• Logged in as Unregistered User
  • Sign in

Social-Ecological Systems Meta-Analysis Database: Case

SummaryThe central California National Marine Sanctuaries, the Monterey Bay, Cordell Bank, and Gulf of the Farallones national marine sanctuaries, compose a network of three bordering US federal marine reserves. These sanctuaries are home to a number of critical ecosystems, a large variety of marine life, and an extensive number of human activities. The sanctuaries closed some traditional fishing grounds and imposed some gear restrictions, but have not had much influence on the fisheries in their areas. Unlike most other US sanctuaries, the long populated coastline of these central California sanctuaries bring unique opportunities and challenges. Hundreds of research projects are undertaken in the sanctuaries, and the public is heavily involved in sanctuary activities. Between 1981 and 2003, the seven most important fisheries in the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank national marine sanctuaries yielded landings worth more than $31 million per year, accounting for 92 percent of landings and revenues in the Northern California ports (NMS, 2011). Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary provides opportunities for approximately 25 marine science facilities; these facilities employed almost 2,000 people in 2004 with a combined budget of over $200 million (NMS, 2011). This case serves as one example in a larger initiative to investigate the interaction of governing bodies on managing natural resources, migratory species, and the ecological health of large MPAs. For Supplementary Information: Template for case descriptions MPA name: Central California National Marine Sanctuaries Country: USA Area: 27,645 km2 Year established: 1992 Goals of the MPA: “The mission of NOAA's National Marine Sanctuaries is to serve as the trustee for the nation's system of marine protected areas, to conserve, protect, and enhance their biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural legacy.” Short description (1 paragraph) – include info on reason for designation, key habitats, primary threats, what kind of management happens there (zoning, proportion of zones, in combination other management) The central California National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS), the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (previously known as the Gulf of the Farallones NMS), were designated after a long period of increasing public concern on US environmental conditions and were primarily implemented to exclude oil and gas development off the California coast (Chandler and Gillelan 2005). These sanctuaries are managed by the United States federal government through the NOAA National Marine Sanctuary office, which is guided by three separate management plans and a joint environmental impact statement. An advisory council for each Sanctuary helps the management team and includes partners from a diverse group of stakeholders. The Sanctuary has legal authority to regulate any activities within Sanctuary boundaries that may harm resources. However, in terms of the fishing industry, the Sanctuary can only propose areas of critical habitat. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (federal) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (state) directly manage California’s fisheries. The Sanctuary’s three primary goals include: (1) Resource Protection, (2) Education and Outreach, and (3) Research and Monitoring. These Sanctuaries are particular in that while encompassing a large area of open ocean, they also include a heavily populated coastline. Key habitats include rocky shores, kelp forests, coastal bluffs, intertidal and subtidal zones, beaches, sandy floors, estuaries, seamounts and banks, submarine canyons, rocks and islands, deep-sea ecosystems, lagoons, bays, continental shelf and slope habitats, and open ocean ecosystems (http://sanctuarysimon.org). Features of note within the Sanctuaries include the Monterey Subcanyon, the Cordell Bank, Davidson Seamount, and Farallon Islands. Most of these features are IUCN somewhat strict areas, which encompasses about 9% of the total area. Within the Sanctuaries, a number of various types of zoning exist. Included within but not encompassing the entirety of the sanctuary are: State Marine Reserves (SMR) [only area to exclude all take, encompasses approximately 22% of the area], State Marine Conservation Areas (SMCA), State Marine Recreational Managed Areas (SMRMA), Special Closure (SC), State Water Quality Protection Areas (ASBS), Critical Coastal Areas, Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA), Trawl Closure Areas, Restricted Overflight Zones, Motorized Personal Watercraft Zone, Military Training Zone, Jade Collection Zone, Dredge Disposal Sites, National Wildlife Refuge Areas, and Vessel Traffic Zones. Primary threats to the Sanctuaries include climate change, ocean noise, coastal erosion, oil spills, cruise ships, introduced species, landslides and debris, marine debris, dredging, motorized personal watercraft, whale strikes, dumping, pollution, and shipwrecks. Coding of the case (1 paragraph) – describe components coded and reasons for choosing these components (actor groups, commons, governance systems) In this case study, two governance systems are determined to be the major structures behind governing this large-scale marine protected area network. The first, the National Marine Sanctuaries Management Plans, is a group of three management plans (one for each Sanctuary), the Joint Environmental Impact Statement that combines all three, and the overarching National Marine Sanctuaries Act. The second governance system identified is the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, which is the primary structure for managing the groundfish fishery within Sanctuary waters. The three environmental commons chosen are the California groundfish habitat, the humpback whale, and the rocky shores habitat. These were chosen to capture governance related to a socially and economically important fishery, a key migratory species highly valued by the large local tourism industry, and an overall ecosystem health indicator. Actors were identified by relevance to these three commons. The California state and federal fisheries agencies (combining Pacific Fishery Management Council, California of Fish and Wildlife, and National Marine Fisheries Service) govern activities related to the groundfish habitat, and the groundfish fishermen use this habitat. Recreational users (defined as the industry of recreation within Sanctuary waters e.g. whale watching companies, kayaking companies, recreational fishing) make use of the humpback whale and the rocky intertidal. Academic researchers are quite prevalent in this area and are heavily involved in the humpback whale and rocky shores commons. The National Marine Sanctuaries Office of NOAA is a governing actor with relevance to the humpback whale and the rocky shores habitat. Factors that influence outcomes that have been described by others; includes briefly describing outcomes (1 paragraph) The US West Coast Sanctuaries are home to a diverse array of highly valued habitats and key coastal and oceanographic features (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2014, Hickey and Banas 2008). The collaboration of key partners, collaborative enforcement, long-term scientific monitoring programs, and public involvement and citizen-science efforts have led to this Sanctuaries network successfully