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

Executive Summary
Purpose of this master plan
The 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 Notake 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 organized

This 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 original document 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 containing recommendations 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

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 Documentation In 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.

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

List of acronyms
ASCC ADCP ASG CCCAS CFMP CMP CRAG CRI CZM GBRMPA DMWR DOC DMP EPA FJLMMA GIS GPS IUCN KRSP MOU MPA NMS NOAA NPS NRCS PADI PIFSC PIMPAC PIRO PLA SEM Pasifika SMA SPC TMP TNC USCRTF USDOC USFWS WCPA WPRFMC WSFR WWF American Samoa Community College Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler American Samoan Government Congregational Christian Church of American Samoa Community Based Fishery Management Coastal Management Program Coral Reef Advisory Group Coral Reef Initiative Coastal Zone Management Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources Department of Commerce Draft Management Plan Environmental Protection Agency Fiji Locally Managed Marine Protected Area Network Geographic Information System Global Positioning System International Union for Conservation of Nature Key Reef Species Monitoring Program Memorandum of Understanding Marine Protected Area National Marine Sanctuary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Parks Service Natural Resources Conservation Service Professional Association of Diving Instructors Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center Pacific Islands Marine Protected Area Community Pacific Island Regional Office Participatory Learning and Action Socioeconomic Monitoring Pasifika Special Management Area Secretariat of the Pacific Community Territorial Monitoring Program The Nature Conservancy United States Coral Reef Task Force U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. World Commission on Protected Areas Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council Wildlife and Sport fish Restoration Grant World Wildlife Fund

Preface
In 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 Federal Assistance 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 Leader and 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 km2 which 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.

CRAG 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).

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 resilience principles 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.

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 2 PURPOSE OF THIS MASTER PLAN ................................................................................................................. 2 HOW 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 ......................................................................... 10 REVIEW OF TWENTY PERCENT NO-TAKE TARGET .................................................................................... 10 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARINE PROTECTED AREA PROGRAM IN AMERICAN SAMOA ...................... 11 DEFINITION OF A NO-TAKE MPA ............................................................................................................. 11 MPA PROGRAM 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 ............................................................. 16 2B) PRINCIPLE 2: CRITICAL AREAS .......................................................................................................... 20 2C) PRINCIPLE 3: CONNECTIVITY ............................................................................................................. 20 2D) PRINCIPLE 4: EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................... 22 SECTION 3 REVISED MPA NETWORK IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS ............................... 26 STEP 1: VILLAGE COUNCIL OR STAKEHOLDER GROUP AGREE IN PRINCIPLE TO MPA ............................. 28 STEP 2: COLLECT ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL DATA AND PRESENT TO VILLAGE COUNCIL OR STAKEHOLDERS. ....................................................................................................................................... 29 STEP 3: GET COMMITMENT FOR MPA FROM VILLAGE COUNCIL OR STAKEHOLDERS .............................. 30 STEP 4: USE PARTICIPATORY LEARNING AND ACTION (PLA) TOOLS TO DESIGN THE MPA AND DRAFT THE MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................................................... 30 STEP 5: IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................. 33 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 36 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................ 37

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 OF THE PROCESS CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 29.27

Introduction
American 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 catch data 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 Territory

Overall, 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 Reel for 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

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 American Samoa. 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 MPAs

The 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, and enhance 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 Target

No-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

10

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 of American 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 Samoa

In 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).

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.

The Fono is The Legislature of American Samoa. It is a bicameral legislature with a House of Representatives and a Senate.

11

SECTION 1. Update on MPA Designation Process

In 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 1A) Multiple MPA Programs in the territory Recommendations 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 notake areas to existing MPA communities in the territory. 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 plan Carry 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. 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. 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

1B) Resource requirements of socioeconomic surveys.

1C) The Tsunami of 29th September 2009.

1D) Expertise and resource requirements for biological surveys

12

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 that fits 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). 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 councils Delay 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

1F) Village councils are decision making body.

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.

13

Section 2 Principles for Resilient MPA Network Design.

Background
Over 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.

14

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, like bleaching, 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 management provides the foundation for adaptive management. Investments in human capacity and longterm 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 new no-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.

