Designing a network of marine protected areas in California ...

6 downloads 47745 Views 775KB Size Report
Aug 31, 2012 - stakeholder contributions and the incorporation of best readily ... the MLPA in 1999, less than 3% of California state waters were in MPAs, and ...
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. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 831 333 2049; fax: þ1 831 333 1736. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Gleason), [email protected] (E. Fox), [email protected] (S. Ashcraft), [email protected] (J. Vasques), liz.whiteman@ calost.org (E. Whiteman), [email protected] (P. Serpa), [email protected] (E. Saarman), [email protected] (M. Caldwell), [email protected] (A. Frimodig), [email protected] (M. Miller-Henson), [email protected] (J. Kirlin), [email protected] (B. Ota), [email protected] (E. Pope), mweber@ resourceslawgroup.com (M. Weber), [email protected] (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 Ó 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).

M. Gleason et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 90e101

93

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%)