1. Stakeholders, Algorithms, and Marine Protected Area Design in California Carissa Klein, University of Queensland c.klein@uq.edu.au Charles Steinback, Ecotrust charles@ecotrust.org

2. Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Working Groups Blue Ribbon Task Force Stakeholder Group Science Advisory Team Study Area Pigeon Point Point Conception

3. MLPA Goals & Objectives Biodiversity Conservation Habitats across depth zones Areas of high species diversity Populations of special status Socioeconomic Viability Minimize negative socioeconomic impacts

4. Example Conservation Features Rocky reefs Kelp beds Estuaries Canyons Sandy bottom Surfgrass beds Total = 47 Laura Francis Sea otter habitat Mammal rookeries Bathymetric complexity Pinnacles Bird colonies Areas of high fish diversity

5. Recreational Fishing Effort Trips per planning unit Commercial Fishing Effort Relative importance to fishermen Consumptive Socioeconomic Data

6. Expert Approach Interest groups (fishing, conservation, etc.) developed proposals Provided with biophysical data Not provided with all fishing data Proposals were evaluated by Scientific Advisory Team (biodiversity representation and impact to fisheries) Using scientific feedback, stakeholders revised proposals

7. Four Proposals 1 234

8. Software Approach: MARXAN 2.5 km 2 planning units Calculated how much of each feature was in each planning unit Targeted same amount of each feature as stakeholder proposals Minimize impact (cost) to 19 fisheries Used BLM that gave solutions comparable in size to stakeholder proposals Monterey Morro Bay

9. Spatial Compactness (BLM)

10. Relative impact reservation of a planning unit has on fishing effort Equal weight to individual fisheries within commercial and recreational sector Equal weight to sectors Cost per Planning Unit,,,

11. Individual Summed Solutions + = 100 Solutions

12. Expert and Marxan Summed Solution

13. Effort lost

14. Relative effort lost per unit area

15. Cost vs. MARXAN Output Cost: Area & Fishing Effort Monterey

16. Priority Areas Included? Proposal 1 – 96.7% Proposal 2 – 70.8% Proposal 3 – 76.9% Proposal 4 – 87.7%

17. Caveats Marxan solutions assume exclusion of all fishing Assumes that effort is not redistributed after conservation Data quality and scale

18. Conclusions Fishermen designed the most cost-effective solutions Local/Expert knowledge Data availability may lead to more efficient proposals Marxan solutions were more efficient than stakeholder proposals Marxan solutions do not reveal sensitive socioeconomic information Good tool to support, NOT replace, stakeholder driven process Photo: Gretchen Hoffman

19. Acknowledgements Bruce Kendall, Satie Airamé, Astrid Scholz, Lindsay Kircher, Allison Chan, Amanda Cundiff, Nadia Gardner, Yvana Hrovat, Will McClintock, Fishermen, Fisherwomen, MLPA staff Photo: Gretchen Hoffman