15

2A) Principle 1: Habitat Representation and Replication

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 available that 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 found in 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 of four 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

16

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 majority of 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

17

(7.1 km2) of which such a small portion is included inside the no-take area (0.1 km2) that the percentage is still rounded down to 0 %. Importance of Replication It 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 Area in American Samoa, Km2 (%) (B) 232.5 (59%) 3.9 (1%) 35.5 (9%) 3.9 (1%) 19.7 (5%) 27.6 (7%) 23.6 (6%) 27.6 (7%) 7.9 (2%) Target percentage for MPA Program (Km2) (C) 10% (23.3) 20% (0.8) 10% (3.6) 30% (21.3) Fagamalo No-take area, km2 (%) (D) 1.5 (1%) 0.0 (0%) 0.1 (0%) 1.3 (2%) (E) 9% (21.7) 20% (0.8) 10% (3.5) 28% (20.0) Percent remaining to meet target (Km2)

(A) Algal Plain Mud Sand Unknown Aggregate Reef Aggregate Patch Reef Spur and Groove Pavement and Sand Channel Pavement

20% (7.1)

0.1

(0%)

20%

(7.1)

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 2 in American Samoa; B = Area (Km ) covered by each habitat in American Samoa (and percent of total); C 2 = Target percentage set by MPA Program; Area included in Fagamalo No-take area, Km (percent of 2 total); Column E = Percent remaining to meet target (area in Km ). 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 and the 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 in American 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.

18

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.

19

2B) Principle 2: Critical Areas

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 Reconnaissance Surveys 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. 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)

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).

2C) Principle 3: Connectivity

20

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 notake 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) have relatively 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.

21

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.

2D) Principle 4: Effective Management

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).

22

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) in Samoan 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-ofterritory 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 in reports 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

23

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 management practice 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. Some of 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 the ecosystem 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

24

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 climate related 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.

25

Section 3 Revised MPA Network Implementation Process

Figure 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.

26

A Biological Hotspots (Biorecon Survey) 2012 - ongoing

B Opportunistic Sites 2012- ongoing

C Oceanographic Hotspots 2013 - ongoing

1
Vilage Council (or stakeholders) agree in principle to MPA

2
Collect Ecological & Social Data. Present to Village Council or Stakeholders

3
Get Committment for MPA from Village Council or Stakeholders

4
Use PLA tools to design management plan and MPA

5 Implement MPA activities e.g. monitoring, enforcement

D Habitat Hotspots 2014 - ongoing

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Figure 4: Updated MPA Program Designation Process (2012). Full descriptions of the process can be found on Page 28.

27

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 been identified 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 certain habitats 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 MPA

In 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 (or offshore 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

28

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 and underwater 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.

29

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 Stakeholders

This 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 notake MPA.

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

30

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 Design It 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 Habitat Recommendations 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). 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.

Size and shape

Location

Management

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. 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.

31

C) Write a site-level management plan

The 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 (Michael.Quach@noaa.gov) 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 landbased 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 nongovernment 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

32

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 plan

The 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).

33

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 of MPAs 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 evaluation of performance measures to determine if the no-take MPA is meeting the management objectives, and a qualitative evaluation in relation to the overall MPA Program goal. This deadline is particularly relevant for Fagamalo No-take area because they have set a limit on the length of their No-take MPA (of 10 years) after which time the community would like to see the data and make a decision on the future of the no-take area. A working group should be developed consisting of members from the original team that drafted the site-level management plan, and any pertinent new partners. This working group will be responsible for conducting an evaluation of the MPA based on a thorough review of monitoring results. The working group will make recommendations on what shall happen to the MPA. Some of the options that may be recommended including choosing to: a) Revise or expand the boundaries of the no-take MPA for an agreed number of years allowing additional data to be collected, or additional activities to be conducted that show whether management plan objectives are being met. The expanded site would then be re-evaluated after that for permanent status consideration. b) Consider and promote non extractive use of the reef system c) Expand the site but make the expanded area as limited use zones. d) Consider zoning strategies. e) Conduct more scientific research studies on the impact of MPAs on fishing and coral reef resources. i.e. spillover, recruitment, etc.. f) Continue looking for sustainable financing for management and enforcement activities. g) In the event that the data shows no benefit from the no-take area and the community feel that the loss in fishing habitat costs more to them than the gain experienced, it may be necessary to reconsider the no-take area. However, this is a worst case scenario and effort should be put into ensuring that the public do not view no-take MPAs as a temporary (refrigerator) style of management. The MPA Program staff will lead the working group through a management plan review and will assist with incorporating the recommendations made by the working group into the updated management plan. A notice should be published in the local paper and TV to announce to the public that an updated management plan has been drafted for the site and that public comments are being sought. Public meetings can be held to gain comments. Efforts should be made to incorporate the publics concerns and comments into the management plan. The updated management plan will then need formal approval by department directors and village councils. An education and outreach campaign should then be developed to give proper notice to the public about the updated plan. It will be important to also seek funding to sustain management activities.

