating the events and keeping track of meeting minutes and

outcomes. In addition to ensuring adequate cooperation and participation from all

stakeholders, the MPA Program will also be responsible for the actual writing (both in English

and Samoan) and editing process to complete the management plan. Some of the important

components of a site-level management plan are detailed in the following sections. Appendix 3

has a full description of the sections that are necessary to complete a management plan.However, it is also recommended that the MPA Program staff attend training on management

plan development and this has been formally requested though PIMPAC several times. It is

recommended that the MPA Program continue to request such assistance or identify other

opportunities.

After the management plan is written for the priority site, the working group for the site should

approve the plan through a consensus approach. Sincere attempts should be made to create a

plan that all parties can live with. It will be important to address all issues that any member

strongly disagrees with. If a conflict arises during this process, a neutral facilitator could help to

bring about agreement. The working group will approve the site-level management plan


33/41

33

through a consensus process, and will bring it to their department directors and village councils

for approval. The MPA Program staff can play a coordinating role to help facilitate this process.

It is crucial that formal written documents be drafted to show that support exists for the site.

Copies of approval documents such as MOUs for inter-agency cooperation (if applicable),Cooperative Agreement between the village council and DMWR and any letters of support from

enforcement agencies showing approval for plan, should all be included in the management

plan.

ACTION ITEMS

Full Site Profile description for the priority area.

Final management plan for no-take MPA in priority village/area.

Signed Cooperative Agreement (by DMWR Director and Village Council) showing

approval of management plan.

Step 5: Implementation of management planThe implementation phase begins with DMWR working with the public, other relevant resource

agencies and village councils to coordinate their efforts to implement all of the activities

described in the site-level management plan (Appendix 3). Even if funding has not yet been

secured for regulations and enforcement activities, work can continue on many of the other

activities listed in the management plan. For example, full biological baseline assessments will

be conducted for each new site (see Appendix 8). Ongoing biological and socio-economic

monitoring and education and outreach activities will be conducted as identified in the

management plan.

The activities that will be important include:

Creation of regulations to enforce MPA

Demarcation of MPA boundaries with buoys

Advertisement of MPA boundaries and regulations to public

Baseline Biological Assessment (See Appendix 8)

Baseline Socioeconomic Assessment (See Appendix 8)

Community Based Fish Catch Monitoring

Ongoing education and outreach (See Appendix 4) Ecosystem Based style of management through collaboration with other management

entities (see Section 2D).

Implement alternative livelihoods and activities to supplement protein income (e.g. Fish

Aggregating Devices and/or aquaculture projects).


34/41

34

Importance of Adaptive Management

Evaluating the effectiveness of the no-take MPA is an important component of management.

The How is your MPA doing? Guidebook (Pomeroy et al. 2004) offers managers and other

conservation practitioners a process and range of methods to evaluate the effectiveness ofMPAs for the purposes of adaptive management.

Ten years after the site-level management plan is formally approved for each site and activities

in the management plan have been conducted, it is recommended that an evaluation of each

site then be made. This should include a quantitative evalu

MPA Program Master Plan 2012

Documents

Transcript of MPA Program Master Plan 2012