Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 90e101
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Ocean & Coastal Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
Designing a network of marine protected areas in California: Achievements, costs,
lessons learned, and challenges ahead
Mary Gleason a, *, Evan Fox b, Susan Ashcraft c, Jason Vasques d,1, Elizabeth Whiteman e, Paulo Serpa f,
Emily Saarman g, Meg Caldwell h, i, Adam Frimodig j, Melissa Miller-Henson b, John Kirlin b, Becky Ota d,
Elizabeth Pope j, Mike Weber k, Ken Wiseman b
a
The Nature Conservancy, 99 Pacific St., Suite 200G, Monterey, CA 93940, USA
Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, California Natural Resources Agency, 1416 Ninth St., Suite 1311, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA
California Department of Fish and Game, 1812 9th St., Sacramento, CA 95811, USA
d
California Department of Fish and Game, 350 Harbor Blvd., Belmont, CA 94002, USA
e
MPA Monitoring Enterprise, California Ocean Science Trust, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1530, Oakland, CA 94612, USA
f
California Department of Fish and Game, 20 Lower Ragsdale Rd., Suite 100, Monterey, CA 93940, USA
g
University of California Santa Cruz, 100 Shaffer Rd., Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA
h
Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford Law School, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, CA 94305-8610, USA
i
Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy Program, Stanford Law School,
559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, CA 94305-8610, USA
j
California Department of Fish and Game, 619 Second St., Eureka, CA 95501, USA
k
Resources Law Group, LLP, 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 650, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA
b
c
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Available online 31 August 2012
The State of California recently planned and is implementing a network of marine protected areas (MPAs)
in state waters as mandated by the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). A publiceprivate partnership (the
MLPA Initiative) completed four regional public MPA planning processes characterized by robust
stakeholder contributions and the incorporation of best readily available science. Prior to enactment of
the MLPA in 1999, less than 3% of California state waters were in MPAs, and most of those MPAs were
small and lacked clear objectives. By 2013, approximately 16% of state waters will be in 124 MPAs that
represent and replicate most marine and estuarine habitats and are designed to be ecologicallyconnected. The redesigned statewide network of MPAs improves marine ecosystem protection in California, advanced the science and practice of designing MPA networks, and increased the awareness and
capacity of stakeholders, scientists and decision-makers for marine spatial planning. The public planning
effort took almost seven years and significant financial investment (approximately $19.5 million in
private charitable foundation funds and $18.5 million in public funds). Not all stakeholders were pleased
with the outcomes and the planning processes faced many challenges. While the design of the MPA
network aimed to meet science and feasibility guidelines, final decisions on MPAs in each region reflected tradeoffs needed to garner public acceptance and support for implementation. The MLPA
Initiative offers some key lessons about implementing policy through a public planning process. While
California is developing mechanisms for assessing effectiveness of the MPA network in coming years,
including establishing a MPA Monitoring Enterprise and a process for periodic review and adaptive
management of MPAs, significant challenges remain for effective implementation.
! 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 831 333 2049; fax: þ1 831 333 1736.
E-mail addresses: mgleason@tnc.org (M. Gleason), evanwfox@gmail.com (E. Fox),
SAshcraft@dfg.ca.gov (S. Ashcraft), jvasques@coral.org (J. Vasques), liz.whiteman@
calost.org (E. Whiteman), PSerpa@dfg.ca.gov (P. Serpa), emily@biology.ucsc.edu
(E. Saarman), megc@stanford.edu (M. Caldwell), AFrimodig@dfg.ca.gov
(A. Frimodig), melissa@resources.ca.gov (M. Miller-Henson), jkirlin@comcast.net
(J. Kirlin), bota@dfg.ca.gov (B. Ota), EPope@dfg.ca.gov (E. Pope), mweber@
resourceslawgroup.com (M. Weber), Ken.Wiseman@resources.ca.gov (K. Wiseman).
1
Present address: The Coral Reef Alliance, 351 California St., Suite 650, San
Francisco, CA 94104, USA.
0964-5691/$ e see front matter ! 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.08.013
Implementing networks of marine protected areas (MPAs) is
a primary conservation and management strategy worldwide, but
one that has significant socioeconomic, political, and scientific
challenges (Day, 2002; Fernandes et al., 2005; Green et al., 2009;
Osmond et al., 2010; Toropova et al., 2010). MPAs are controversial
with some stakeholders concerned about potential socioeconomic
impacts of eliminating or reducing fishing opportunities inside MPAs,
M. Gleason et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 90e101
despite growing evidence that well-designed MPAs can contribute to
fisheries productivity and ecosystem benefits (Gell and Roberts,
2003; Lester et al., 2009; Gaines et al., 2010; Harrison et al., 2012).
While the science underpinning MPAs and their design to maximize
ecosystem and fishery benefits is rapidly evolving, it can be difficult
to implement MPAs at the size and scale recommended by scientific
literature, primarily due to resistance by affected marine resource
users and potential socioeconomic impacts (Agardy et al., 2003).
Involving stakeholders and the public in MPA design and implementation is critically important for their acceptance and effectiveness at meeting established goals, but requires significant investment
of funding and resources, especially at the scale of regional MPA
networks. While overcoming challenges to MPA network planning is
context dependent, careful documentation of successes and failures
can inform other similar processes, including emerging efforts for
more comprehensive coastal and marine spatial planning (Douvere,
2008; Ehler and Douvere, 2009; Halpern et al., 2012).
In 1999 the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) was
enacted, mandating the redesign of California’s existing MPAs in state
waters (generally 0e3 nautical miles offshore and around islands)
into an ecologically representative network under the guidance of
a master plan (“master plan”). The MLPA has explicit goals, mostly
focused on ecosystem protection (Table 1). When the MLPA was
enacted, just 2.7% of California’s state waters were protected to some
degree in 63 MPAs, covering approximately 368 square kilometers of
state waters (Table 2, Fig.1). However, most of those MPAs were small,
located only near shore, allowed the take of many species (often with
confusing regulations), and provided limited ecological protection;
they were also established in an ad hoc manner and not designed as
a network (McArdle, 2002; Starr et al., 2002; Gleason et al., 2006).
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) led two
efforts to implement the MLPA between 2000 and 2002. Both
efforts were unsuccessful, mostly due to insufficient resources to
conduct a statewide participatory public process and lack of public
acceptance of initial MPA proposals developed largely by scientists
(Gleason et al., 2010; Weible, 2008). A successful, though controversial, public process to design marine reserves in state waters
around the northern Channel Islands resulted in a set of 13 MPAs
implemented in 2003 (and extended into federal waters in 2007),
which significantly increased marine protection in southern California (Table 2; Airame et al., 2003; Osmond et al., 2010).
In 2004, California launched a publiceprivate partnership, the
MLPA Initiative (Initiative), to guide the development of the statewide
master plan and to conduct regional planning processes to redesign
California’s existing MPAs. The publiceprivate partnership model
included a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) specifying
roles of the public agencies and private charitable funding foundations, established expected deliverables and timelines, and created
a Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to oversee the process (Kirlin et al.,
2013). The Initiative process was designed specifically to bring
more capacity and resources to bear on the planning effort, conduct
planning regionally in a phased approach, put scientists in an advisory role, and involve stakeholders directly in the design of alternative MPA proposals (Gleason et al., 2010; Kirlin et al., 2013).
California’s statewide MPA network planning was conducted
through four regional planning processes for the open coast
2
MPAs in three regions (Central Coast, North Central Coast, and South Coast)
have been implemented; the proposed MPAs in the North Coast were adopted in
June 2012 and are anticipated to be implemented in early 2013. The Channel Islands
MPAs, designated in 2003, were found by the Commission to already be consistent
with the goals of the MLPA, and were integrated into the statewide network
unchanged. A planning process for the fifth region, the San Francisco Bay, will be
considered subsequent to completion of a water supply and ecosystem plan for the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta now underway.
91
between 2004 and 2011.2 Alternative proposals for the redesign of
existing MPAs and new MPAs in each region were developed by
a Regional Stakeholder Group (RSG) in an iterative process. Each set
of MPA proposals was evaluated by the MLPA Master Plan Science
Advisory Team (SAT), reviewed by the CDFG for design feasibility
and potential to meet MLPA goals, and guided by the BRTF. Multiple
stakeholder proposals in each region were refined to better meet
scientific guidelines and address feasibility concerns, while also
considering potential socioeconomic impacts and other considerations (Fox et al., 2013b). Alternative proposals from the stakeholders in each region therefore reflected a range in the number,
area, placement, and types of MPAs (i.e., “no take” state marine
reserves and “limited take” state marine conservation areas or state
marine parks).