34

ACTION ITEMS

Evaluation of the MPA and its site-level management plan carried out with public input.

Recommendations from the evaluation will be incorporated into an updated management plan for the MPA and will be presented to the public.

Public Awareness Campaign.

Seek additional funding for regulations and enforcement

Whilst some activities related to compliance with regulations can be funded thought the US Fish and Wildlife Sport fish Restoration Grant (WSRG) under the auspices of awareness raising, the majority of direct enforcement related activities cannot be funded through this avenue. In 2010, the grant agreed to pay for materials to build marker buoys for demarcating the boundaries of the no-take area in Fagamalo. The DMWR Enforcement Division have agreed to incorporate monitoring of the no-take MPA into their weekly schedule which means they can monitor the areas twice per week on their regular patrols. The regulations and boundaries of the MPA are also advertised on a noticeboard in the village (figure X) and in a fish measuring guide for the territory that was produced in 2012 by NOAA PIRO. Whilst this is a good start for ensuring widespread knowledge of the MPA, it will not be enough to ensure compliance with regulations. It is therefore recommended that the MPA Program staff are constantly on the look out for grants that can assist with enforcement. One avenue that has been considered is to utilize advanced technology such as radar to assist with monitoring fishing activity in the no-take areas. Whilst this should not be ruled out, there are many challenges to overcome such as: communication system requirements; limitations in coverage caused by steep inaccessible terrain; expense; maintenance; night time response etc. Community based enforcement and wide-spread advertising of regulations may be the most effective and low cost/technology mechanisms to use. Education and Outreach This is an overarching activity throughout all of the stages of MPA selection, designation and implementation of the management plan (see Appendix 4 for a full education strategy). In carrying out Step 1, it may be that the MPA Program decides that an outreach program with the village youth, or churches etc. is necessary prior to approaching the village council. In this case, it will be necessary to go through the Pulenuu (Office of Samoan Affairs) to get permission to carry out the outreach programs first.
ACTION ITEMS

General population and targeted groups are informed about benefits of no-take MPAs and activities of MPA Program. Village council informed about MPA networks and their benefits. Permission to gather biological data (in situ or from other sources)

35

Conclusion
The information included in this Master Plan is a full revision of the previous plan of 2008. As circumstances change, new research is carried out and the program continues, it is anticipated that the Master Plan will be further revised. This plan focuses heavily on reef resilience principles and it is proposed that this is the most suitable direction for the No-take MPA Program to move in, given its strong conservation focus and aim to create a network of MPAs (in addition to the local and global threats facing the coral reefs). Other MPA Programs exist in the territory that have different objectives and it is proposed that these partners should enhance each others work through their collaboration rather than be a challenge to each others progress. There is a significant amount of work to be carried out if this plan is to be implemented. The current staffing arrangements for the MPA Program are not satisfactory due to budget cuts. It is therefore proposed, that the MPA Program reach out to funding agencies other than the usual grants and seek out technical support from outside (e.g. NOAA or TNC). In this way, the progress towards meeting American Samoas no-take MPA goal can be achieved. On this last note, I would like to remind the readers that the 20 % no-take goal was set by the Governor of American Samoa, and not by DMWR or any other agency. If this target is to be achieved, it will only happen with the full support of the Government. It is therefore proposed that DMWR encourages the future Governors of American Samoa to stand firm behind this goal and assist the territory in meeting its conservation target.

