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.