The BRTF made recommendations for proposed MPAs in each
region, based on stakeholder proposals that had been formally
evaluated by the SAT and CDFG, to the California Fish and Game
Commission (Commission). The Commission, consisting of five
members appointed by the Governor with Senate confirmation, has
statutory authority to designate MPAs and issue associated regulations. The Initiative thus had an advisory role to the Commission
on MLPA implementation; however, the BRTF played a key role in
identifying a preferred alternative that reflected a balance between
achieving the goals of the MLPA and addressing specific issues of
each region and local uses of marine resources. The Commission
made final decisions on MPAs for each region after conducting
separate environmental and regulatory review processes with
additional, extensive public input (Kirlin et al., 2013).
California has designed and is implementing a statewide
network of MPAs that should, based on key habitats and areas
protected, make a significant contribution toward ocean protection.
The Initiative process also advanced the science and practice of
MPA network planning, tested a publiceprivate partnership
approach, successfully integrated science into policy, and built
capacity in stakeholders, scientists, and resource managers.
However, the regional planning processes also had significant
financial and socio-political costs, and uncertainty remains about
whether there will be sufficient long-term investment in enforcement, management and monitoring to achieve the anticipated
benefits of the statewide network of MPAs.
2. What was achieved in California’s MPA network planning
processes?
The Initiative developed a draft master plan3 to guide the
statewide design of the MPA network, and completed four regional
planning processes that provided specific proposals, analyses, and
momentum that led to decisions on implementing MPAs in state
waters by the Commission. The master plan was developed in
consultation with stakeholders and outlines the process for
developing alternative MPA proposals, includes science guidelines
on MPA design developed by the SAT, and provides an overview of
management, enforcement, monitoring, adaptive management,
and funding (CDFG, 2008). The redesigned statewide network of
MPAs reflects a large increase in area and habitats protected within
MPAs designed to enhance ecological connectivity. The investments in MPA planning have had other significant benefits for
marine management and stewardship in California by increasing
3
The California Marine Life Protection Act requires that the CDFG prepare
a master plan (CDFG, 2008) and that the Commission adopt regulations based on
that plan. The master plan is considered to be a draft, living document until the full
statewide MPA network has been adopted and integrated.
92
M. Gleason et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 90e101
Table 1
The Marine Life Protection Act, enacted in 1999, has six goals which informed MPA design through the MLPA Initiative. The six goals emphasize ecosystem protection and also
address effective management of the statewide network.
Goal 1
Goal 2
Goal 3
Goal 4
Goal 5
Goal 6
To protect the natural diversity and abundance of marine life, and the structure, function, and integrity of marine ecosystems.
To help sustain, conserve, and protect marine life populations, including those of economic value, and rebuild those that are depleted.
To improve recreational, educational, and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems that are subject to minimal human disturbance,
and to manage these uses in a manner consistent with protecting biodiversity.
To protect marine natural heritage, including protection of representative and unique marine life habitats in California waters for their intrinsic value.
To ensure that California’s MPAs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures, and adequate enforcement, and are based on
sound scientific guidelines.
To ensure that the state’s MPAs are designed and managed, to the extent possible, as a network.
California Fish and Game Code Subsection 2853(b).
public awareness and forging lasting connections among stakeholders, scientists, and managers.
2.1. Increased protection of marine ecosystems and marine life
populations
The SAT developed scientific design guidelines for a network of
MPAs early in the planning processes. The MPA design guidelines
provided guidance on habitats to represent in MPAs, replication of
habitats in MPAs within a biogeographic region, and size and
spacing of MPAs to promote ecological connectivity (Carr et al.,
2010; Saarman et al., 2013). The SAT also developed a system for
classifying proposed MPAs in terms of the level of protection they
were likely to afford to the marine ecosystem within their boundaries, based on proposed allowed extractive activities, and evaluated which proposed MPAs were most likely to contribute toward
the ecological goals of the MLPA (Saarman et al., 2013). While
California’s MPA network was planned and is being implemented in
phases, one region at a time, an express statutory objective was to
design MPAs in each region to link together in an ecologically
connected statewide network.
With the completion of planning in four regions and implementation of MPAs along California’s open coast, there is a significant increase in the number of MPAs and area protected in state
waters compared to 1999 (pre-MLPA, Table 2). There are now (1)
more MPAs in state waters, (2) more area of state waters protected
in “no-take” areas, (3) larger MPAs that capture a broader range of
habitats (including many MPAs that extend from shore out to
deepwater habitats at the seaward boundary of state waters), (4)
more regular spacing among MPAs to promote ecological connectivity among marine life populations, and (5) clearer boundaries
and easier to understand regulations for all MPAs (Figs. 1 and 2;
more detailed regional maps available in online supplemental
information).
California’s open coast MPA network (including the 20 MPAs
adopted by the Commission for the North Coast region to be
implemented in early 2013), is comprised of 124 MPAs that cover
approximately 2196 km2 (848 mi2, Table 2). Of that total, approximately 1281 km2 (495 mi2) or 9.4% of state waters are in no-take
areas including 48 state marine reserves (SMRs), ten no-take
state marine conservation areas (SMCAs), and three State Marine
Recreational Management Areas (SMRMAs) that allow waterfowl
hunting but no other take of living marine resources. Approximately 373 km2 (144 mi2) or 2.7% of state waters is incorporated
into 17 MPAs that allow the take of some marine resources, while
still providing sufficient ecosystem protection to contribute toward
the ecological goals of the MLPA (Fig. 3). The remaining 46 MPAs in
the statewide network offer less protection to ecosystems and are
unlikely to contribute substantially to the ecological goals of the
MLPA due to the types of allowed fishing activities; however, these
MPAs are intended to contribute to the other goals such as
providing outreach and education, recreation, and research
opportunities, or protecting natural heritage.
The BRTF prioritized meeting the science guidelines to the
extent practicable. However, in each region other considerations
such as potential socioeconomic impacts, boater safety and feasibility concerns competed with the science guidelines and, in some
instances, the science guidelines were not fully met. Ultimately,
final MPAs implemented in the four regions differed in the
proportional area and extent of protection they provide. Nonetheless, a core set of MPAs are of at least the minimum recommended
size, sufficiently protective to contribute toward the ecological
goals of the MLPA,4 represent and replicate most habitats in each
region, and will likely be ecologically connected to other MPAs up
and down the coast (Table 3; Saarman et al., 2013). Statewide, more
than 20% of available rocky habitats are included in MPAs, while
soft-bottom habitats are represented at 14e19% of available habitat
(Table 3). To improve the ecological connectivity within the
network, habitats were replicated in MPAs within a region and
MPAs were spaced to enhance population connectivity for key
species (Saarman et al., 2013).
The goals of the MLPA largely focus on ecosystem and habitat
protection and not fisheries management; however, Goal 2 refers to
rebuilding depleted marine life populations including those of
economic value (Table 1). Possible fishery benefits (and impacts)
were an important part of the dialog among stakeholders
throughout the planning processes and many of the MPAs were
designed, in part, to protect and rebuild depleted stocks (Fox et al.,
2013c). It is anticipated that at least some MPAs in California’s
network will play a role in enhancing productivity and recovery of
fished populations, as well as providing a buffer against uncertainty
in fishery management strategies and models.
The potential benefits of proposed MPAs on fisheries was
assessed in three of the four planning regions using bioeconomic
models to predict potential changes in biomass and catch of
selected species resulting from spillover of larvae from MPAs into
fished areas (White et al., 2013). Some species, such as rockfish
(Sebastes spp.), are very slow growing and it will likely take years to
see any fishery benefits. Preliminary reports from the no-take SMRs
established in the Channel Islands in 2003 show signs of benefits to
some targeted species, particularly to shorter-lived species such as
California spiny lobster (Hamilton et al., 2010). The CDFG is identifying ways in which the MPAs could be integrated with fisheries
management under the State’s fisheries management law, the
Marine Life Management Act (Wertz et al., 2011). Understanding
how the network of MPAs may be contributing to fisheries
productivity will take time but could ultimately inform stock
assessments, harvest control rules, and other fisheries
4
The BRTF determined that MPAs of a “moderate-high” or higher level of
protection would likely contribute to the ecological goals of the MLPA (Saarman et al.,
2013).
93
M. Gleason et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 90e101
Table 2
Increases in the number of MPAs, as well as the proportion of state waters within MPAs, in California since the MLPA was enacted in 1999; planning and designation of MPAs in
the Channel Islands resulted in some increases in south coast protection before the start of the MLPA Initiative in 2004.