36

References
1. Adams and Dalzell. 1999. Sustainability and management of reef fisheries in the Pacific Islands. South Pacific Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia. Paper prepared for presentation at the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, Panama City, Panama, pp. 24-29.
Airam et al. 2003. Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: a case study from the California Channel Islands, Ecological Applications, 13(1): 170-184.

2. 3.

Aitaoto, T., Lam-Yuen, S., Jacob, L. 2012. Marine Protected Area Workshop in Ofu, Olosega and Sili: Summary Report. DMWR Biological Report Series 0006. Pp. 31. Alcala, A. C. 1988. Effects of protective management of marine reserves on fish abundances and fish yields in the Philippines. Ambio 17:194-199. Alcala, A. C., and G. R. Russ. 1990. A Direct test of the effects of protective management on abundance and yield of tropical marine resources. Journal du Conseil Internationale Exploration Mer 46:40-47. ASC-American Samoa Code. 2007a. Title 24 Natural Resources and Environment Ecosystem Protection and Development, Chapter 03 Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, Section 24.0304 Powers and duties. [Online] Available http://www.asbar.org Bare, A.Y., A.L. Grimshaw, J.R. Rooney, M.G. Sabater, D. Fenner, and B. Carroll. 2010. Mesophotic communities of the insular shelf at Tutuila, American Samoa. Coral Reefs 29: 369-377. Bindon JR. (1995). Polynesian responses to modernization: Overweight and obesity in the South Pacic. In de Garine I and Pollock NJ (eds.): Social Aspects of Obesity. London: Gordon and Breach, pp. 227251. Bohnsack, J.A., B. Causey, M.P. Crosby, R.G. Griffis, M.A. Hixon, T.F. Hourigan, K.H. Koltes, J.E. Maragos, A. Simons, and J.T. Tilmant. 2003. A rationale for minimum 20-30% no-take protection. Proceedings of the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium; Bali, Indonesia, 2327 October, 2000, Vol. 2: pp 615-619. Ministry of Environment, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, International Society for Reef Studies.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Bohnsack, J.A. 2003. Shifting baselines, marine reserves, and Leopold's Biotic ethic. Gulf and Caribbean Research 14(2): 1-7.

11. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2004. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Decision VII/28

37

12. Craig, P. DiDonato, G., Fenner, D., Hawkins, C. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of American Samoa. In the State of the Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2005. Pp 535. 13. Craig, P. 2009. Natural History Guide to American Samoa. 3rd Eds. National Park of American Samoa. 14. Craig, P., Choat, J.H, Axe. L.M., Saucerman, S. 1997. Population biology and harvest of the coral reef surgeonfish Acanthurus lineatus in American Samoa. Fish. Bull. 95: 680-693 15. Evans, R.D., Russ, R.D. 2004. Larger biomass of targeted reef fish in no-take marine reserves on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 14: 505519. 16. Fenner, D., Jacob, L., Ochavillo, D., Sabater, M. 2009. A preliminary assessment of the impact of the tsunami on the coral reefs of tutuila island. Internal report for Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (Fisheries Division). Pp14. 17. Fernandes, L., Day, J., Lewis, A., Slegers, S., Kerrigan, B., Breen, D., Cameron, D., Jago, B., Hall, J., Lowe, D., Innes, J., Tanzer, J., Chadwick, V., Thompson, L., Kerrie, G., Simmons, M., Barnett, B. Sampson, K. Death, G., Mapstone, B., Marsh, H., Possingham, H., Bail, I., Ward, T., Dobbs, K., Aumend, J., Slater, D., Stapleton. 2005. Establishing Representative No-Take Areas in the Great Barrier Reef: Large-Scale Implementation of Theory on Marine Protected Areas. Conservation Biology 19(6). 1733-1744. 18. Green, A. 2002. Status of the coral reefs on the main volcanic islands of American Samoa: a resurvey of long term monitoring sites (benthic communities, fish communities, and key macroinvertebrates). Report to DMWR. 19. Jacob, L. Oram, R. 2012. A Standardised Biological Assessment of Potential No-Take Marine Protected Area Locations in Tutuila, American Samoa. Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, Biological Report Series: lucy0007. Pp. 35. 20. Jacob, L., Wiles, P., Aitaoto, T., Lam Yuen, S. 2012. Coastal Currents in American Samoa. Their role in Marine Protected Area Network Design. Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, American Samoa. Pp. 23. 21. Jacob, L., Sauafea-Leau, F. 2009. Participatory Learning and Action Workshop, Aunuu. DMWR Biological Report Series lucy0002. Pp. 27.