meeting its goals (Gittings 2006, Morin 2001, National Marine Sanctuaries 2010). The survival rate of harbor seal pups has increased, halibut bycatch has decreased, historic oil sources have been removed to help restore seabird populations, and critical habitats have been identified and specifically protected (Gittings 2006). The large area size, range of depths, and large diversity of species contributes to Sanctuary achievements (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2009a, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2009b). Access to and implementation of technologies, including new technologies for imaging, communication, remote sensing, data storage, and processing, have led to increased effectiveness of the Sanctuaries in their efforts (Basta et al. 2015). Modeling techniques and the integration of technologies have led to modified shipping lanes and decreasing ship strikes of humpback whales within Sanctuary waters (Dransfield et al. 2014). A major factor in the Sanctuaries is the high level of tourism in the area. In 2014, visitors spent 10.14 billion dollars in the counties adjacent to the Sanctuaries (Dean Runyan Associates 2015). Additionally, while not in the Sanctuaries, the San Francisco Bay is considered the most invaded aquatic ecosystem in the world, with over 255 introduced species noted as of 2008 (EIS 2008). Thus, nonnative species are a large factor in the health of Sanctuary areas. Regarding outcomes in the rocky shores habitat, mass mortalities of invertebrates have been observed in the rocky shores habitat over the last few years, with disease being the primary culprit (Jurgens et al. 2015). Since June 2013, the Sea Star Wasting Syndrome has depleted sea star populations on the west coast, affecting the overall ecosystem. Thus, while the rocky intertidal in general has been healthy and oil spills have generally been avoided on this ecosystem, disease has temporarily declined its overall health. While the groundfish fishery has seen both population increases and decreases in various species, essential fish habitats contribute to protecting groundfish habitat and such protection contributed to the United States West Coast Limited Entry Groundfish Trawl Fishery receiving a certification of sustainability from the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certifying body in 2014 (Medley et al. 2014). Key References Basta, Daniel J., Letise LaFeir, Stephen Gittings, Kathy Broughton, Tane Casserley, Paul Chetirkin, James Delgado, et al. 2015. Technology use in NOAA's national marine sanctuary system. Marine Technology Society Journal 49 (2): 178-92. Chandler WJ, and Gillelan H (2005) The makings of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act: A legislative history and analysis. Marine Conservation Biology Institute. Washington, DC. 38 pp. Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries Final Environmental Impact Statement (2008) US Department of Commerce: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. v. 4: 593 pp. Dransfield, A., Hines, E., McGowan, J., Holzman, B., Nur, N., Elliott, M., ... & Jahncke, J. (2014). Where the whales are: using habitat modeling to support changes in shipping regulations within National Marine Sanctuaries in Central California. Endangered Species Research, 26, 39-57. Gittings, Stephen R. 2006. Conservation Science in NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuaries: Description and Recent Accomplishments. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-06-04. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 30 pp. Hickey BM, Banas NS (2008) Why is the northern end of the California Current System so productive? Oceanography 21: 90−107 Jurgens LJ, Rogers-Bennett L, Raimondi PT, Schiebelhut LM, Dawson MN, Grosberg RK, et al. (2015) Patterns of Mass Mortality among Rocky Shore Invertebrates across 100 km of Northeastern Pacific Coastline. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0126280. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0126280 Medley PAH, O’Boyle R, Pedersen MG, Tingley GA, Hanna SS, and Devitt S (2014) MSC Assessment Report for United States West Coast Limited Entry Groundfish Trawl Fishery. Client: Oregon Trawl Commission. Version 6: Public Certification Report. Derby, UK. 403 pp. Morin, T. (2001) Sanctuary Advisory Councils: Involving the Public in the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Coastal Management, 29:4, 327-339. National Marine Sanctuaries (2010) Strategy for Clarifying Enforcement Needs and Testing Enforcement Measures. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, MD. 84 pp. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (2009a). Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary Condition Report 2009. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 58 pp. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (2009 b). Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Condition Report 2009. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 128 pp. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. 2014. Cordell Bank and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. Include a map of zoning details if available and relevant (see Dropbox) Figure 1a) Map of the 2015 boundaries of the Cordell Bank NMS and Greater Farallones NMS after expansion. Figure 1b) Map of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, including the Davidson Seamount which was added in 2009. Included on map is state designated marine protected areas within the Sanctuary. *Permission yet to be requested
Statuspublic
TeamStacy's team
Start Date2014-06-20 10:49:19 -0400
Coding Complete?Yes
Date Completed2015-07-02 19:08:12 -0400
SectorMarine protected areas
ProjectSESMAD
Data Source(s)Primary data, Secondary data
CountryUnited States
External BiophysicalUpwelling, Climate dynamics (PDO, ENSO), Oxygen minimum zones, Red tides, Disease (e.g. Sea Star Wasting Syndrome)
External SocialShipping lanes and associated whale strikes, fishing activities, oil spills, water pollution, ship groundings
Snapshots1992-2015 : Time of Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary designated, adding to the network and thus the network begins to be >10,000km2, to present day
Timeline1981: Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Designated by the federal government (NOAA) under the authority of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 1987: Gulf of the Farallones Management Plan incorporated 1989: Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary Designated by the federal government (NOAA) under the authority of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 1992: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Designated by the federal government (NOAA) under the authority of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Area is now >10,000km2 and thus begins the case. 2000: Extensive research project, SIMoN (Sanctuary Integrated Monitoring Network) is implemented to coordinate research and information available to the public 2007: Central California coast (Pigeon Point to Point Conception) MPAs have been in effect in state waters since September 21, 2007 2008: Revised management plan is implemented, emphasizing 28 action plans, containing final revised management plans, regulations, and a joint final environmental impact statement 2015: NOAA expands of Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank national marine sanctuaries to more than twice their original size
Modeling Issues
Surveys
Theories