Study region
North Coast
North Central Coast
Central Coast
South Coast
Total
Area of MPAsa
Number of MPAs
No-take areasd
Total MPAs
No-take areasd
Total MPAs
No-take areasd
Total MPAs
No-take areasd
Total MPAs
No-take areasd
Total MPAs
1999
2004b
2012c
1999
2004b
2012c
1
5
1
14
5
12
3
32
10
63
1
5
1
14
5
12
15
43
22
74
6
20
13
25
13
29
29
50
61
124
5 km2 (0.2%)
8 km2 (0.3%)
<1 km2 (<0.1%)
70 km2 (3.5%)
19 km2 (0.7%)
106 km2 (3.6%)
6 km2 (0.1%)
183 km2 (3.0%)
31 km (0.2%)
368 km2 (2.7%)
5 km2 (0.2%)
8 km2 (0.3%)
<1 km2 (<0.1%)
70 km2 (3.5%)
19 km2 (0.7%)
106 km2 (3.6%)
417 km2 (6.9%)
471 km2 (7.7%)
442 km2 (3.2%)
655 km2 (4.8%)
133 km2 (5.0%)
355 km2 (13.3%)
219 km2 (11.1%)
394 km2 (20.0%)
218 km2 (7.4%)
529 km2 (17.9%)
711 km2 (11.7%)
919 km2 (15.1%)
1281 km2 (9.4%)
2197 km2 (16.0%)
a
Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of state waters within each study region, or the percentage of state waters statewide (excluding San Francisco Bay) for
the total.
b
2004 calculations include MPAs established through the Channel Islands Marine Reserves process, which created 13 MPAs totaling 435 km2 around these Southern
Californian islands after passage of the MLPA, but before the start of the MLPA Initiative in 2004.
c
2012 numbers include MPAs adopted for the North Coast Study Region by the by the California Fish and Game Commission, which are anticipated to be implemented in
early 2013; MPAs in the other regions have already been implemented.
d
No-take areas include state marine reserves (SMRs), no-take state marine conservation areas (SMCAs), and those state marine recreational management areas (SMRMAs)
that allow waterfowl hunting, but no take of living marine resources.
management decisions at the state and federal levels (Field et al.,
2006; Wilson et al., 2010; McGilliard et al., 2011; Babcock and
MacCall, 2011; Fox et al., 2013c).
2.2. Advances in decision support for marine spatial planning
In addition to the advances in MPA science reflected in the
science design guidelines and involvement of scientists in the
Fig. 1. Prior to enactment of the MLPA in 1999, California’s had 63 MPAs covering less
than 3% of state waters; in 2003, 13 MPAs were implemented in the Channel Islands
following a separate MPA planning process.
process (Saarman et al., 2013), the Initiative also fostered advances
in decision support that will ultimately inform other coastal and
marine spatial planning efforts. The MLPA was a driving force to
compile existing and collect new marine spatial data (e.g., habitat
distribution, fisheries information, etc.) for California into
a centralized geodatabase (Gleason et al., 2010). Stakeholders were
empowered in their task of developing MPA proposals by
Fig. 2. The newly redesigned statewide network of MPAs includes 124 MPAs
protecting 16% of state waters, including 61 no-take areas that cover 9.4% of state
waters. Note, the 20 MPAs in the North Coast region are adopted and due to be
implemented in early 2013; all other MPAs in the state have been implemented.
94
M. Gleason et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 90e101
Fig. 3. Regional and statewide summary of percentage area in MPAs of different types
and their associated level of protection. Notes: 1) see Saarman et al. (2013) for more
details on level of protection, 2) North Coast MPAs adopted and due to be implemented
in early 2013.
integrating the best readily available science with local knowledge
in a spatially-explicit context. The Initiative placed a strong
emphasis on collecting and utilizing local knowledge to inform
MPA design, with particular focus on mapping fisheries knowledge
(Scholz et al., 2004; White et al., 2013), non-consumptive uses
(NOAA, 2011; NOAA and MCBI, 2007), and tribal uses (unpublished
for confidentiality reasons). Finally, these data were made available
through the development of an online decision support tool,
MarineMap, used by stakeholders, scientists, and decision-makers
in the design and evaluation of MPA proposals (Merrifield et al.,
2013).
2.3. Increased capacity and involvement of stakeholders and
scientists
Through their engagement in MPA planning, many stakeholders
of widely divergent constituencies gained an increased understanding of California’s marine resources and the role of MPAs in
marine management. Stakeholders also gained valuable experience
in understanding the diversity of views on MPAs, and in working
with others toward negotiated solutions. By virtue of going through
a long, intense process together, stakeholders developed bonds that
helped to resolve some of the most difficult planning challenges
and may also help to bridge gaps between viewpoints in other
marine resource issues in the future (Fox et al., 2013c).
Similarly, scientists involved in the processes gained valuable
experience in making their scientific knowledge relevant to
decision-making and effectively communicating science to diverse
audiences (Grorud-Colvert et al., 2010). The Initiative utilized the
extensive scientific capacity in the state and engaged scientists as
both advisors and stakeholders. Many of the scientists participated
in more than one regional process and their command of the issues
and science communication skills improved significantly over time
(Saarman et al., 2013).
2.4. Increased coordination among agencies and with tribal
interests
The Initiative was designed to include participation from state,
federal and local government agencies, while maintaining
a commitment to implement the MLPA and to satisfy the timelines
and work products specified in the MOUs. As many state and
federal agencies have joint or overlapping jurisdiction in state
waters, but distinct mandates, there is an inherent risk that new
regulatory programs and policies may be in conflict with existing
programs if developed in isolation. These conflicts were addressed
through active consultation and coordination with other agencies
through all stages of the MPA planning processes. The goal was to
improve the compatibility of proposed MPAs with other existing
policies or programs, while achieving the goals of the MLPA.
Establishing formalized roles for agency staff within the regional
planning processes provided constructive mechanisms for agencies
to participate and express support or concerns (Fox et al., 2013b).
Additionally, as needed, ad-hoc interagency work groups were
convened to pursue policy or legal guidance on issues of emerging
importance that had not been previously explored or definitively
resolved (Fox et al., 2013c).
At the state level and prior to the Initiative, California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) had developed plans for
underwater state marine parks that would be sited adjacent to
existing State Parks lands. Rather than adopt these plans, State
Parks worked with the Initiative to build upon the broad stakeholder involvement in the MLPA to identify, prioritize and leverage
funding sources for areas with the highest benefit under both the
MLPA and State Parks programs. Similarly, the federal Gulf of the
Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS) had objectives for
enhanced seabird protection in the North Central Coast that were
met through the Initiative by involving regional stakeholders in the
design of special closures for protection of seabird colonies within
the MPA network5 (Fox et al., 2013c).
The MPA planning processes also gave many California tribes
and tribal communities a platform, especially in the North Coast, to
work together to represent their common interests and foster
greater dialog regarding tribal uses of marine resources within state
waters. Many viewed the MLPA as an opportunity for the State to
work with California tribes and tribal communities to preserve
their culture by accommodating traditional tribal uses of marine
resources within the MPA proposals and promote potential comanagement opportunities. Early on it became apparent that
neither a legal framework nor adequate communication mechanisms existed between California tribes and CDFG to meet the
expectations and interests of the tribes within the Initiative
process. While resolution of these issues was outside the scope of
the MLPA, the MPA planning process created political momentum
to pursue more robust communication among state and tribal
entities and to accommodate tribal uses of marine resources (Fox
et al., 2013c).
3. What were the costs?
The four regional MPA planning processes and the development
of a draft master plan for MPAs took nearly seven years and
significant financial investment and human capacity. An aggressive
timeline helped keep the regional processes on track, but required
dedicated staffing to maintain momentum and ensure transparency. Consistent with policy processes requiring important
changes in human behaviors and uses of natural resources, the
Initiative was controversial at times and confronted a variety of
political and legal challenges. Not all constituencies were satisfied
with the process or the outcomes.
3.1. Resources and time required
The Initiative proceeded at a fast pace with deadlines mandated
in the publiceprivate partnership MOUs to complete the statewide
draft master plan and four open coast regional planning processes
5
Special closures are geographically specific areas, generally smaller in size than
MPAs but compatible in purpose, designed and adopted by the Commission to
protect breeding seabird and marine mammal populations from human
disturbance.
95
M. Gleason et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 90e101
Table 3
Regional and statewide summary of habitat representation, expressed as a percentage of mapped regional habitat availability, for key habitats in California state waters. Note
that the accuracy of habitat maps varies from region to region, with the most comprehensive habitat maps available in the North and North Central Coast regions.