22. Jacobs, MRAG Americas, Inc., USA, National Institution of Water & Atmospheric Research, NZ and Polunin. 2004. Economic Valuation of Coral Reefs and Adjacent Habitats in American Samoa. Final Report. 23. Kendall, M. 2011. Appendix B: Shoreline to Shelf Edge Benthic Maps of Tutuila, American Samoa. In Kendall, M.S. and M. Poti (eds.), 2011. A Biogeographic Assessment of the Samoan Archipelago. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 132. Silver Spring, MD. 229 pp.

38

24. Kendall, M. Kendall, M.S. and M. Poti (eds.), 2011. A Biogeographic Assessment of the Samoan Archipelago. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 132. Silver Spring, MD. 229 pp. 25. Kilarski, S., D. Klaus, J. Lipscomb, K. Matsoukas, R. Newton, A.Nugent, 2006. Decision Support for Coral Reef Fisheries Management: Community Input as a Means of Informing Policy in American Samoa - Project Plan for American Samoas Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources. A Group Project submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Masters in Environmental Science and Management for the Donald Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. Committee in Charge: Dr. Christopher Costello, April 24, 2006. 26. Lam Yuen, S., Jacob, L., Aitaoto, T. 2010. Village Mayors Workshop. No Take MPA Program. Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources. Biological Report Series lucy0005. Pp 38. 27. Lester, S.E., Halpern, B., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B.I., Gaines, S.D., Airam, S., Warner, R.R. 2009. Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 384: 3346 28. Maragos, J.E., C.L. Hunter, and K.Z. Meier. 1994. American Samoa Coastal Resources Inventory. Final Report to the ASG Dept. of Marine and Wildlife Resources. 29. Margoluis, R., and N. Salafsky. 1998. Measures of Success: Designing, Managing, and Monitoring Conservation and Development Projects. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 30. Marshell, A.; Mills, J. S.; Rhodes, K. L.; McIlwain, J. 2011. Passive acoustic telemetry reveals highly variable home range and movement patterns among unicornfish within a marine reserve. Coral Reefs 30 (3): 631-642. 31. McClanahan, T.R., Graham, N.A.J. 2005. Recovery trajectories of coral reef fish assemblages within Kenyan marine protected areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 294: 241248. 32. McClanahan, T.R., Graham, A.J., Calnan, J.M., MacNeil, M.A.. 2007. Towards Pristine Biomass: Reef Fish Recovery in Coral Reef Marine Protected Areas in Kenya. Ecol. App. 17(4): 1055-1067. 33. Meyer CG, Holland KN, Papastamatiou YP (2007a) Seasonal and diel movements of giant trevally (Caranx ignobilis) at remote Hawaiian atolls: implications for the design of Marine Protected Areas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 333:1325 34. The No-take MPA Program 2009. An Investigation into Marine Resource Use and Management in Aunuu, American Samoa. A household survey. American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources. Biological Report Series 10-01.