Visualization

Show Render

Hide Render


Attached Components

Actors

Name:
National Marine Sanctuaries Office of NOAA
details
Past collaboration:
High (3)
The group regularly meets and discusses activities within and amongst the three sanctuaries. There are multiple offices but they often work together.
Costs of exit:
No
Teams are staffed by the federal government and so no cost to leave from the individual standpoint.
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
Not Applicable
Interest heterogeneity:
Low (1)
The Sanctuary office is split into distinct teams, resource protection, education & outreach, and research & monitoring. While these are different interests, collaboration is high amongst them and they are all interested in following the guidelines of the Sanctuary Management Plans. There is an office dedicated to the joint management of these "West Coast Sanctuaries" to ensure interests align and coordination efforts are enhanced.
Leadership:
[]
Project and goal leads are identified by position. The national office has authority over regional offices, however, regional offices have a Superintendent and each goal has a specified coordinator. An advisory council assumes leadership for interested stakeholders. The Secretary of Commerce has overall authority on all sanctuary activities.
Leadership authority:
High (3)
The leader has full authority and can adjust program directives, if it follows under the national and legal structure, as the leader sees fit.
Actor group trust:
High (3)
All members are working under the same guidelines and for similar objectives.
Personal communication:
More than once a year (5)
Members of the NOAA office meet regularly.
Remote communication:
More than once a year (5)
Members of the NOAA office communicate remotely frequently.
Leadership accountability:
Medium (2)
Leaders are expected to follow guidelines set by national standards and to their employees, however a lack of appropriate leadership may take some time to be recognized and a substitute provided for.
Actor group coordination:
Both formal and informal
There are formal teams, e.g. research team, and offices, but members of this group informally meet and discuss Sanctuary topics often.
Name:
California Academic Researchers
details
Past collaboration:
High (3)
Many of the research projects are a collaboration of multiple institutions, or at least a larger team of researchers from the same institution. SIMoN was created to serve as a network to provide easily accessible information about each project to other members, allowing further collaboration and to build upon each others work. Some projects are not in conjunction with others, however all are reported SIMoN affiliates and to the broader research community.
Costs of exit:
No
Researchers can leave the field or move on to other projects not in SIMoN without any cost. The cost of discontinuing any long-term monitoring study is difficult to assess.
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
Yes
Most research is not being funded by individual group members but by grants for the directed research. While many research objectives are to improve the ecosystem health of the sanctuaries, some do not result in any direct application. Overall most research is used to benefit one or more aspects of the Sanctuary and benefit the researcher's career.
Interest heterogeneity:
Medium (2)
The Sanctuary Integrated Monitoring Network (SIMoN) includes dozens of institutions and agencies that perform monitoring activities in the Gulf of Farallones, Cordell Bank, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries. Most research within these three areas are conducted by university or college researchers with an ecological emphasis. Conservation groups tend to be more bias in their efforts than these academic groups, yet not to the point to warrant a high divergence of interests. Some research groups are interested in topics that are not looked at by others (e.g. deep sea ecology vs invasive species in the estuaries).
Leadership:
[]
Various projects have various leaders, typically a principal investigator (PI). PIs can be searched here: http://sanctuarysimon.org/regional_sections/other/network_partners.php
Leadership authority:
High (3)
Principal investigators are restricted by their funding demands and by Sanctuary rules (e.g. permits required) but otherwise have full authority over their respective projects.
Actor group trust:
Medium (2)
The peer review process allows for formal credibility among members of the group. Since some institutions are associated with particular biases or restrictions (e.g. federal projects vs conservation group projects), trust of conclusions may be lower. However, while conclusions and methods may be debated, the rigorous research process that each project is held to allows for some trust of other members.
Personal communication:
More than once a year (5)
Many researchers meet regularly in person about projects or while collecting data for projects. Conferences and workshops provide in person communication opportunities as well.
Remote communication:
More than once a year (5)
Communication via email, telephone, and teleconferencing occurs many times during the year. Some projects never coordinate with others, but for the most part communication occurs many times during the year.
Leadership accountability:
Low (1)
Principal investigators are accountable to their own institutions, projects, and funders but typically not to other members of the group.
Actor group coordination:
Both formal and informal
Formal projects consist of multiple members of the research community, while informally collaboration does occur. Some members do not coordinate with other members.
Name:
California Sanctuary Recreational Users
details
Past collaboration:
Low (1)
Often times users are focused on their particular excursion. Whale watching vessels coordinate amongst each other. Recreational fishermen communicate conditions to each other.
Costs of exit:
Yes
Investments such as in whale watching boats, recreational boats, kayaks, storage facilities, and wharf space may be high cost to leave behind for the companies.
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
Yes
Tourism is a highly lucrative industry in this area, and much of it is due to recreation within the Sanctuary. Most whale watching boats were old fishermen boats converted for tourism, and have made much more profit in the tourism industry than they did fishing. Kayaking and paddle boarding is generally low cost. Scuba diving is a popular activity with many benefits, and shore diving is a lower cost but common strategy. An estimated 4,500 to 5,000 passengers go on Farallon Islands trips annually. Average adult ticket prices around San Francisco are $60 for a half‐day trip while full‐day trips to the Farallon Islands can cost between $95 and $125. Shorter harbour trips of around 2 hours are also run and cost $30 but only offer opportunistic sightings of dolphins and porpoises. Average adult ticket prices in the Monterey Bay sanctuary for 2 to 3 hour trips are $46. Average adult ticket prices for longer trips are $86 (O'Connor et al. 2009). Travel and tourism totaled $5.9 billion in travel-spending revenue in 2003 for the five counties adjacent to the Monterey Bay National Marine sanctuary. Much of this tourism is focused on the coast and ocean protected by the sanctuary (NMS, 2014).
Interest heterogeneity:
High (3)
Many recreational users desire the same area (e.g. boaters and divers) and many users seek conflicting purposes of the sanctuary (e.g. recreational fishermen and kayakers).
Leadership:
["No leader"]