Habitat types
Rocky shores
Kelp
Shallow rock (<30 m)
Mid-depth rock (30-100 m)
Deep rock (>100 m)
Beaches
Shallow sand (<30 m)
Mid-depth sand (30-100 m)
Deep sand (>100 m)
Estuary
Marsh
Eelgrass sites
Mapped eelgrass area
Tidal flats
North Coasta
North Central Coast
Central Coast
South Coasta
Statewide
No-take
Areasb
All MPAs
No-take
Areasb
All MPAs
No-take
Areasb
All MPAs
No-take
Areasb
All MPAs
No-take
Areasb
All MPAs
7.9%
5.0%
4.0%
20.6%
35.4%
1.4%
2.8%
6.8%
7.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.0%
8.4%
7.9%
22.2%
37.9%
11.3%
11.8%
15.0%
17.6%
2.7%
3.2%
37.5%
3.3%
1.0%
17.5%
15.4%
22.3%
17.1%
N/A
9.4%
4.0%
13.6%
0.0%
9.8%
17.9%
50.0%
23.7%
26.2%
32.0%
39.4%
36.5%
33.3%
N/A
11.2%
6.1%
24.5%
70.0%
22.7%
32.4%
50.0%
62.6%
34.2%
22.1%
27.7%
19.9%
11.5%
0.1%
15.8%
14.5%
4.3%
4.9%
22.9%
54.5%
100.0%
3.7%
42.1%
28.5%
44.1%
28.8%
26.5%
19.9%
21.5%
18.8%
11.4%
13.3%
54.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
69.3%
16.9%
9.4%
11.5%
18.7%
24.1%
7.1%
9.9%
14.5%
13.6%
4.3%
16.5%
14.3%
4.0%
2.0%
24.2%
13.2%
16.9%
21.2%
25.4%
12.9%
16.6%
18.7%
20.1%
7.8%
30.0%
14.3%
4.0%
20.1%
16.6%
13.3%
14.1%
16.9%
4.9%
8.4%
8.7%
9.9%
10.5%
5.2%
18.1%
23.8%
8.8%
11.1%
24.3%
21.9%
21.7%
26.3%
21.2%
14.5%
14.8%
17.1%
18.5%
12.3%
34.0%
38.1%
28.0%
21.1%
a
North Coast and Statewide numbers include habitat in MPAs adopted for the North Coast Region by the California Fish and Game Commission, which are anticipated to be
implemented in early 2013; MPAs in the other regions have already been implemented.
b
No take areas include state marine reserves (SMRs), no-take state marine conservation areas (SMCAs), and those state marine recreational management areas (SMRMAs)
that allow waterfowl hunting, but no take of living marine resources.
between 2004 and 2011. The completion of planning within one
region generally overlapped with commencement of planning for
the next region. Contributions from private charitable foundations
helped to support the intensive pace of the process by funding
Initiative staff who worked alongside CDFG staff.
The Resources Legacy Fund Foundation (RLFF)6 served as the
fiscal administrator for combined private charitable foundation
funding. Pursuant to the Initiative MOUs, the BRTF oversaw
expenditure of the funds to fulfill the goals and milestones set out
in the MOUs. The Initiative’s Executive Director managed the daily
operations of the Initiative, including expenditure of funds which
were used primarily for contract staff, partial support of CDFG staff,
public meetings, outreach, decision-support tool development, and
targeted studies to support the planning processes. The number of
contract staff employed by the Initiative during each of the regional
planning processes ranged from 8 to 14 and included project
managers, planners, scientists, facilitators, GIS analysts, outreach,
and policy experts. The private charitable foundation funding
contributions were made in three phases, as successive MOUs were
signed and budgets developed for each region. In total, approximately $19.5 million in private charitable foundation funds supported the development of the draft master plan, four regional MPA
planning processes, and environmental review of MPAs prior to
implementation.
Public funding for MLPA provided through the CDFG hinged on
annual funding allocations from the State Legislature. During the
pilot Central Coast process from 2004 to 2006, when state funds
were not made available, private funds supported participation by
five CDFG staff members. In 2006, the Legislature provided public
funds for existing CDFG staff participating in the Initiative. This was
followed by a substantial increase in state support for the Initiative
and MLPA implementation in general, with annual funding
augmented to approximately $4.4 million annually between 2007
and 2011. This increased public funding enabled CDFG to increase
core staff to around 13 for engagement in all aspects (planning,
technical, legal, policy, etc.) of the regional MPA planning processes.
It additionally provided for other positions devoted to other MLPA-
6
Resources Legacy Fund Foundation was a signatory to the memorandum of
understanding (MOU) creating the MLPA Initiative; it received funds from private
charitable foundations to support the Initiative process (www.resourceslegacyfund.
org/rlff.html).
related tasks (e.g., communications, public outreach, web design
and maintenance, research, and implementation). CDFG staffing
ranged to upwards of 35 staff at times for planning and implementation across multiple regions. In total, the State contributed
approximately $18.5 million during the nearly seven year planning
process.
As the primary implementing and managing agency, CDFG had
the added responsibility of fulfilling regulatory and environmental
review obligations immediately following the MPA planning phase
in each region. While Initiative contract staff were able to largely
redirect their focus to the next region, CDFG staff were faced with
simultaneously performing implementation responsibilities for
each region (e.g., rulemaking, developing and implementing
scientific monitoring programs, public outreach and education,
signage, and partnership development).
Other state, federal and non-governmental organizations also
contributed resources (e.g., personnel, facilities) and funds to
complete the Initiative process. For example, the California Ocean
Protection Council provided bond funds for statewide seafloor
mapping that, while not done for the sole purpose of MPA planning,
contributed greatly to the pool of “best readily available science”.
Several federal, state and local agencies provided staff to participate
in each regional planning process or provided direct technical
support. Many academic institutions allowed their faculty to
participate and volunteer on the SAT, other science endeavors
connected to the Initiative, and on the BRTF. Many nongovernmental organizations also provided staff to participate in
the planning processes as stakeholders or advisors. Individual
volunteers made significant investments of time in support of the
Initiative process by participating in the volunteer bodies (BRTF,
SAT, RSG); individuals within those groups each contributed
hundreds of hours at formal meetings and between meetings, the
vast majority without compensation for their time (Table 4).
3.2. Potential fisheries impacts
There was a concerted effort to incorporate local fishermen’s
knowledge into each regional MPA planning process to try to
reduce socioeconomic impacts to fisheries. This was accomplished
through surveys with local fishermen to identify areas of importance to different fisheries in California (Scholz et al., 2004; White
96
M. Gleason et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 90e101
Table 4
A large number of people dedicated hundreds of volunteer hours to the MLPA Initiative public planning process, as formal participants on MLPA Initiative volunteer bodies and
by providing comments during public meetings. The public at large also provided thousands of written comments on prospective MPA designs, as well as other aspects of the
process.
Participation in volunteer groups
Over 3200 meeting days were contributed by approximately 200 RSG members.
Over 1000 meeting days were contributed by approximately 60 members of the SAT.
Over 400 meeting days were contributed by 14 different BRTF members.
These meetings amounted to nearly 38,000 total hours contributed by volunteers of the MLPA Initiative groups listed above.
General public participation
Nearly 4000 members of the public participated in workshops, open houses, and comment periods at public meetings. Hundreds more participated in field trips, public
mixers, and small group discussions.
Over 20,000 public comments were received in writing during the planning processes; over 50,000 comments received during environmental review.
et al., 2013) and dialog among individual stakeholders and with
decision-makers within the regional MPA planning processes.
While the MLPA does not require socioeconomic impact analyses, the scientific evaluation of each MPA proposal in each region
included a static estimate of maximum potential fisheries impact.
While these estimates assumed no spillover of fish from MPAs or
reallocation of fishing effort lost from proposed MPAs to other
areas, they did allow for an effective comparison of relative impact
among proposals (Scholz et al., 2004, 2012; White et al., 2013).
From this assessment, the potential maximum economic impact (in
stated importance, landings or dollar-value) was calculated for each
fishery and port group and provided to stakeholders and decisionmakers to help them evaluate and refine the MPA proposals to be
consistent with the goals of the MLPA and science guidelines, while
considering economic impact. The estimated maximum potential
impact on fisheries (expressed as a percentage of loss in net
economic revenue at the dock per year) from the MPAs ranged
widely by fishery and port group (1e29%), with a weighted average
ranging from 3 to 11% by region (Fig. 4). These estimates are
maximum potential values and are not expected to be realized due
to redirection of some of this fishing effort to other areas outside
MPAs, as well as potential benefits of MPAs on overall fishery
productivity; additionally, it should be noted that any real
economic impacts experienced by California’s ports and some
individual fishermen have not been quantified. Evaluations of MPA
proposals also included an evaluation of potential fisheries impacts
using bioeconomic models that considered potential spillover from
successful MPAs and management status of fisheries outside MPAs
(White et al., 2013).
