Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-12-04

Examining the Conservation Level of

Marine Management Areas within the

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary:

How Protected is the Sanctuary?

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries July 2012
About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean Service (NOS) 

administers the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS). Its mission is to identify, 

designate, protect and manage the ecological, recreational, research, educational, 

historical, and aesthetic resources and qualities of nationally significant coastal and 

marine areas. The existing marine sanctuaries differ widely in their natural and 

historical resources and include nearshore and open ocean areas ranging in size from 

less than one to over 5,000 square miles. Protected habitats include rocky coasts, kelp 

forests, coral reefs, sea grass beds, estuarine habitats, hard and soft bottom habitats, 

segments of whale migration routes, and shipwrecks.

Because of considerable differences in settings, resources, and threats, each marine 

sanctuary has a tailored management plan. Conservation, education, research, 

monitoring and enforcement programs vary accordingly. The integration of these 

programs is fundamental to marine protected area management. The Marine 

Sanctuaries Conservation Series reflects and supports this integration by providing a 

forum for publication and discussion of the complex issues currently facing the sanctuary 

system. Topics of published reports vary substantially and may include descriptions of 

educational programs, discussions on resource management issues, and results of 

scientific research and monitoring projects. The series facilitates integration of natural 

sciences, socioeconomic and cultural sciences, education, and policy development to 

accomplish the diverse needs of NOAA’s resource protection mandate. All publications 

are available on the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Web site 

(http://www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov).
Examining the Conservation Level of Marine Management 

Areas within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary: 

How Protected is the Sanctuary?

Jason Adelaars, Megan Bassett, Nicholas Donlou, Corina Marks,

Beth Pardieck, James Lindholm

California State University, Monterey Bay

Silver Spring, Maryland

July 2012

U.S. Department of Commerce

Rebecca Blank, Acting Secretary

National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration

Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D.

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Ocean Service

David M. Kennedy, Assistant Administrator

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

Daniel J. Basta, Director
Disclaimer

Report content does not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use.

Report Availability

Electronic copies of this report may be downloaded from the Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries web site at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov. Hard copies may be available from 

the following address:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

SSMC4, N/ORM62

1305 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Cover

Cover image displaying marine spatial management boundaries in the Monterey Bay 

Area created by Jason Adelaars. Basemap credits: GEBCO, NOAA, CHS, OSU, UNH, 

CSUMB, National Geographic, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, and ESRI.

Suggested Citation

Adelaars J, Bassett M, Donlou N, Marks C, Pardieck B, Lindholm J. 2012. Examining 

the Conservation Level of Marine management Areas within the Monterey Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary: How Protected is the Sanctuary? Marine Sanctuaries Conservation 

Series ONMS-12-04. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 

41 pp. 

Contact

James Lindholm

Institute for Applied Marine Ecology (IfAME)

California State University Monterey Bay

100 Campus Center

Seaside, CA 93955

Email: jlindholm@csumb.edu
i

Abstract

The growing number of marine managed areas in state and federal waters of the US has 

created within selected stakeholder groups the impression that “everywhere is protected.” 

That impression has fueled debates on the east and west coasts as to whether any 

additional management is required, though important questions remain unanswered as to 

whether everywhere is indeed protected. To directly investigate the accuracy of the 

widely-held impression, we created a scoring system based on selected attributes of 

managed areas within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (central California) 

to quantify the level of protection provided by each management area individually, as 

well as cumulatively in locations where multiple managed areas overlap. We found that 

despite having a large number of managed areas the relative level of conservation within 

the Sanctuary is low. Furthermore, we found a noticeable difference in the level of 

conservation between state and federal waters, with near-shore state waters generally 

having higher conservation than off-shore federal waters. These results provide important 

context as the Sanctuary and its many collaborating state and federal agencies move 

forward with spatial approaches to management.

Key Words

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, marine management areas, marine protected 

areas, marine conservation, marine resource management, regulations 
ii

Table of Contents

Topic Page

Abstract................................................................................................................................ i

Key Words........................................................................................................................... i

Table of Contents................................................................................................................ ii

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

Methods............................................................................................................................... 2

Conservation Potential Analysis..................................................................................... 5

Explicit Use Area Analysis........................................................................................... 10

Overlap Analysis........................................................................................................... 11

Results............................................................................................................................... 13

Conservation Analysis.................................................................................................. 13

Explicit Use Area Analysis........................................................................................... 18

Overlap Analysis........................................................................................................... 19

Discussion......................................................................................................................... 26

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................... 28

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix 1. Management areas and their individuals scores for each of the nine 

evaluation criteria. ........................................................................................................ 34

Appendix 2. Management areas and their regulations pertaining to each of the nine 

evaluation criteria........................................................................................................ 36
iii