Recreational user companies may have an owner, but there is no sole recreational user leader.
Leadership authority:
Low (1)
Authority is given by access and ownership of equipment, however any user does not have to abide by any one leader.
Actor group trust:
Medium (2)
Since users may seek conflicting uses of the sanctuary (e.g. extraction vs observation), particularly conservationists may not trust recreational fishers. But often times these groups do not interact and often times they are the same, especially tourists who come to the area to do both.
Personal communication:
Missing
Varies widely, sometimes often sometimes never
Remote communication:
Missing
Varies widely, sometimes often sometimes never
Leadership accountability:
Low (1)
Informal leaders must abide by laws and make way for other users (e.g. kayakers have to watch out for whale watching boats) and any violation of law can be enforced by the correct authorities. Higher accountability for recreational fishers and avoidance of overexploitation of target species.
Actor group coordination:
Both formal and informal
Many formal activities (e.g. boat races, whale watching boats coordinating with each other, kayak clean up days) exist, but most coordination is informal (e.g. boaters on the weekend, scuba divers with own equipment). Whale watching vessels communicate amongst each other on sightings and help each other find whales.
Name:
California Groundfish Fishermen
details
Past collaboration:
Medium (2)
Risk pools are a form of fishermen collaboration, where fishermen will combine quotas to reduce risk of one of them overfishing a certain species. However, competition is still high amongst fishermen. Fishermen collaborate in professional organizations as well (e.g. Fishermen's Marketing Association).
Costs of exit:
Yes
Most of the time it is very costly to leave, since it is high cost to invest in gear and takes time and relationships to develop the market.
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
No
For many species, the quota allocations have decreased substantially, making the high costs of owning and maintaining a boat and a limited entry license high cost, with not as much benefit as once occurred. Additionally, the high cost of paying for an on-board monitor is many times higher than the benefit they receive from their catch.
Interest heterogeneity:
Low (1)
In general, groundfish fishermen have the same interest in promoting economically viable fisheries. While many use trawling methods, there is also fishermen who focus on troll, longline, hook and line, pots, gillnets, and other gear. They are limited entry and compete against each other. To minimize individual risk, risk pools are created where fishermen combine quotas to help each other not overfish and to maintain their activities.
Leadership:
["Informal leader"]
The Fishermen’s Marketing Association has a board of directors with a Monterey representative, but the leaders typically are the most outspoken and involved individuals.
Leadership authority:
Low (1)
Mostly self-involved and longest-participating individuals are leaders and are followed not by any authoritative formal means, but by relationships.
Actor group trust:
Low (1)
With quotas becoming smaller and protected areas becoming bigger, competition is becoming more fierce. While many times members are friends or family, competition is so high that trust is low. Possible higher level trust within Risk Pool groups (need confirmation on this through interviews).
Personal communication:
More than once a year (5)
Fishermen discuss frequently at landing sites and markets. Also, association meetings provide a forum for in person communication.
Remote communication:
More than once a year (5)
Likely often. Phone calls are the most common form of remote communications.
Leadership accountability:
Low (1)
Leaders typically speak on behalf of the other fishermen, but are not expected to represent all fishermen.
Actor group coordination:
Both formal and informal
The Fishermen’s Marketing Association is a formal group representing trawl vessel owners, skippers, and deck hands and speaks on behalf of the fishermen and tries to establish a stable market. Some processing companies form formal groups of boats they employ. However, most coordination is informal, through friends or family or handshake approved quota-share groups.
Name:
California State and Federal Fisheries Agencies
details
Past collaboration:
High (3)
The PFMC and CDFW meet regularly, in person as well as communicating through other means.
Costs of exit:
No
Teams are staffed by the federal government and so there is no cost for an individual to leave an agency.
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
Not Applicable
Interest heterogeneity:
Low (1)
The CDFW and PFMC groundfish regulators are focused on the same goals and are guided by the same principles outlined in the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act (1976, the primary law governing US fisheries), and the fisheries federal management plans. While the state focuses on those species found only within state waters, all groundfish fisheries are managed to prevent overfishing, protect the broader ecosystem, rebuild overfished stocks, promote long term economic and social benefits, allow for safe and sustainable seafood. The primary difference is whether the stocks are solely in state waters, or if they migrate past the 3 nautical mile line.
Leadership:
[]
The Pacific Fishery Management Council retains leadership over the other teams (e.g. habitat team, budget team, management team, advisory team) and the council has a Chair and a Vice-Chair. The PFMC groundfish management team has an official Chair and Vice-Chair. The Secretary of Commerce has overall authority over this group's actions.
Leadership authority:
High (3)
The Council typically has higher authority, but authority is strong and high. All decisions of any Council shall be by majority vote of the voting members present and voting. The chair has only one vote, as does every other on the council. However, many times the chair can informally impose a stronger pull towards their decision.
Actor group trust:
Medium (2)
CDFW and PFMC groundfish fishery members typically have a high level of trust amongst each other, working toward the same goal under the same guidelines. However, many members of the PFMC management team include stakeholders which often times represent conflicting goals and groups of people (e.g. tribal agency member, Washington vs Oregon vs California states), which can inherently raise a level of caution during deliberations and compromises.
Personal communication:
More than once a year (5)
Team members typically work on a day to day basis together, and there are multiple meetings throughout the year bringing the two agencies together.
Remote communication:
More than once a year (5)
Team members typically work on a day to day basis together, and teleconference, email, and telephone communications are frequent (daily to weekly).
Leadership accountability:
High (3)
The chair and vice-chair positions are voted on by the voting members of the Council. Any such chair that is deemed to not be managing appropriately can be out-voted by council members.
Actor group coordination:
Both formal and informal
While most of the group coordination is through formal means (management team meetings, presentations to the Council, public meetings, interagency meetings), many of the members of this actor group formulate relationships with other agency members and fishery participants to formulate management ideas and to incorporate social trends and attitudes.