3.3. Socio-political costs and challenges
While there were extensive efforts to engage a broad range of
interest groups and to foster cross-interest group dialog, at the end
of each regional planning process there were stakeholders who
were dissatisfied with the outcome. Some segments of this group
were vocally opposed to MPAs in general, and the publiceprivate
MLPA Initiative in particular, and were unlikely to support any
outcome that resulted in any new or revised MPAs in California. The
Initiative provided these interest groups with a very public platform for sharing their viewpoints. The Initiative and CDFG also
became a target for lawsuits and extensive public records act
requests that seemed to be aimed at stopping or slowing the
planning and implementation process (Fox et al., 2013a). While the
lawsuits to date have been unsuccessful in stopping MLPA implementation, they did distract from the planning processes and
required significant staff time and resources to adequately respond,
and thus are one of the ongoing “costs” of the process.
Some recreational and commercial fishermen, fishing organizations, and fishing-related business interests were and still are
opposed to MLPA implementation. Many fishermen view new or
revised MPAs as unnecessary area closures for fisheries already
heavily regulated; many of these fishermen had already experienced economic declines or reduced landings due to increasingly
restrictive regulations and/or declining stocks. From that perspective, the ecosystem protection goals of MLPA are difficult to separate from fisheries management when one impact of MPAs is to
limit fishing opportunities. Others maintain that it is impractical for
California to manage and enforce additional MPAs given the fiscal
crisis currently facing the State, despite commitments from many
city, county, state and federal enforcement agencies to partner in
these efforts. An important challenge to managing MPAs in the long
term will be to address these issues by providing insights into the
role of MPAs in rebuilding or sustaining fished populations and the
role of fisheries management in complementing or enhancing MPA
benefits to fisheries.
Another segment of stakeholders were supportive of the MLPA
and participated actively in the processes (as part of the RSG or
general public), but were ultimately disappointed by the
outcomes (either specific MPAs or the set of MPAs) of each
regional process. Many of these individuals had strong desires for
specific outcomes (e.g., specific geographies being included or not
included as MPAs; specific activities being allowed or disallowed
in MPAs; etc.) that were not included in the final decisions. The
final recommendations made by the BRTF and decisions made by
the Commission in each region reflected a compromise among
divergent interests and therefore did not fully satisfy many
different constituencies, including some conservation and fishing
interests.
4. Some key lessons learned
Fig. 4. Regional summary of maximum potential commercial fisheries impacts in each
region for the preferred alternative MPAs submitted to the Commission, based on
surveys of fishermen and assuming no shift in fishing effort outside of MPAs
(Scholz et al., 2012).
There were many lessons from the MLPA Initiative that can
inform other resource planning efforts; five of the most important
are described here.
M. Gleason et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 90e101
4.1. The importance of enabling conditions in place upfront
Political support for the MLPA at the highest levels of government was needed to keep the process moving forward over many
years, despite legal and political challenges (Fox et al., 2013b). The
statewide planning process could not have been successfully
completed without the legislative mandate of the MLPA, with its
explicit goals and requirement to establish a statewide network of
MPAs. The Initiative was a policy implementation process that did
not get bogged down by debates on the merits of MPAs, as the
Legislature had already determined that a statewide network of
MPAs was needed. Moreover, the definitions of types of MPAs
provided in the Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act and the
legal authority provided in Fish and Game Code sections 1590 and
1591 (all enacted concurrently but separately in 2000) proved
important as the legal basis on which the Commission actually
designated MPAs after each regional planning process (Kirlin et al.,
2013).
As a publiceprivate partnership, the Initiative provided the
necessary funding and capacity, within the context of a specific
mandate and timeframe, to help a state agency meet its statutory
requirements. Adequate funds allowed the Initiative to overcome
many of the shortfalls in capacity that hindered the prior unsuccessful attempts to implement the MLPA. Pairing CDFG staff, with
their scientific expertise and knowledge of state policy and
resource management, with professional contract staff with other
required skills (e.g., MPA planning, project management, decision
support tool development, facilitation and mediation), created the
right capacity to deliver outcomes that were implementable. The
private charitable foundation funds proved to be more flexible than
state funds, enabling the Initiative to be nimble and responsive to
the needs of the process and fluctuations in state budgets and
staffing. The private funds were also used to bolster the best readily
available data, when necessary, through focused efforts (e.g.,
mapping areas of importance for fisheries) and to enhance public
outreach capacity and actions (e.g., in the populous and diverse
South Coast region).
4.2. Appropriately scaled and phased approach to planning
The statewide network was designed through four regional and
consecutive planning processes that began with a Central Coast
pilot region to test and refine the approach. This phased approach
allowed for planning on more appropriate spatial and temporal
scales and overcame some of the challenges of the prior statewide
efforts that were unsuccessful in part due to the size and
complexity of California’s coast.
In addition to being more manageable in size, the four regions
also reflected more cohesive units in terms of biogeographic
patterns and sociopolitical factors (e.g., dominant regional industries, social connectedness of resident populations within regions,
reasonable driving distances to meetings, presence of relevant
regional institutions). A regional approach facilitated integration of
the best readily available science and policy guidance into the
process, as guidelines could be adapted based on regional conditions, and local scientific experts could be engaged (Saarman et al.,
2013; Fox et al., 2013c). A regional approach also allowed time for
technical planning tools, as well as facilitation and outreach techniques, to evolve over the course of the process (Merrifield et al.,
2013; White et al., 2013; Sayce et al., 2013). The short timeline in
the first pilot region (7 months) demonstrated that the time allocated for a regional process needed to be increased (to 12e14
months per region for the remaining regions).
Dividing California into regions may have lengthened the overall
timeline for completing planning of the statewide MPA network.
97
However, the phased approach yielded positive outcomes for each
successive region, as the Initiative team tested and learned which
process design and outreach approaches were more likely to be
effective. Moreover, building an MPA network region-by-region
allowed for recognition of regional differences in stakeholder
desires, physical realities (e.g., natural hazards and differences in
boater safety conditions that limit human access to ocean
resources), and status of marine resources to drive substantive
outcomes (number and type of MPAs established as well as
percentage of state waters covered by MPAs).
4.3. Adaptively managed process design with clear roles and
outcomes
The use of three separate volunteer groups (i.e., the RSG, SAT,
and BRTF), each with clear and distinct roles and supported by
Initiative staff, helped drive MPA planning forward in an organized
manner. The stakeholders participating in each region’s RSG were
empowered with the responsibility for crafting MPA proposal
alternatives, leveraging the knowledge of those arguably most
affected by redesigned MPAs (Fox et al., 2013b). The RSG members
also served as vital links to the broader public (Sayce et al., 2013).
Scientists serving on the SAT for each region ensured that the
stakeholder MPA designs were informed by scientific guidelines,
provided ecological and socioeconomic evaluations at key points in
the process, and answered scientific questions on an ongoing basis
(Saarman et al., 2013). The BRTF provided oversight, addressed
difficult policy issues, and served as a buffer between the stakeholders and political forces by recommending a preferred alternative of MPAs to the Commission for each region (Kirlin et al., 2013).
Not requiring stakeholders to reach consensus on a single
proposal for MPAs, but encouraging them to develop a range of
alternative MPA proposals was also key to successfully completing
the regional MPA planning processes. This approach meant that
most stakeholders had at least one MPA proposal they could
support, and gave the decision-makers the ability to evaluate
tradeoffs and make compromises in their decision-making process,
thereby garnering more broad-based acceptance of the MPAs being
implemented. In three regions, the stakeholders developed
multiple alternative proposals; however, in the North Coast region,
the stakeholders did reach consensus on one proposal (Fox et al.,
this issue-b).
The Initiative’s investment in explicit “lessons learned” evaluations after planning in each region was completed was an important component of the adaptive planning process design that
helped inform the process design for subsequent regions (Gleason
et al., 2010; Fox et al., 2013b).
4.4. Ensuring transparency and mechanisms to navigate
controversy
MPA planning and implementation in California was, and still is,
controversial among certain sectors, particularly recreational and
commercial fishing interests, and within tribal communities.
Members of the public were intensely interested in the planning
process and meetings were heavily attended, which helped create
the need for a formal public outreach strategy (Sayce et al., 2013).
Some issues became so controversial, such as potential impacts to
traditional tribal gathering, that they had to be addressed through
extra meetings, adjusted meeting formats, and parallel consultation between and among tribal representatives, SAT members and
affiliated researchers, state agency representatives, RSG members,
and BRTF members. Some entities, particularly recreational fishing
organizations, consistently criticized the process and worked to
98
M. Gleason et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 90e101
impede its progress through lawsuits and media campaigns (Fox
et al., 2013a).
The Initiative used several strategies and structural arrangements to help participants navigate controversies and policy issues.
