Posted by howardoo at 3/29/08 10:07 a.m.

This is a great idea, much like the Orca Pass International Stewardship Area, an idea proposed a few years ago that gained a lot of support among NGOs and local governments.
I'm curious though, to know what it means other than a declaration that this habitat is valuable and should be protected and restored. That symbolic statement is important to establish, but if it "would allow for public access, increased research, habitat restoration, protection and conservation, and environmental education, while encouraging marine-based livelihoods and cultural traditions" then how is that different from current use of the area?

Posted by Joel Kawahara at 3/29/08 8:32 p.m.

The marine sanctuary program at one time promised that they would not endevor to manage fisheries. It was Leon Penetta, then Bill Clinton's chief of staff who worked out this compromise with fishermen in Monterrey Bay and elsewhere along California. The Sanctuaries were welcome by fishermen to help keep out oil rigs and by and large the Sanctuaries and fisheries got along well until the early 2000's.

The Pew Ocean Commission and others began touting marine protected areas, aka no fishing zones, as a way of ensuring more fish for the future. Subsequently the Sanctuaries were co-opted and in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary no take zones were aggressively imposed on active fishng areas. This process has continued along the coast of California through the Marine Life Protection Act process and there are now no take zones in place or planned the length of the California coast.

The approach to fisheries management by no take zone advocates is "we don't know how to manage fisheries so we will solve that by having no fisheries". This is being applied across all fisheries, salmon, highly migratory species like tuna, ground fish and forage fish. While traditional management of harvest allows harvest, it seeks to understand the effects of harvest and to ensure long term sustainablility. I argue that the no take method requires less science and is indeed reliant on much less research than traditional harvest management. Never the less, because no take is intuitive, it remains popular inspite of its short coming in not providing for harvest.

If the San Juans Aquatic Reserve were to be established it would impact some fisheries. Numerically, the recreational fisheries would be most impacted. Simply eliminating commercial fisheries would accomplish little in the way of protection of groundfish. Indeed, the reef nets used for sockeye are in the water a few weeks a year at most and since they never move have zero chance of encountering a rockfish. Gillnets and seine nets likewise are in the water very few hours and never set near the bottom where they might be damaged.

Salmon populations get no benefit from no take zones, especially in migration routs like the San Juan Islands. Salmon populations are robust only where they have good freshwater habitat.

Since differing salmon species have differing habitat requirements, every salmon faces different habitat challenges. Chinook, coho and steelhead all use their rivers for up to a year from birth. Chum salmon, which require freshwater for four months at most, are the healthiest salmon runs in Puget Sound, despite being heavily commercially fished. Chum florish in Puget Sound without no take zones because their use of the available habitat coincides with the time of the year when there is the most water in regional rivers.

To have any helpful effects on Orcas, no traffic zones could be established where they could feed or rest with out the constant noise of boat traffic over head. National Marine Fisheries Service is not currently suggesting that this needs to happen, but they do note that boat noise is a constant in their environment that is new since motors were put in boats. No mention of noise originating from the shore affecting the Orcas is mentioned in the Orca Recovery plan, but once a no traffic zone is established, the effects of shore noise could be monitored in the some what quieter environment.

Other unknowns include the effects of effluents from septic tanks leeching into the waters adjacent to Aquatic Reserves. Septic tanks simply get rid of the solid effluents out of a house. The liquids can still contain contaminants such as hormones (from hormone therapy and the Pill), caffine, nicotine, and a whole host of drugs from every thing else we take: metabolized Ritalin, Nitroglycerine, Prozac... what's in your medicine cabinet? While people argue about the levels of these contaminants, Orcas already have very high levels of POPs in their fat. They simply don't need any more anything. Shoreline houses, or maybe even houses within one quarter mile of the shoreline may have to go to contained effluent systems. Victoria did - for the sake of the Straits of Juan de Fuca, it may be time for the Americans to step up too.

Runoff from roads is a major source of non point pollution. Even though there are fewer cars on the islands than main land roads, stuff scuffed from tires, brakes, engine drips, windshield wash fluid, coolant overflow, engine drips and gas tank spills contribute to the mess that goes into the sea when it rains and ditches flood in the winter. Cars crash occasionally on the islands. Ever see an crashed car on a rainy day? Remember the sheen around the road from the stuff spilled? The islands don't have storm water treatment - but if the goal is to have Aquatic Reserves with zero to minimal human influence, then cars might have to be highly restricted around the shorelines of Aquatic Reserves.

Birds are an important link between the ecologies of the sea and beach or uplands. Murres, auks, auklets, murelets, plain old gulls, comorants and every other bird needs a place on the beach at one time or the other. The transport of nutrients in guanno to the foreshore or farther inland is lost if the birds are disturbed by humans or pets. Like the snowy plover sanctuaries along Oregon's beaches, San Juan Island sea birds need to be protected from dogs and humans and cats.

What good is the guanno on the beach or up in the trees? The near shore waters around bird colonies benefit by having marine derived nutrients fed back into them year around. Single celled marine organisms know what to do with marine derived nutrients. Sewage from Victoria or a local septic tank is another matter.

For there to be an end to end benefit to the environment of aquatic reserves, they have to be adjacent to parks or wilderness areas. The upland contamination, even from sparsely populated areas like the San Juan Islands, creates an unnatural shoreline that is incompatible with an aquatic reserve. If houses have to be condemmed and removed, oh well.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/1/08 4:08 p.m.

there's a a senate action for a national parks lands package that has critical bills to protect our national parks. check out npca org.

tell your senators what you think - dont miss a chance to help the environment and our natural heritage

Posted by unregistered user at 4/7/08 11:07 p.m.

So... let's stop the commercial and sport fishing (the one that brings money in). I bet the natives will still get to crab all winter and longling for bottom fish. Makes sense to me... yeah right. More PC crap. Let mother government tell you what to do.