Governance Systems

Name:
Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System
details
Type of formal governance:
Management plan
The management plan contains the framework for how to manage the sanctuaries and divides tasks into program areas, and also provides the legal framework regulations to enforce Sanctuary laws.
End Date:
Current
Begin date:
1981
The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary was the first of the 3 Central California sanctuaries to be designated under the authority of Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Public Law 92– 532 (the Act) in 1981. The Management Plan was not incorporated until 1987. Cordell Bank NMS was designated 1989 and Monterey Bay NMS was designated in 1992. This snapshot begins in 1992. The most recent management plans and joint Environmental Impact Statement are from 2008. In 2015, a major expansion of the GFNMS and CBNMS increased the area significantly.
Governance trigger:
slow continuous change
Pollution, industrial commercial development, waste dumping, and especially oil spills in the 1960s and 70s heightened the public's concern for coasts and oceans (Chandler and Gillelan, 2005). The US Congress responded by allocating federal funds for states to develop coastal zone management plans, water pollution, and ocean dumping policies. President Johnson's Science Advisory Committee recommended a marine wilderness preservation system in 1966. In 1967, Congressional bipartisan bills were introduced to study the feasibility of creating national marine protected areas. Bills were introduced specifically to prohibit drilling, especially in California after the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. Jacques Cousteau's 1971 testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Oceanography is thought to have contributed significantly to federal funding for the sanctuaries.The House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee introduced the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) in 1971 and in 1972 President Nixon signed the act into law. The three California sanctuaries were designated primarily to exclude oil drilling, and were chosen according to their ecologically critical habitats. The Gulf of the Farallones NMS was proposed during a public workshop in Mill Valley, California in 1978 and the following years consisted of issue papers, regional and state hearings, and draft regulations until it was designated. Cordell Bank NMS was introduced by the non-profit organization Cordell Expeditions in 1981 who wanted to explore the Bank (CBNMS FMP, 2008). After deemed eligible by NOAA, public comment and research contributed to its designation 8 years later. The State of California first nominated the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary in 1977 and after a number of site analyses and meetings and public hearings, the Sanctuary was established congressionally by the Oceans Act of 1992 (MBNMS FMP, 2008).
Governance system description:
Federal Management Plans for all 3 sanctuaries. In 2008 began a joint assessment of the three central California sanctuaries and a joint environmental impact statement (EIS).
National Marine Sanctuaries are designated by the US federal Sanctuaries Act of 1972. The National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) provides oversight and coordination of all US national marine sanctuaries. Specific Federal Management Plans are created for each sanctuary and these adhere to the standards set by NOAA and the sanctuary's unique conditions. The FMPs are divided into two broad categories. The first is programs, or action plans, carried out through research, education, and marine resource protection programs. The second is "regulations for controlling or restricting human behavior that is not compatible with resource protection". The Sanctuary has jurisdiction and enforcement authority over any activities which relate to its primary goals. With designation, the sanctuary is authorized to, "implement the designation, including managing, protecting and conserving the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, educational, and aesthetic resources and qualities of the Sanctuary" and to include prohibitions if any activity threatens such qualities, except for Department of Defense activities (Cordell Bank FMP). The sanctuary can impose regulations on foreign ships and foreign persons. Fishing is not regulated under this governance system. The management plans create a Sanctuary Advisory Council, to represent diverse stakeholders and provide expert advice to Sanctuary managers. The management plan specifies that the sanctuary staff are directed by the sanctuary manager and are directly responsible for implementing the management plan and also for coordinating efforts of the multiple program areas.
Governance scale:
State-based policy
All within California
Centralization:
Highly centralized (4)
Federal government oversees and regulates the sanctuaries.
Metric diversity:
High: Many metrics for success (3)
Metrics for success include effective education and outreach, resource protection, and research goals. Condition reports includes metrics on offshore and nearsore environments, and assess habitat, biodiversity, key species, human activities and human health, living resources, water quality, and maritime archaeological resources.
MPA primary goal (in practice):
["Biodiversity conservation", "Exclusion of a specific threat"]
Exclude oil drilling, protect critical ecosystems
MPA motivation:
["Ecological value", "High human impact to mitigate"]
Oil companies wanted to drill in this area, which was the primary reason the siting was motivated. But the high ecological value and highly productive biological biodiversity was also deemed critical to why this MPA was here vs elsewhere.
MPA protection:
["Protecting key life history stage(s)", "Reducing threats"]
Working with the shipping industry, the threat of ship strikes is reduced. Improving water quality reduces threat to ecosystem. Limiting trawling in critical areas reduces ecosystem destruction threat. Having a regulatory role in the disposal of dredged materials reduces dredging threats. In terms of grounded and sunken vessels, the Sanctuary coordinates salvage operations to remove these threats, and studies how to best go about recovering this area. The operation of motorized personal watercraft within the Sanctuary has been restricted to designated zones and access routes to reduce threats of vessels on marine life and habitats. Key breeding and feeding grounds are particularly protected, as well as nursery sloughs.
MPA internal natural boundaries:
Low (1)
The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary was coded "Low" by Edgar and these Sanctuaries are is very similar. The sanctuaries compose of a diverse set of bottom habitats and fluctuating depths from bays and estuaries and from shoreline to the continental shelf. These NMS are adjacent to heavily populated coastline, but certain areas are further away, more coherent, and (e.g. Cordell Bank) are more isolated.
Distance to markets:
Less than 10km (1)
Local seafood supplied to local buyers and restaurants. Whale watching companies less then 10km from whale hot spots.
MPA budget:
4728783 $US
$4,728,783 MBNMS: about 2.5 million dollars per year CBNMS: 2008: $627,000, adjusted for inflation 2014: 689,416 GFNMS: 2008: $1.4 million, adjusted for inflation 2014: 1,539,367 FY 1999 Budget: MBNMS: $980,491 GFNMS: $456,089 CDNMS: $121,421
PA IUCN strict zones:
22 %
No-Take areas here are called "State Marine Reserves" and identified as: "An MPA designation that prohibits damage or take of all marine resources (living, geologic, or cultural) including recreational and commercial take." According to DFG maps, SMRs consist of about 10% of MBNMS (is 18% of all Central CA MPAs) and 12% of the north coast, totaling about 22% (CDFW 2013). Note that most of protected areas were limited harvest (e.g. MBNMS 0.204%) (Brown 2001).
MPA connectivity:
Yes (3)
The MPA network designated by the state includes small reserves within the sanctuaries specifically designated for ecological connectivity purposes (Laffoley et al. 2008). The three national marine sanctuaries are bordering to further strengthen resource protection and ensure consistency among the 3 NMSs. None of the sanctuaries are divided into distinct sites, rather a geometric shaped identified by coordinates. The estuaries in the region are important support systems for the ecosystem, particularly Elkhorn Slough which was included in the designation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and serves as a vital nursery for many species. Seamounts were especially chosen because of their contribution of larval recruits. Population genetics and coupled biophysical models were used to assess larval dispersal, particularly for the Cordell Bank NMS. Kelp beds were chosen to be protected partially because of their ability to retain larvae (based on Duggins 1988). Rocky shelf communities in the Gulf of the Farallones were noted for their importance in post larval settlements, particularly of abalone (based on Haaker et al. 2001). Outreach programs were developed for watershed populations to learn about how watersheds are connected to the GFNMS (GFNMS FMP, 2008).
PA CAR principles:
Yes (3)