One effective strategy was structuring the role of the BRTF to
publicly navigate issues and tradeoffs and make recommendations
to the decision-makers. The BRTF was able to publicly air issues and
develop specific recommendations on policy questions and
controversial decisions; this approach provided an important filter
for issues before final decisions on MPAs were made in each region
by the Commission.
The Initiative also made significant investments to make the
process as transparent as possible and widely accessible to the
public through online tools, webcasts of meetings, online documents, public outreach workshops, media broadcasts, and other
mechanisms (Merrifield et al., 2013; Sayce et al., 2013). Although
these efforts were designed to create process transparency, they did
not assuage the most vocal opponents of the Initiative. Intense
scrutiny and controversy created challenges for the Initiative staff
to effectively conduct meetings: public comment periods often
extended for many hours (Sayce et al., 2013); and some stakeholders engaged in strategic gaming during RSG meetings (Fox
et al., 2013b). Public scrutiny also made delivery of the best available science difficult, as stakeholders lobbied for changes to design
guidelines and misunderstood the open discussion by scientists to
indicate lack of scientific rigor (Saarman et al., 2013). A flexible and
transparent process can be helpful for addressing political controversy in similar processes, but managers should not underestimate
the challenges and the resources required to address them.
4.5. Ensure timely delivery of best available science
The importance of delivering the best readily available science in
a timely manner and in a form that stakeholders and policy-makers
can understand cannot be underestimated. The Initiative made
a significant investment in compiling spatial data into an authoritative geodatabase and developing the tools to make those data
available for planning (e.g., MarineMap, see Merrifield et al., 2013).
This investment paid off by empowering the participants to take an
active role in designing and evaluating proposed MPAs against
design guidelines using a common set of underlying data. Similarly,
the effort made by the SAT to develop science-based design guidelines provided a common framework for comparing among
proposals in the iterative design process (Saarman et al., 2013).
At times the process moved so fast and the science support
needs were so great, that the SAT had difficulty keeping up with
timely delivery of science to Initiative participants. The SAT
responded by meeting more frequently than originally planned and
forming “working groups” to keep up with the scientific questions
and needs of the stakeholders and BRTF (Saarman et al., 2013).
More advance time to anticipate stakeholders’ questions and
science needs generally and to compile and analyze existing data
prior to the commencement of the planning process may have
helped to alleviate this issue.
The SAT was structured and charged to provide only scientific
advice to the other Initiative participants (including helping to
parse policy from scientific questions); such a clear non-advocacy
role enhanced its credibility. Importantly, the SAT was charged
with evaluating all alternative MPA proposals relative to the science
guidelines, rather than crafting MPA proposals. Building in time for
and training in science communication was also key to integrating
science effectively into RSG, BRTF, and Commission decision
making (Grorud-Colvert et al., 2010). Science was more successfully
integrated into the process when the SAT had time to research
a topic and clearly present findings to the other volunteer bodies
(see Saarman et al., 2013).
5. Challenges ahead for implementation, monitoring, and
adaptive management
California’s new network of MPAs needs to be enforced, monitored, and adaptively managed over time in order to deliver any of
the anticipated ecosystem and fishery benefits. If carefully
managed into the future, California’s network of MPAs will provide
a valuable testing ground for MPA design and the benefits MPAs can
provide. In the current and foreseeable fiscal climate in California,
however, finding the resources to follow through on the monitoring
and management will be challenging.
5.1. MPA implementation and long-term management
The publiceprivate partnership structure of the Initiative
provided CDFG with the additional capacity it needed for planning
the statewide MPA network; however, that partnership, as originally envisioned, did not extend to the implementation and
management stages. Recently the foundations that supported the
Initiative have committed additional support for various aspects of
MPA network implementation and management.
For planning, the Initiative paired contractors with specific skills
(e.g., meeting facilitation, process design, planning, and outreach)
with CDFG staff that could provide critical state policy context and
continuity, and led to outcomes that were implementable by the
State. Implementation and long-term management of the statewide MPA network will similarly require an innovative and adaptive approach to link state agencies with additional capacity and
skills to implement and sustain effective outreach and education,
monitoring, enforcement and other essential functions, particularly
given the scale of California’s coastline (1700 km) and magnitude of
the statewide program consisting of 124 MPAs.
The publiceprivate partnership model may offer a viable
mechanism to leverage other sources of funding to improve efficiencies in MPA implementation and management, particularly if
organizations beyond private charitable foundations can be
engaged. For example, in 2010, a MOU was signed by 10 government and non-government agencies to memorialize their
commitments to successful implementation of the statewide
network of MPAs (e.g., public outreach, monitoring and enforcement of MPAs).7 This “MLPA Implementation MOU” is a critical
starting point for building sustained commitment and efforts
through a network of agencies and other partner groups that may
have otherwise only had active engagement in the planning and
design phase or disparate and uncoordinated efforts to assist with
implementation. Collaborations of this nature may constitute
a major asset and factor in successfully moving beyond isolated
efforts to leverage the expertise and information-sharing from
other partners (Sievanen et al., 2011).
7
Signatories to January 2010 “Memorandum of Understanding for Implementation of the California Marine Life Protection Act” were the California Natural
Resources Secretary, California Ocean Protection Council (Secretary, Chair), California
Environmental Protection Agency (Secretary), California Department of Fish and
Game (Director), California Department of Parks and Recreation (Director), State
Water Resources Control Board (Executive Director), U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Western Regional Team Lead), U.S. National Park
Service (Regional Director), U.S. Department of Defense (Commander of Navy
Southwest Region Environmental Coordinator), California Ocean Science Trust
(Chair, Board of Trustees), and Resources Legacy Fund Foundation (Executive
Director).
M. Gleason et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 90e101
5.2. Monitoring to evaluate effectiveness of the MPA network
California is developing a long-term monitoring program and
funding model to meet the challenge of assessing the effectiveness
of the MPA network. The independent non-profit California Ocean
Science Trust established the MPA Monitoring Enterprise8 in 2007.
The MPA Monitoring Enterprise is an example of a new partnership
approach to monitoring California’s MPA network. The MPA Monitoring Enterprise provides dedicated and independent capacity to
work alongside CDFG and any other implementing agencies and
entities (e.g., State Parks, local jurisdictions, National Parks, NGOs,
academics, tribal communities) to develop the MPA monitoring
program. The MPA Monitoring Enterprise also provides an opportunity for both framing MPA monitoring approaches to the scale of
California’s MPA network and for providing information directly in
support of future MPA assessment and management decisions.
Key to measuring the effectiveness of the MPAs will be the
development and funding of a monitoring program that can track
indicators of importance to stakeholders, such as changes in size and
abundance of fish and other harvested resources. MPA monitoring
has tended to emphasize assessing differences in densities and sizes
of organisms inside and outside MPAs; however, that may be
insufficient to assess progress against broad ecosystem protection
goals, such as those of the MLPA. Therefore, the MPA Monitoring
Enterprise, in close collaboration with CDFG, has led development of
a monitoring framework that includes indicators to track trends in
ecosystem condition and evaluate the effectiveness of MPA design
and management decisions (MPA Monitoring Enterprise, 2010,
2011). This approach responds to the ecosystem-based policy
framework while pushing the limits of scientific knowledge, and
consequently will require testing and refinement over time.
Within the current state fiscal crisis, limited funding for monitoring has the potential to hamper the State’s ability to monitor the
effectiveness of the new MPAs. However, the California Ocean
Protection Council has committed funding ($16 million) for baseline monitoring in the MPAs. With this support, California is
establishing an ecological and socioeconomic benchmark against
which future MPA performance can be measured. Moreover, this
benchmark can inform other management dialogs on fisheries and
climate change, creating a window of opportunity to develop costeffective long-term monitoring and evaluation. Baseline monitoring programs have already been initiated in selected MPAs
within three of the four regions.
5.3. Adaptive management
The MLPA requires adaptive management9 to ensure that the
policy goals of the MLPA are being met. Adaptive management is
a systematic approach to improving policy success by learning from
experience and adjusting implementation efforts based on what
was learned (Walters, 1986; Lee, 1999; and many others). For the
MLPA, adaptive management includes monitoring and assessment
of MPAs, review of the network of MPAs and consideration of
relevant new scientific findings, followed by recommendations to
the Commission for any modification to the network of MPAs to
improve their performance in meeting MLPA goals. The Commission adopted a policy within the draft master plan, in which
regional components of the network of MPAs should be monitored
and reviewed every five years. This approach includes evaluating
8
www.monitoringenterprise.org
Section 2853(c)(3) of Fish and Game Code states that the management plan
must have “provisions for monitoring, research, and evaluation at selected sites to
facilitate adaptive management of MPAs”.
