Ready for more marine protected areas?

The White House yesterday issued this fact sheet on a raft of new executive actions on oceans.

National parks for Alaska seas?

Something came up at the North Pacific Fishery Management Council meeting, which ended today, that really hooked me.

It was a discussion of an emerging national system of "marine protected areas," or MPAs.

This effort began with an executive order President Clinton signed in 2000.

An initial list already has been developed, and it shows Alaska has four MPA sites:

• Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge
• Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
• Glacier Bay National Park
• Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge

Now, federal officials are conducting a nomination process to add potentially many more sites to the list.

To some observers, of course, this is something long overdue to protect the pearls of our seas, just as we protect our redwoods, grand canyons and smoky mountains on land.

But people involved in marine industries such as commercial fishing appear to have good reason to be "afraid" of the MPA nomination process, as one fleet representative candidly told the council.

And why is that?

Because the executive order says federal agencies regulating activities in protected areas "shall avoid harm to the natural and cultural resources that are protected by an MPA."

Much uncertainty exists over just what "avoid harm" means. Could the council, in establishing new MPAs, meet this standard and still allow fishing?

"Quite simply, we don't know," a council staffer wrote in this discussion paper.

If the council and the National Marine Fisheries Service, the agency that regulates ocean fisheries, fail to explain how fishing meets the "avoid harm" standard in new MPAs, they might "find themselves targets of bad press or advocacy campaigns that generate enormous public pressure to take action," the discussion paper says.

The council now has choices.

It can elect to simply not recommend any more sites around Alaska for listing on the national MPA list. Or the council can offer some or all of the many sites it already has protected such as coral gardens, the Sitka Pinnacles and Steller sea lion rookeries.

Seafood industry players reckon that nominating no more MPAs really isn't an option; the Obama administration could just pick more Alaska sites.

So it looks like we'll be listing more MPAs.

How many more?

The council discussion paper identifies 251 eligible sites.

All told, these encompass 988,817 square nautical miles, or about 97 percent of the Alaska Exclusive Economic Zone.

Like I said, this issue really hooked me. You?

Will your fishing grounds be designated an MPA?

Tomorrow is the start of a three-day meeting in Anchorage of something called the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee.

I'll confess that when I first saw the meeting notice, I said to myself: "What the heck is this?"

So I did a little research.

It seems the 30-member committee has to do with the National System of Marine Protected Areas.

This system includes 225 MPA sites designated around the country following a round of nominations in the fall of 2008.

The list includes four sites in Alaska corresponding to major federal preserves: the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, and the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.

The government has opened a second round of MPA nominations with a deadline of Nov. 6.

So what is an MPA?

"MPAs are areas where natural or cultural resources are given greater protection than in the surrounding waters," the government says. Most allow activities such as fishing, boating and diving. Others, however, are "no take" zones where extraction of fish or other resources is prohibited.

Needless to say, MPAs are a hugely controversial subject in the commercial fishing world. While proponents argue they offer refuge for fish, spinning off greater abundance for fishermen, people trying to make a living from the sea have a hard time abiding a bunch of "Do not enter" signs up and down the coast.

Many people won't know that Alaska already has way more MPAs than those few on the national list. Regulators have restricted many areas around the state to fishing or other activities. For example, all of Southeast Alaska is closed to trawling. And in Western Alaska and out the Aleutians, fishermen can't work for miles around the rookeries of endangered Steller sea lions.

Anyway, it seems wise to keep a close eye on this MPA Federal Advisory Committee, which will meet all day tomorrow through Friday at the Hilton hotel in downtown Anchorage. The meeting is open to the public.

On Wednesday, a panel of experts — including Oceana and Pew environmental campaigners — will talk about MPAs, climate change and "ecosystem resilience."

On Thursday, several federal state and federal officials, plus representatives of a trawl group and oil company Shell, will talk about MPAs in Alaska.

Here's the agenda.