Multiple ecosystems, depths, and habitat types are included in the sanctuaries. The Sanctuaries specify protecting and researching rocky shores, kelp forests, beaches, continental shelf habitats, sandy floor, estuaries, seamounts and banks, submarine canyons, rocks and islands, deep sea habitats, and the open ocean. In 2015, the Cordell Bank and Gulf of the Farallones NMSs were expanded to protect more ecologically critical habitats. The three sanctuaries are bordering to enhance protection of these habitats.
MPA migratory benefit:
Yes
Yes, migratory species benefit from productive feeding habitats, non-disturbed breeding grounds, limited oil spills, less ship collisions, and reduced lost fishing gear. Long term protection of key habitats benefits species.
MPA migratory life history:
t
Yes. Within the Gulf of the Farllones NMS, many birds and mammals breed, feed, and haul out within the oceanic and estuarine systems. 54 species of birds use the Sanctuary to breed (GFNMS FMP, 2008). The Farallon Islands sustain the largest sea bird breeding colony south of Alaska and contains 30 percent of California's nesting sea birds (CFWS, 2015). The Gulf of the Farallones NMS provides breeding and/or feeding grounds for 26 endangered or threatened species, 36 marine mammal species, e.g. blue, gray, and humpback whales, harbor seals, elephant seals, Pacific white-sided dolphins, and the threatened Steller sea lions, more than 400,000 breeding seabirds, and one of the most significant white shark populations on the planet (GFNMS FMP, 2008; National Ocean Service, 2015). California's largest breeding population of harbor seals, 1/5th of the entire state's population, depends on the GFNMS for food (GFNMS FMP, 2008). The California sea lion, Steller sea lion, northern elephant seal, and harbor seal breed in the Monterey Bay NMS (Duffy 2014). The northern fur seal and Guadalupe fur seal feed in the Monterey Bay NMS (Duffy 2014). This area is excellent for migrating mammals, since it is along a major current from the feeding areas in the productive Arctic to the warm breeding areas in the tropics. Salmon and steelhead fish species migrate to and spawn in the MBNMS (MBNMS FMP, 2008). Elkhorn Slough, which is part of the MBNMS, is particularly important for migrating birds in the MBNMS, including Brown Pelicans, Heermann's Gulls, Elegant Terns, Surf scoters, Greater scaup, Bufflehead, Black-bellied and Semipalmated Plovers, Willet, Marbled Godwit, Long-billed Curlew, Western & Least Sandpipers, Dunlin, Ruddy Turnstone and Red Knot (Roberson, 2012). Black-footed Albatrosses feed at the Cordell Bank NMS and Cassin's Auklets breed at Cordell Bank, while Sooty Shearwaters migrate through the CBNMS, and Ashy Stormpetrels nest on the Southeast Farallon Island (National Ocean Service, 2015; CBNMS FMP, 2008). 26 marine mammals (resident and migratory) marine mammals have been observed in the CBNMS. Gray whales migrate through the CBNMS waters, and Pacific humpback whales and blue whales feed during the summer months in the Sanctuary (CBNMS FMP, 2008). Migratory pelagic fish species in the three sanctuaries include northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), Pacific hake (Merluccius productus), and jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetric us), albacore (Thunnus alalunga) (GFNMS FMP, 2008). Grey whales and humpback whales feed and migrate in all 3 sanctuaries.
MPA threats to migratory sp:
["Habitat destruction", "Other"]
Oil spills, manufactured toxins (e.g. organochlorines; Kopec and Harvey 1995), poor water quality, ship strikes, ocean dumping (illegal), nonpoint source pollution (primarily agriculture, mining, septic system sources), marine debris, shipwrecks (particularly those leaking oil/other fuel) (FMPs, 2008)
MPA migratory threats and redux:
t
Whale migrations are monitored, individuals are tagged, shipping lanes are navigated to be placed in least-likely collision with migratory species, remote sensing and surveys are conducted to learn abundance and distribution patterns, the Sanctuary responds to distressed migratory species calls. The Sanctuary addresses wildlife disturbance through a mix of educational outreach, regulations, and enforcement. "The Watchable Wildlife program is a unique partnership of federal and state wildlife agencies and non-profit organizations working to educate the public and commercial operators about safe and responsible wildlife viewing practices."
Social-ecological fit:
Low (1)
The protected area includes multiple habitats which all influence each other (e.g. kelp forest and rocky shores and sandy bottoms) which allows for a comprehensive protection to satisfy the Sanctuary's goals. Regulations vary according to habitat sensitivity, amount of user interest in area, and ability to monitor and enforce. Multiple habitats extend outward of the management and thus the habitats are not fully protected by the management since they are sometimes protected (when within boundaries of the Sanctuary), but sometimes not (when outside the Sanctuary). The resources are managed to the best available science and the Sanctuary manages for multiple external factors (runoff, shipping, oil, dumping, etc). Intertidal and groundfish are fairly well-covered within the Sanctuary to ensure sufficient protection within Sanctuary borders.
Governance knowledge use:
["Scientific knowledge"]
The scientific grounding of the FMPs come from peer-reviewed literature and government-led research projects. The Sanctuaries are mandated to use the best available science.
MPA IUCN somewhat strict zones:
9 %
Farallon Islands, National Wildlife Refuge, category IV: 211 acres out of 2108800 acres = <1% Davidson Seamount = 585 square nautical mile/ 4,601 total square nautical miles = 1.2% Cordell Bank = ~112 square km of 1369 square km = 0.08 = 8%
MPA IUCN sustainable zones :
69 %
Anything that is not III, IV, 1a or 1b, II
MPA threats:
Climate change, ocean noise, coastal erosion, fishing, oil spills, cruise ships, introduced species, landslides and debris, marine debris, dredging, motorized personal watercraft, whale strikes, dumping, pollution, shipwrecks, poaching.
Climate change, ocean noise, coastal erosion, fishing, oil spills, cruise ships, introduced species, landslides and debris, marine debris, dredging, motorized personal watercraft, whale strikes, dumping, pollution, shipwrecks, poaching.
Governance system spatial extent:
27645
GFNMS: 8,534.011 km2 CDNMS: 3,330.725 km2 MBNMS: 15,780.99 km2 Total: 27,645.72km2
Horizontal coordination:
Both formal and informal
Formal meetings as well as informal relationships occur with the Sanctuary and other users/managers.
Name:
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
details
Type of formal governance:
Management plan
End Date:
Current
Begin date:
1982
Implemented by the PFMC
Governance trigger:
slow continuous change
Fisheries were in decline, and Magnuson Stevens Act required fisheries to be managed by council with FMPs.
Governance system description:
The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan describes how the Council develops decisions for management of the groundfish fishery. In some cases, it also contains specific, fixed fishery management designations. The plan has been amended several times. More than 90 species of bottom-dwelling marine finfish are included in the federal Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (GFMP). Species and species groups managed under the GFMP include all rockfishes (about 60 species), sablefish, thornyheads, lingcod, Dover sole and other flatfishes (not including halibut), Pacific whiting, and some sharks and skates. Since the FMP began, these species have been managed under the joint jurisdiction of the state and the federal government. The management plan is implemented by the Council, CDFW, and NMFS.
Governance scale:
State-based policy
PFMC oversees activities in California, Oregon, and Washington.
Centralization:
Somewhat centralized (3)
The Pacific Council is regional (includes Oregon, Washington, California, and Idaho), while NMFS is regional-focused it is a federal agency, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife is a state based agency.
Metric diversity:
Low: One metric for success (1)
While the MSA specifies success of management plans to focus on 4 areas: prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, increase long-term economic and social benefits, and ensure a safe and sustainable supply of seafood, the Council writes that all sectors of the groundfish fishery are currently constrained by the need to rebuild groundfish species that have been declared overfished. Therefore there is an emphasis on rebuilding overfished stocks as a metric for success.
Distance to markets:
Less than 10km (1)
Local: less than 10km
Social-ecological fit:
Low (1)
The governance specifies nearshore vs offshore stocks and recognizes various habitat types and depths with associated species. The Rockfish Conservation Area fluctuates according to physical changes in the Sanctuary. Essential fish habitats are determined by ecological and physical features.
Governance knowledge use:
["Scientific knowledge"]
Governance system spatial extent:
822813
PFMC has jurisdiction over the 317,690 square mile exclusive economic zone off Washington, Oregon and California
Horizontal coordination:
Both formal and informal
While mostly formal, informal meetings occur frequently.