9
99
the efficacy of individual MPAs and the network, as well as,
reviewing the monitoring program(s), methods, and results and
making recommendations for management adjustments in a ‘test
and assess’ framework (CDFG, 2008; Day, 2008).
In addition to the five-year reviews, the Commission will support
MPA management by, at least every three years, receiving and
considering action on any petitions from the public or other interested entities to add, delete, or modify any MPAs. Though there is an
apparent disconnect between the timing of considering proposals to
alter MPAs every three years and the 5-year review period, beyond
the first three year period the structure allows sufficient time for
a comprehensive regional assessment to inform proposals to modify
the MPA network and for the Commission to request an assessment
of any proposed change against existing monitoring results. Upon
receiving a review of the MPA network and any proposals to modify,
add, or delete MPAs, the Commission may change MPAs to better
meet the goals of the MLPA or to address specific concerns (e.g.,
boating safety, enforcement feasibility, etc.).
It remains to be seen whether California’s MPA network, which
reflects significant tradeoffs between ecosystem protection and
socioeconomic considerations, will adequately meet the goals of
the MLPA. Given the life history traits (i.e., growth rate to maturity,
age at sexual maturity, life expectancy, and fecundity) of many
species now protected in these MPAs, it is anticipated that
measurable biological responses to the MPAs may take a decade or
more. Therefore, management adjustments should be made with
caution to allow sufficient time for the effectiveness of the MPAs to
be adequately assessed before adjustments are made.
6. Conclusions
The Initiative successfully completed four regional planning
processes and California is now implementing a statewide network
of MPAs. This is the most comprehensive MPA planning process to
date in the United States, and holds global significance (Toropova
et al., 2010). As such, the Initiative experience is particularly relevant to similar efforts to plan and implement MPAs in developed
countries, where governance structures and institutional capacity
levels are similar.
Although many years will be required to fully assess whether the
ecological goals of the MLPA will be achieved, many significant
achievements can already be enumerated. First, the overall statewide area within MPAs has been significantly increased from <3% to
16% of state waters, including over 9% in no-take areas, and will likely
benefit numerous ecosystems and a wide range of marine organisms, including some recreationally and commercially important
species. Most marine and estuarine habitats have been represented
and replicated within MPAs in each region. In each region, there is
a “backbone” of MPAs (often no-take areas) that will provide
substantial ecosystem protection. For many key habitats the spacing
between adjacent MPAs should promote ecological connectivity
between protected populations, although spacing guidelines were
not met consistently across all habitats statewide (Saarman et al.,
2013). All of California’s MPAs now have consistent classification,
were explicitly designed to meet regional objectives and MLPA goals,
and are intended to be administered as a statewide system.
The positive outcomes achieved for ecosystem protection help
to offset the significant time, energy, and financial resources
dedicated to the Initiative process. California’s MPA planning
process took much longer than anticipated by the Legislature,
required significant resources to complete, and continues to be
controversial within some sectors and communities. It has been
well over a decade since the State enacted MLPA and yet the original intent was to establish the statewide network within two years
of enacting the law. Successful completion of the planning effort
100
M. Gleason et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 90e101
was achieved only after two unsuccessful attempts, a redesign of
the process, and an investment of millions of dollars and thousands
of hours of staff and volunteer time (approximately $38 million in
public and private funds over a seven year period). However, when
calculated as the cost per square kilometer of protection (approximately $17,000), that cost is comparable, and in many cases less
than, the cost of establishing MPAs in other parts of the world
(McCrea-Strub et al., 2011).
While the Initiative set a high bar for transparent public
resource planning, and one that may be difficult to replicate elsewhere given generally available funding and capacity, the lessons
learned have relevance for other environmental planning efforts.
The MPAs designated by the Commission in each region aim to
satisfy the goals of the MLPA and meet the science and feasibility
guidelines to the extent possible, while addressing socioeconomic
impacts and garnering the broadest possible public acceptance. The
regional context differed markedly in each of the four open coast
regions and that regional variance challenged decision-makers. The
MPAs being implemented thus reflect neither a strictly scientifically
designed network nor simply the preferences of stakeholders, but
rather a network achieved through a public policy process that
integrated input from stakeholders and scientists and ultimately
reflects the best judgment of policy makers.
While balancing the MLPA goals of ecosystem protection with
potential socioeconomic impacts to fisheries was highly visible in
the Initiative process, many other issues and potential conflicts
between MPAs and other types of marine management or use areas
(e.g., military, tribal, wastewater discharge) also had to be addressed
or resolved through spatial planning or policy choices (Fox et al.,
2013c). Recognizing that many ocean use activities co-occur,
conflict with each other, and potentially negatively impact marine
ecosystems, there is increasing support among marine natural
resource managers to collaborate and foster partnerships that focus
on broader integration for ocean and coastal management.
As has been shown elsewhere, the importance of effective
management, enforcement, and monitoring once MPAs are established cannot be underestimated (Day, 2008). Governmental
agencies and collaborating entities responsible for both implementing MPA planning processes and managing MPAs into the
future face increasingly complex management responsibilities and
challenges. Given the costs of implementation and management,
strategically preparing agency staff through targeted capacitybuilding and identifying long-term roles and responsibilities with
community partners can help maintain a level of consistency and
continuity between the planning, regulatory, and implementation
phases. Strategic use of publiceprivate partnerships, collaborations
among organizations, and promotion of local stewardship and
co-management opportunities may help fill gaps in funding or
capacity going forward. In addition, managers, scientists, and
stakeholders who contribute individually meaningful and
collectively thousands of volunteer hours in the MPA planning
process have a stake in the long-term outcomes of their efforts and
may want to further engage in the monitoring and adaptive
management framework. The efforts made to encourage participation in and credibility of the MPA planning process should translate
to an MPA constituency over time, especially if the MPAs are shown
to provide long-term benefits to resources and people.
Ethical statement
The authors assert that the attached manuscript is an original
work, has not been published before, and has not been submitted
for publication elsewhere. All authors have substantively contributed to analysis and writing of this manuscript and have agreed to
submit the manuscript to Ocean & Coastal Management.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all those who were involved in all aspects of
the Initiative planning effort for their input and contributions. Most
of the authors received direct or indirect support through RLFF
during the MLPA Initiative process. The authors who volunteered
their time to the Initiative thank their employers for supporting and
encouraging their commitment to the Initiative.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data, including regional-scale maps, related to
this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.
2012.08.013.
References
Agardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M.P., Day, J., Dayton, P.K., Kenchington, R.,
Laffoley, D., McConney, P., Murray, P.A., Parks, J.E., Peau, L., 2003. Dangerous
targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected
areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13, 353e367.
Airame, S., Dugan, J.E., Lafferty, K.D., Leslie, H., McArdle, D.A., Warner, R.R., 2003.
Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: a case study from the
California Channel Islands. Ecological Applications 13 (1), S170eS184.
Babcock, E.A., MacCall, A.D., 2011. How useful is the ratio of fish density outside
versus inside no-take marine reserves as a metric for fishery management
control rules? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68 (2),
343e359.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2008. California Master Plan for
Marine Protected Areas. Approved February, 2008. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/
mlpa/masterplan.asp (accessed 22.09.11.).
Carr, M.H., Saarman, E., Caldwell, M.R., 2010. The role of “rules of thumb” in sciencebased environmental policy: California’s Marine Life Protection Act as a case
study. Stanford Journal of Law, Science and Policy 2, 1e16.
Day, J.C., 2002. Zoning e lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean &
Coastal Management 45, 139e156.
Day, J.C., 2008. The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating, and adapting
marine planning and management e lessons from the Great Barrier Reef.
Marine Policy 32, 823e831.
Douvere, F., 2008. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing
ecosystem-based sea use management. Marine Policy 32, 762e771.
Ehler, C., Douvere, F., 2009. Marine Spatial Planning: a Step-by-step Approach
toward Ecosystem-based Management. UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Paris, France.
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.,
Gorman, K., Simmons, M., Barnett, B., Sampson, K., De’Ath, G., Mapstone, B.,
Marsh, H., Possingham, H., Ball, I., Ward, T., Dobbs, K., Aumend, J., Slater, D.,
Stapleton, K., 2005. Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great
Barrier Reef: large-scale implementation of theory on marine protected areas.
Conservation Biology 19, 1733e1744.
Field, J.C., Punt, A.E., Methot, R.D., Thomson, C.J., 2006. Does MPA mean “major
problem for assessments”? Considering the consequences of place-based
management systems. Fish and Fisheries 7, 284e302.
Fox, E., Miller-Henson, M., Ugoretz, J., Weber, M., Gleason, M., Kirlin, J., Caldwell, M.,
Mastrup, S., 2013a. Enabling conditions to support marine protected area
network planning: California's Marine Life Protection Act as a case study. Ocean
& Coastal Management 74, 14e23.
