25.10.2013 Views

Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Annual Review 2012

Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Annual Review 2012

Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Annual Review 2012

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

AEBAR <strong>2012</strong>: Ecosystem effects: Habitats of particular significance to fisheries management<br />

In addition to legislated closures, a number of non-regulatory management measures exist. For<br />

example:<br />

• Spatial closures<br />

o Trawlers greater than 28 m in length are excluded from targeting hoki in four Hoki<br />

Management Areas – Cook Strait, Canterbury Banks, Mernoo Bank, <strong>and</strong> Puysegur<br />

Bank (DeepWater Group 2008). These areas were chosen because of the larger<br />

number of juveniles caught, relative to adults in these areas.<br />

o Trawling <strong>and</strong> pair trawling are both closed around Kapiti Isl<strong>and</strong><br />

• Seasonal closures<br />

o A closure to trawling exists from November the first until the 30 th of April each year<br />

in Tasman Bay.<br />

o A closure to commercial potting exists for all of CRA3 for the whole of the month of<br />

December each year.<br />

The high-level objectives <strong>and</strong> actions in Fisheries 2030 have been interpreted in the highly migratory,<br />

deepwater <strong>and</strong> middle-depths (deepwater) inshore national fish plans. The highly migratory fish plan<br />

addresses HPSFM in environment outcome 8.1 “Identify <strong>and</strong> where appropriate protect habitats of<br />

particular significance to highly migratory species, especially within New Zeal<strong>and</strong> waters”. In the<br />

deepwater fish plan the Ministry proposes in management objective 2.3 “to develop policy guidelines<br />

to determine what constitutes HPSFM then apply these policy guidelines to fisheries where<br />

necessary”. Inshore fisheries management plans (freshwater, shellfish <strong>and</strong> finfish) all contain<br />

references to identifying <strong>and</strong> managing HPSFM. These plans recognise that not all impacts stem from<br />

fisheries activities, therefore managing them may include trying to influence others to better manage<br />

their impacts on HPSFM. Work is underway on a policy definition of HPSFM that will assist<br />

implementing these outcomes <strong>and</strong> objectives.<br />

9.2. Global underst<strong>and</strong>ing<br />

This section focuses upon those habitats protected overseas for their value to fisheries <strong>and</strong> discusses<br />

important concepts that may help gauge the importance of any particular habitat to fisheries<br />

management. This information may guide future research into HPSFM in New Zeal<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> any<br />

subsequent management action.<br />

9.2.1. Habitats protected elsewhere for fisheries management<br />

Certain habitats have been identified as important for marine species: shallow sea grass meadows,<br />

wetl<strong>and</strong>s, seaweed beds, rivers, estuaries, rhodolith beds, rocky reefs, crevices, boulders, bryozoans,<br />

submarine canyons, seamounts, coral reefs, shell beds <strong>and</strong> shallow bays or inlets (Kamenos et al.<br />

2004; Caddy 2008, Clark 1999, Morato et al. 2010). Discrete habitats (or parts of these) may have<br />

extremely important ecological functions, <strong>and</strong>/or be especially vulnerable to degradation. For<br />

example, seabeds with high roughness are important for many fisheries <strong>and</strong> can be easily damaged by<br />

interaction with fishing gear (Caddy 2008). Examples of these include:<br />

1. The Oculina coral banks off Florida were protected in 1994 as an experimental reserve in<br />

response to their perceived importance for reef fish populations (Rosenberg et al. 2000). Later<br />

studies confirmed that this area is the only spawning aggregation site for gag (Mycteroperca<br />

microlepis) <strong>and</strong> scamp (M. phenax) (both groper species), <strong>and</strong> other economically important<br />

reef fish in that region (Koenig et al. 2000). The size of the area within which bottom-tending<br />

gears were restricted was subsequently increased based on these findings (Rosenberg et al.<br />

2000).<br />

207

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!