Environmental Commons

Name:
California Rocky Shores Ecosystem Health
details
Productivity:
Very productive (3)
The California rocky shores habitat is one of the most diverse and productive marine ecosystems. More than a thousand species of invertebrates and algae live in Central California’s rocky shores habitats, and many fish, birds, and mammals predate on the species from these habitats (NPS, 2015).
Commons spatial extent:
2.1
Rocky shoreline is about 56% of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary shoreline (EIS, 2008), so covers about 156 miles, or 251 kilometers, of the Monterey Sanctuary. While none of Cordell Bank is covered by rocky shoreline, the activities in the bank could influence this ecosystem, particularly oil spills. Although a number has not been found, the amount of rocky shores along the Gulf of the Farallones coast was 22% before 2015. The expansion added about 68 miles along the shoreline, coming to a very rough about 170 miles of shoreline. If the 22% is extended to the expansion, this would come out to about 38 miles, or 61 kilometers, of rocky shoreline. This is a total of 194 miles, or 213 kilometers of rocky shoreline. If we say an estimate of average rocky shoreline width (from splash zone to low zone) of 30 feet, that is about .01 kilometers, which is a total of about 2.1 square kilometers.
Environmental medium:
Oceanic
Oceanic-Terrestrial boundary, but relates to more oceanic feature and dynamics in terms of ecosystem health (e.g. tides, ocean acidification, ocean temperatures).
Commons heterogeneity:
High (3)
Rocky shores are broken up by natural patches such as natural beaches and cliffs, while manmade structures have broken up the rocky shoreline. Rocky shores are connected by the California current, providing a sort of fast highway to connect the various strips of rocky shores. Within the ecosystem, rocky shores are well known to be very patchy and to respond in succession to events (Paine and Levin 1981; Sousa 1984, 1985).
Intra annual predictability:
High (3)
Fairly constant populations in a well studied ecosystem. Physical habitat always there (rocks along shore), difference is population composition. Seasonality has been observed in species population trends in the rocky shore habitats, leading to more predictability (Horn et. al 1983; Foster et al. 1988, 1991).
Inter annual predictability:
High (3)
Ecosystem fairly constant, habitat does not move and home to many sessile animals. Studies have shown that the California rocky intertidal communities are fairly uniform and predictable (Connell 1972; Horn et. al 1983). Rocky shore habitats are very sensitive to pollution, oil spills, invasive species, and fluctuating air and ocean temperatures, providing some variables to take into account when predicting the commons. Rocky shore habitat assemblages appear to have less interannual variation than seasonal variation (Foster et al. 1988, Kinnetic Laboratories Inc. 1992).
Technical substitute:
Yes
Riprap or Bulkhead can be used, but it is not as effective at overall ecosystem health and is typically not used in this area.
Commons boundaries:
Clear boundaries (3)
Clear map indicating where this ecosystem is. Also fairly visible. Defined by four key zones: The Splash Zone: Few organisms survive here. Those that can (e.g., barnacles, limpets and a type of green algae) are almost always exposed to the air and are rarely submerged by water. The High Zone: Organisms that inhabit this zone are exposed to air more than 70 percent of the time and must develop adaptations to survive the long dry periods. For example, limpets, chitons and black turban snails form a watertight seal onto the rocks with their shells to protect themselves from drying out. The Mid Zone: This zone is densely populated. California mussels often form large beds that provide important refuge and habitat for a variety of other invertebrates and algae. The Low Zone: In this zone, organisms may be exposed to air just a few times a month so they are more resilient to waves and less resilient to air exposure. Inhabitants include the giant green anemone, the purple sea urchin, the sunflower star and the beautiful sea palm.
Commons renewability:
Renewable (1)
Most species are fast-growing.
Commons accessibility:
Very accessible (3)
Users can very easily access these habitats, many times alongside coastal trails. Some areas are fenced off, while most are accessible from public land.
Name:
California Humpback Whale
details
Productivity:
Poorly productive (1)
Humpback whales mate at about 7 years of age. Females are pregnant for about 11 to 12 months and get pregnant approximately every two to four years (NOAA Fisheries, 2015).
Commons aggregation:
Population
The California humpback whale is one of at least three separate populations of Megaptera novaeangliae found in the North Pacific. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) considers all the humpbacks in the North Pacific to be one stock (SIMoN 2015).
Biotic:
Yes
Commons unit size:
Large (4)
Fully grown, the males average 13–14 meters (43–46 feet) long. Females are slightly 1 to 1.5 m longer than males (Chittleborough 1965). Body mass is typically between 25–30 metric tons (28–33 short tons), with larger whales weighing more than 40 metric tons (Burnie and Wilson 2005).
Commons mobility:
High (3)
Humpback whales have the longest migration of any mammal. The stock found off the coast of the California sanctuaries travel to Mexico, Hawaii, and Central America.
Commons spatial extent:
395630
115,200 nautical miles roughly according to Calambokidis et al. 2000.
Environmental medium:
Oceanic
Marine mammal
Commons heterogeneity:
High (3)
While migration routes are somewhat known, finding a whale at any one point is not guaranteed and these are vast areas.
Intra annual predictability:
Moderate (2)
The time of year for humpbacks to exist in Sanctuary waters is expected (April to December), but sometimes migration is a little later or early (as was in 2014).
Inter annual predictability:
Moderate (2)
Whales are almost certain to pass through the Sanctuary every year, but the number of whales to do so is less certain. The time of year for humpbacks to exist in Sanctuary waters is expected, but sometimes migration is a little later or early (as was in 2014).
Technical substitute:
No
There is no technical substitute or technology that can take the place of humpback whales in the Sanctuaries from an ecological or economic standpoint.
Commons boundaries:
Somewhat unclear boundaries (2)
Humpback whales are migratory species, having the longest migration documented for any mammal (Stone et al. 1990). The California stock spends the winters in coastal Central America and Mexico and migrates to areas ranging from the coast of California to southern British Columbia in the summer and fall. Some have been known to migrate to Hawaii (Calambokidis et al. 2000).
Commons renewability:
Renewable (1)
Renewable but these species are slow to reproduce and have low regeneration rates.
Commons accessibility:
Somewhat accessible (2)
Humpback whales can be found tracking birds if they are feeding, GPS tracking, and listening to sonar. Whale watching companies know common feeding and migration spots.
Commons indicator:
["Ecosystem health and/or biodiversity", "Status of highly migratory species"]
Humpbacks are used as a focal species for integrated ecosystem assessments along with other species, and as an indicator for marine mammal species (Redfern et al. 2012). CSCAPE, the Collaborative Survey of Cetacean Abundance and the Pelagic Ecosystem is a National Marine Sanctuary program to assess populations and to characterize the pelagic ecosystem of the US West Coast used humpback whale populations. This occurred from 2005 to 2007.
Name:
California Groundfish Habitat
details
Productivity:
Moderately Productive (2)
Many groundfish species are very slow growing and take multiple years to mature and reproduce. The kelp forests are very productive, while rocky bottoms are not as productive.
Commons spatial extent:
16588
A rough estimate based on the EFH map: 60% of area: so 60% of 10,675 square miles, 27,648 square kilometers = 16,588 square kilometers Cordell Bank: 1,286 square miles Gulf of the Farallones: 3,295 square miles Monterey Bay: 6,094 square miles
Environmental medium:
 