Fox, E., Poncelet, E., Connor, D., Vasques, J., Ugoretz, J., McCreary, S., Monie, D., Harty, M.,
Gleason, M., 2013b. Adapting stakeholder processes to region-specific challenges
in marine protected area planning. Ocean & Coastal Management 74, 24e33.
Fox, E., Hastings, S., Miller-Henson, M., Monie, D., Ugoretz, J., Frimodig, A., Shuman, C.,
Owens, B., Garwood, R., Connor, D., Serpa, P., Gleason, M., 2013c. Addressing policy
issues in a stakeholder-based and science-driven marine protected area network
planning process. Ocean & Coastal Management 74, 34e44.
Gaines, S.D., White, C., Carr, M.H., Palumbi, S.R., 2010. Designing marine
reserve networks for both conservation and fisheries management. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107,
18251e18255.
Gell, F.R., Roberts, C.M., 2003. Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of
marine reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 448e455.
Gleason, M.G., Merrifield, M.S., Cook, C., Davenport, A.L., Shaw, R., 2006. Assessing
gaps in marine conservation in California. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment
4, 249e258.
Gleason, M.G., McCreary, S., Miller-Henson, M., Ugoretz, J., Fox, E., Merrifield, M.,
McClintock, W., Serpa, P., Hoffmann, K., 2010. Science-based and stakeholderdriven marine protected area network planning: a successful case study from
north-central California. Ocean & Coastal Management 53, 52e68.
Green, A., Smith, S.E., Lipsett-Moore, G., Groves, C., Peterson, N., Sheppard, S.,
Lokani, P., Hamilton, R., Almany, J., Aitsi, J., Bualia, L., 2009. Designing a resilient
M. Gleason et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 90e101
network of marine protected areas for Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea. The
International Journal of Conservation. Oryx 43 (4), 488e498.
Grorud-Colvert, K., Lester, S.E., Airamé, S., Neeley, E., Gaines, S.D., 2010.
Communicating marine reserve science to diverse audiences. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107, 18306e18311.
Halpern, B.S., Diamond, J., Gaines, S., Gelcich, S., Gleason, M., Jennings, S., Lester, S.,
Mace, A., McCook, L., McLeod, K., Napoli, N., Rawson, K., Rice, J., Rosenberg, A.,
Ruckelshaus, M., Saier, B., Sandifer, P., Sholtz, A., Zivian, A., 2012. Near-term
priorities for the science, policy and practice of Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning (CMSP). Marine Policy 36 (1), 198e205.
Hamilton, S.L., Caselle, J.E., Malone, D.P., Carr, M.H., 2010. Incorporating biogeography into evaluations of the Channel Islands marine reserve network.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 107, 18272e18277.
Harrison, H.B., Williamson, D.H., Evans, R.D., Almany, G.R., Thorrold, S.R., Russ, G.R.,
Feldheim, K.A., van Herwerden, L., Planes, S., Srinivasan, M., Berumen, M.L.,
Jones, G.P., 2012. Larval export from marine reserves and the recruitment
benefit for fish and fisheries. Current Biology 22, 1e6.
Kirlin, J., Caldwell, M., Gleason, M., Weber, M., Ugoretz, J., Fox, E., Miller-Henson, M.,
2013. California's Marine Life Protection Act Initiative: supporting implementation of legislation establishing a statewide network of marine protected
areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 74, 3e13.
Lee, K.N., 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology 3, 3e19.
Lester, S.E., Halpern, B.S., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B.I.,
Gaines, S.D., Airamé, S., Warner, R.R., 2009. Biological effects within no-take
marine reserves: a global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 384, 33e46.
McArdle, D.A., 2002. California Marine Protected Areas: Past & Present, California
Sea. Grant College System Publication, La Jolla, California.
McCrea-Strub, A., Sumaila, D., Nelson, U.R., Balmford, A., Pauly, D., 2011. Understanding the cost of establishing marine protected areas. Marine Policy 35, 1e9.
McGilliard, C.R., Hilborn, R., MacCall, A.D., Punt, A.E., Field, J.C., 2011. Can information from marine protected areas be used to inform control-rule-based
management of small-scale, data-poor stocks? ICES Journal of Marine Science
68 (1), 201e211.
Merrifield, M., McClintock, W., Burt, C., Fox, E., Gleason, M., Serpa, P., Steinback, C.,
2013. MarineMap: a web-based platform for collaborative marine protected
area planning. Ocean & Coastal Management 74, 67e76.
MPA Monitoring Enterprise, October, 2010. North Central Coast MPA Monitoring
Plan. California Ocean Science Trust, Oakland, California, USA.
MPA Monitoring Enterprise, August, 2011. South Coast MPA Monitoring Plan.
California Ocean Science Trust, Oakland, California, USA.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2011. The California
Ocean Uses Atlas. http://www.mpa.gov/dataanalysis/atlas_ca/ (accessed 11.10.11.).
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and Marine Conservation
Biology Institute (NOAA and MCBI), 2007. Community Mapping of NonConsumptive Ocean Uses for California’s Marine Life Protection Act Initiative;
North Central Coast Study Region: Alder Creek/Point Arena to Pigeon Point. Report
101
Submitted November 16, 2007. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/binders/b2de.
pdf. (accessed 11.10.11.).
Osmond, M., Airame, S., Caldwell, M., Day, J., 2010. Lessons for marine conservation
planning: a comparison of three marine protected area planning processes.
Ocean & Coastal Management 53, 41e51.
Saarman, E., Gleason, M., Ugoretz, J., Airame, S., Carr, M., Frimodig, A., Mason, T.,
Vasques, J., Fox, E., 2013. The role of science in supporting marine protected area
network planning and design in California. Ocean & Coastal Management 74,
45e56.
Sayce, K., Shuman, C., Connor, D., Reisewitz, A., Pope, E., Miller-Henson, M.,
Poncelet, E., Monie, D., Owens, B., 2013. Beyond traditional stakeholder
engagement: public participation roles in California's statewide marine protected area planning process. Ocean & Coastal Management 74, 57e66.
Scholz, A.J., Steinback, C., Kruse, S.A., Mertens, M., Silverman, H., 2012. Incorporation
of spatial and economic analysis of human-use data in the design of marine
protected areas. Conservation Biology 25, 485e492.
Scholz, A.J., Bonzon, K., Fujita, R., Benjamin, N., Woodling, N., Black, P., Steinback, C.,
2004. Participatory socioeconomic analysis: drawing on fishermen’s knowledge
for marine protected area planning in California. Marine Policy 28, 335e349.
Sievanen, L., Leslie, H.M., Wondolleck, J.M., Yaffee, S.L., McLeod, K.L., Campbell, L.M.,
2011. Linking top-down and bottom-up processes through the new U.S.
National Ocean Policy. Conservation Letters 4, 298e303.
Starr, R.M., Carr, M.H., Caselle, J., Estes, J.A., Syms, C., VenTresca, D.A., Yoklavich, M.,
2002. A Review of the Ecological Effectiveness of the Subtidal Marine Reserves
in Central California. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series MSD-04e03.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Toropova, C., Meliane, I., Laffoley, D., Matthews, E., Spalding, M. (Eds.), 2010. Global
Ocean Protection: Present Status and Future Possibilities. Brest, France. Agence
des aires marines protégées, Gland, Switzerland, Washington, DC and New
York, USA, p. 96. IUCN WCPA, Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC, Arlington, USA:
TNC, Tokyo, Japan: UNU, New York, USA: WCS.
Walters, C.J., 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. McGraw-Hill,
New York, New York.
Weible, C.M., 2008. Caught in a maelstrom: implementing California marine
protected areas. Coastal Management 36, 350e373.
Wertz, S., Aseltine-Neilson, D., Barnes, T., Vasques, J., Ashcraft, S., Barsky, K.,
Frimodig, A., Key, M., Mason, T., Ota, B., 2011. Proceedings of the Marine
Protected Areas and Fisheries Integration Worskhop. California Department of
Fish and Game. March 29e30, 2001. Available at: www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa.
(accessed 22.09.11.).
White, J.W., Scholz, A.J., Rassweiler, A., Steinback, C., Botsford, L.W., Kruse, S.,
Costello, C., Mitarai, S., Siegel, D.A., Drake, P.T., Edwards, C.A., 2013. A comparison of approaches used for economic analysis in marine protected area
network planning in California. Ocean & Coastal Management 74, 77e89.
Wilson, J.R., Prince, J.D., Lenihan, H.S., 2010. A management strategy for
nearshore, sedentary species that uses marine protected areas as a reference. Marine
and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management and Ecosystem Science 2, 14e27.