39

35. Ochavillo, D., Tofaeono, S., Sabater, M., Trip, E. 2011. Population structure of Ctenochaetus striatus (Acanthuridae) in Tutuila, American Samoa: The use of size-at-age data in multiscale population size surveys . Fisheries Research. 107. Pp14-21. 36. Oram, R. 2008. Marine Protected Area Program Master Plan. DMWR. American Samoan Government. 37. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (2011) Coral reef ecosystems of American Samoa: a 20022010 overview. NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, PIFSC Special Publication, SP-11-02, 48 p. 38. Polunin, N. V. C., and C. M. Roberts. 1993. Greater biomass and value of target coral-reef fishes in two small Caribbean marine reserves. Marine Ecology Progress Series 100:167-176. 39. Pomeroy, R.S., Parks, J.E. and Watson, L.M. (2004). How is your MPA doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xvi + 216 pp. 40. Roberts, C. M., Branch, G., Bustamante, R. H., Castilla, J. C., Dugan, J., Halpern, B. S., Lafferty, K. D., Leslie, H., Lubchenco, J., McArdle, D., Ruckelshaus, M. and Warner, R. R. (2003b) Application of Ecological Criteria in Selecting Marine Reserves and Developing Reserve Networks. Ecological Applications 13: S215-S228 41. Rowley, R. J. 1994. Marine reserves and fisheries management. Aquatic Conservation 4:233-254. 42. Russ, G.R., Stockwell, B., Alcala, Angel. 2005. Inferring versus measuring rates of recovery in no-take marine reserves. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 292: 112, 2005. 43. Sabater MG, Carroll BP. 2009. Trends in Reef Fish Population and Associated Fishery after Three Millennia of Resource Utilization and a Century of Socio-Economic Changes in American Samoa. Reviews in Fisheries Science 17 (3): 318-335. 44. Sabater, M., Tulafono, R. 2011. American Samoa Archipelagic Fishery Ecosystem Report. Pacific Island Fishery Monographs. 3. Pp 31. Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council. 45. Saucerman, S., 1995. Assessing the Management Needs of a Coral Reef Fishery in Decline. In P. Dalzell & T.J.H. Adams (eds). 1995. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries, Manuscript Collection of Country Statements and Background Papers, Volumes I, 68-74. 46. Saucerman, S. & A. Kinsolving. 1995. Fisheries management and conservation in American Samoa. In P. Dalzell & T.J.H. Adams (eds). 1995. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries, Manuscript Collection of Country Statements and Background Papers, Volumes I, 68-74.

40

47. Shanks, A., Grantham, B., Carr, M. 2003. Propogule Dispersal Distances and Size and Spacing of Marine Reserves. Ecological Applications 13 (1). Pp.159-169.

48. Sunia, T. 2000. Letter from Governor Tauese Sunia to Lelei Peau (Chairperson of the American Samoa Governors Coral Reef Advisory Group) regarding coral reef protection. August 2. 2000. American Samoa Government. 49. Tulafono, R. 2007. Personal Communication with Director, Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, December 27, 2005. American Samoa Government. 50. UNEP-WCMC (2008). National and Regional Networks of Marine Protected Areas: A Review of Progress. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. 51. USCRTF-United States Coral Reef Task Force. 2000. The National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs. March 2, 2000. Washington, D.C. [Online] Available http://coralreef.gov/ 52. United States Executive Order. 13158, 2000. Marine Protected Areas. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 105. Wednesday, May 31, 2000. Presidential Documents. United States of America Government. 53. US Census. 2010. U.S. Census Bureau for American Samoa. www.census.gov 54. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. 2011. Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan / Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Silver Spring, MD. 55. Wass, R. 1982. Characterization of inshore Samoan fish communities. Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, American Samoa Government, Biol. Rept. Ser. No. 2. 56. Wiles, P., Sabater, M., Jacob, L. 2010. Current Surveys Between Potential Marine Managed Areas in American Samoa: A Report of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. ISBN: 1934061565, 9781934061565 57. Wiles, P., Sabater, M., Jacob, L. 2011. Current Surveys Between Potential Marine Managed Areas in American Samoa: A Report of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 58. Williamson, D.H., Russ, G.R, Ayling ,A.M. 2004. No-take marine reserves increase abundance and biomass of reef fish on inshore fringing reefs of the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Conservation 31 (2): 149159 59. World Parks Congress. 2003. Durban, South Africa. 8-17th September 2003. 60. Zeller D, Booth S, Craig P, Pauly D. 2006. Reconstruction of coral reef fisheries catches in American Samoa, 19502002. Coral Reefs 25: 144152.

41