Groundfish are found nearshore and offshore the California coast. Groundfish are named for any species that lives somewhat on the benthos. Habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) includes estuaries, canopy kelp, sea grass, seamounts and canyons (PFMC A18, 2005).
Commons heterogeneity:
Moderate (2)
The Essential Fish Habitat map shows that the southern end of the sanctuaries is quite patchy, while there are larger areas for ESH toward the north. Kelp forests, rocky reefs, and sea grasses can also be quite patchy.
Intra annual predictability:
Low (1)
Forecasts for stock size and catch are completed for future years, instead of within years. However, seasonality of fish allows for some predictability. For example, Pacific whiting is not expected in January, but would be expected in April through June (PFMC 2015). Other species such as petrel sole and other flatfish migrate seasonally from spending the winter spawning in deep water (November–February) to spending the summer in shallow water while they feed summer (March–October) (Fishwatch, 2015). However, within a year, the size of the population is not as well forecasted as for future years, but quotas are measured throughout the year to assess fishing pressure.
Inter annual predictability:
Moderate (2)
Extensive large-scale recruitment studies have been conducted to determine which years are strong rockfish recruitment. Using the SMURF method (Standard Monitoring Unit for the Recruitment of Fishes), the number of recruits is determined for each recruitment season. Since groundfish are fairly long lived and take many years to grow to maturity, often times predictions are for the fishery in 6 to 30 years time instead of in that year or in the next few years. Climate and upwelling trends have known relationships with recruitment rates. During stock assessments, forecasts for stock size and catch are completed for most species. Stock assessments are done for blue rockfish, California scorpionfish, California sheepshead, Gopher rockfish, Arrowtooth Flounder, Aurora Rockfish, Bank Rockfish, Black Rockfish, Blackgill Rockfish, Blue Rockfish, Bocaccio Rockfish, Cabezon, California Scorpionfish, Canary Rockfish, Chilipepper Rockfish, Cowcod, Darkblotched Rockfish, Dover Sole, English Sole, Gopher Rockfish, Greenspotted Rockfish, Greenstriped Rockfish, Kelp Greenling, Lingcod, Longnose Skate, Longspine Thornyhead, Pacific Ocean Perch, Pacific Sanddab, Pacific Whiting (Hake), Petrale Sole, Sablefish, Sebastes Complex, Shortbelly Rockfish, Shortspine Thornyhead, Spiny Dogfish, Splitnose Rockfish, Starry Flounder, Thornyheads, Vermilion Rockfish, Widow Rockfish, Yelloweye Rockfish, and Yellowtail Rockfish. The habitat for groundfish is usually always there, but sometimes shifts, thus the RCA (Rockfish Conservation Area) coordinates shift from year to year.
Technical substitute:
No
Commons boundaries:
Somewhat unclear boundaries (2)
If a fisherman has the exact coordinates of the closed areas to groundfish fishing, it if quite clear with a GPS device where to fish. However, there are many specifications and species-specific closed areas that make it complex where one can fish for what. Rockfish Conservation Areas, or RCAs, are large-scale closed areas with trawl and non-trawl boundaries. These are very clear, but they shift every year or every couple of years according to conditions and assessments, causing some confusion. Within a year, certain seasons have certain specifications (e.g. Mar-April you can fish shore to the 200 fm line but May-June you can fish from the shore to the 150 fm line). Commercial and recreational fishing for groundfish, except "other flatfish" as specified at §§ 660.230, 660.330 and 660.360, is prohibited in waters of depths less than 100-fm (183-m) around Cordell Banks as defined by specific latitude and longitude coordinates at § 660.70. The State of California prohibits commercial and recreational fishing for groundfish (except fishing for "other flatfish" with certain hook and line gears, as specified at §§ 660.230, 660.330 and 660.360) in shallow waters between the shoreline and the 10 fm (18 m) depth contour around each of the Farallon Islands, which are in the Gulf of the Farallones NMS. The Essential fish habitat (EFH) are areas identified to be important to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity and these are very clear.
Commons renewability:
Renewable (1)
This is moderately renewable. Biotic habitat (kelp) is more so renewable than rocks. Most are long living species but are quite slow growing (especially many rockfish species) (McCain et al. 2005). Overexploitation of California rockfish stocks have led to a reduction in age at maturity, a decrease in fecundity, and a change in gonadal index (Adams 1980; Gunderson et al. 1980). The kelp forests and sea grass areas are renewable, while the rocky shores are somewhat renewable.
Commons accessibility:
Somewhat accessible (2)
Accessible with the right equipment. Equipped and permitted vessels, the correct gear type, GPS devices, and other efficiency technologies make finding groundfish habitats fairly accessible, particularly with depth sounders and other oceanic viewers to search for preferred depths and bottom types.
Internal Ecological Connectivity:
 
External Ecological Connectivity:
 

Component Interactions

Governance Interaction

Sanctuary Governance with Rocky Intertidal

Governing Organization:
National Marine Sanctuaries Office of NOAA (Actor)
Governs:
Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System (Governance System)
Primary:
California Rocky Shores Ecosystem Health (Environmental Common)
Commons User:
California Academic Researchers (Actor)

Governance Interaction

Sanctuary Governance with Whale

Governs:
Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System (Governance System)
Primary:
California Humpback Whale (Environmental Common)
Governing Organization:
National Marine Sanctuaries Office of NOAA (Actor)
Commons User:
California Academic Researchers (Actor)
Commons User:
California Sanctuary Recreational Users (Actor)

Governance Interaction

Central California Groundfish Fishery

Commons User:
California Groundfish Fishermen (Actor)
Primary:
California Groundfish Habitat (Environmental Common)
Governs:
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (Governance System)
Governing Organization:
California State and Federal Fisheries Agencies (Actor)