Communicating for Conservation:
Potential Ocean Indicators and
Information Products for Evaluating MPA Success
Ashley M. Blacow (MBARI/CeNCOOS Intern ; Monterey Institute of International Studies)
Project Mentors: Steve Ramp and Heather Kerkering (CeNCOOS) Summer 2008
Project Abstract
Marine protected area (MPA) managers are currently charged with the task of monitoring MPA sites to determine if those sites are meeting their designation goals. Despite current efforts to develop formalized monitoring plans for each of the 5 regions identified under the 1999 Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), and to identify biological and physical monitoring indicators, the exact role of ocean observing in determining MPA effectiveness is still unclear. In light of new regional MPA networks forming off California's coast through the MLPA and the creation of a federally designated national MPA system, in accordance with Executive Order 1358, it is pertinent that the ambiguity of determining variables for measuring MPA success be resolved in a timely manner. In response to this need, this project seeks to improve integration of ocean observing into MPA management and create a better line of communication between ocean observing agencies and MPA managers and staff. Via a survey process environmental managers and science practitioners were asked to identify ocean observing variables that will help measure MPA effectiveness. A list of top 15 ocean observing variables was identified from survey responses. Due to climate change effects on the marine environment and the complex challenges this change presents when determining MPA effectiveness, participants were also asked to denote ocean observing variables appropriate for measuring climate change. Significant overlap exists between ocean observing variables deemed necessary to determine MPA effectiveness and those needed to monitor climate change. An assessment of monitoring currently conducted in the Central Coast MPAs revealed a large gap between variables survey participants deemed as effectiveness variables versus what is actually monitored. No single MPA site collects all 15 variables, or all 10 for that matter, with only 4 of 29 MPA sites collecting more than half the top 15 variables. Only 5 of the 29 MPAs collect half or more of the top 10 variables participants think are necessary to monitor climate change. Information products were also determined that will assist the Fish and Game Commission in adaptively managing the MLPA network. Despite an imperfect project design due to a limited time frame of ten weeks, these findings can serve as a reference point for variables that should be utilized when monitoring MPA effectiveness and the types of product support tools that can assist decision-makers during the MLPA evaluation process.
Click here to download the full document (pdf format)
Click here to download an interactive map of ocean observing sites within central coast MPAs. To use the interactive feature: download the file to your desktop and reopen, then select 'object data tool' from the Tools menu and click on any map feature.
The table below is an example of one of the findings from this study:
| MPA Site | Top 10 | Top 15 | Total | Climate Change |
| Point Buchon State Marine Reserve | 10 | 2 | 13 | 8 |
| Soquel Canyon State Marine Conservation Area | 8 | 2 | 10 | 8 |
| Año Nuevo State Marine Conservation Area | 3 | 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Point Lobos State Marine Reserve | 5 | 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Lovers Point State Marine Reserve | 3 | 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Asilomar State Marine Reserve | 3 | 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Edward F. Ricketts State Marine Conservation Area | 3 | 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Big Creek State Marine Reserve | 3 | 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Cambria State Marine Conservation Area | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Point Sur State Marine Reserve | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2 |
| Moro Cojo Estuary State Marine Reserve | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
| Carmel Pinnacles State Marine Reserve | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
| Natural Bridges State Marine Reserve | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| Carmel Bay State Marine Conservation Area | 5 | |||
| Piedras Blancas State Marine Reserve | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
| White Rock (Cambria) State Marine Conservation Area | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
| Elkhorn Slough State Marine Reserve | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Elkhorn Slough State Marine Conservation Area | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Vandenberg State Marine Reserve | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Greyhound Rock State Marine Conservation Area | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Morro Bay State Marine Recreational Management Area | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Point Buchon State Marine Conservation Area | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Morro Bay State Marine Reserve | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Portuguese Ledge State Marine Conservation Area | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Piedras Blancas State Marine Conservation Area | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Point Lobos State Marine Conservation Area | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Point Sur State Marine Conservation Area | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Big Creek State Marine Conservation Area | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Table 3: This is a list of the number of ocean observing variables collected from the list of top 10 and top 15 effectiveness variables and climate change variables in descending order in each MPA. Data collected by CIMT from 2002-2008 is not included in these tallies since this is the current state of play and CIMT is no longer collecting this information.