Figure/Table Number and Title Page

Figure 1. Extent of marine management areas in the Sanctuary......................................... 4

Figure 2. Method used to calculate conservation scores in regions where spatially 

explicit management overlaps........................................................................................... 12

Figure 3. Overview map of the level of conservation within management areas 

in the Sanctuary................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 4. Map of conservation levels in the north region of the Sanctuary...................... 16

Figure 5. Map of conservation levels in the central region of the Sanctuary. .................. 17

Figure 6. Map of conservation levels in the south region of the Sanctuary...................... 18

Figure 7. Overview map of the level of conservation in the Sanctuary after 

considering the overlap of spatially explicit management................................................ 20

Figure 8. Map of conservation levels in the north region of the Sanctuary after 

considering the overlap of spatially explicit management................................................ 21

Figure 9. Map of conservation levels in the central region of the Sanctuary after 

considering the overlap of spatially explicit management................................................ 22

Figure 10. Map of conservation levels in the south region of the Sanctuary after 

considering the overlap of spatially explicit management................................................ 23

Figure 11. Map of the marine management areas surrounding Point Lobos and the 

increase in conservation level due to the overlap of management areas. ......................... 24

Figure 12. Map of the northwest region of the Sanctuary and the decrease in 

conservation levels due to overlap with explicit use areas. .............................................. 25

Table 1. Marine management areas in the Sanctuary and the respective management 

agencies............................................................................................................................... 3

Table 2. List of criteria and their respective scores. ........................................................... 9

Table 3. Explicit use areas in the Sanctuary.. ................................................................... 10

Table 4. Scoring system used to evaluate the impact of explicit use areas. ..................... 11

Table 5. Conservation scores of marine management areas.. ........................................... 14

Table 6. Scores of explicit use areas................................................................................. 19

Table 7. Coverage of conservation levels throughout the Sanctuary after 

considering overlap of spatially explicit management...................................................... 20
1

Introduction

The multitude of overlapping spatial management regimes (ranging from no-take marine 

reserves to bottom trawl exclusion areas to personal watercraft use zones) currently in place in 

state and federal waters off central California has created the impression among selected 

stakeholder groups that “everywhere is protected.” That impression is used as an argument for 

restricting the implementation of new or revised management regimes. However, the

combination of managed areas does not necessarily result in more protection, even where 

multiple agencies hold jurisdiction over the same area. Studies of spatial management in the Gulf 

of Maine (Recchia et al. 2001) and the Southern California Bight (Crowder et al. 2006) have 

shown gaps and conflicts in conservation efforts within areas marked by extensive management. 

Recchia et al. (2001) evaluated marine spatial management in the Gulf of Maine to determine the 

level of protection for each conservation area, while Crowder et al. (2006) examined regulatory 

mismatches in southern California. Both studies concluded that although spatial management 

areas were abundant, the conservation level was low; supporting the viewpoint that more 

management does not always result in more protection. 

These studies demonstrate the need to evaluate regions where coastal marine spatial planning 

(CMSP) is implemented, in order to better understand the conservation effects, or lack thereof, of 

an abundance of spatially explicit regulations. One such area is the Monterey Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary (the Sanctuary), which exists within a mélange of overlapping management 

areas (both state and federal). 

The Sanctuary, managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is a 

15,783 square kilometer area of federally-protected waters off the coast of central California. 

The Sanctuary was established in 1992 for the purposes of “protecting and managing the 

conservation, ecological, recreational, research, educational, historical, and esthetic resources 

of the area” (NOAA 1992). Because many of the agencies managing separate resources within 

the Sanctuary’s boundary have dissimilar goals there is little incentive for interagency 

collaboration, creating the potential for gaps in overall resource protection (Ekstorm et al. 2009). 

In this study we evaluated the general conservation level in the Sanctuary by quantifying the 

potential cumulative protection provided by fifty-one management areas currently in place. 

Conservation in the marine realm has been defined as the preservation of the ocean’s biodiversity 

(Norse and Crowder 2005) and respective ecosystem functions (Duffy and Stachowicz 2006). 

Therefore, in the following analysis the term conservation level/score refers to the degree to 

which the design attributes and legal measures of management areas can potentially preserve 

biodiversity and ecosystem functions. We developed ranking criteria to first determine 

conservation score, and then compared the relative conservation level of all individual spatial 

management areas in the Sanctuary. We then evaluated the collective effects of overlapping 

management areas on the regional conservation level in contrast to individual management areas. 

Our study seeks to provide context for on-going marine spatial planning in the Sanctuary.
2

Methods

A total of fifty-one discrete management areas were identified within the boundaries of the 

Sanctuary (Table 1) (ONMS 2011). The majority of the management areas identified were 

marine protected areas (MPAs) designated as a result of the California Marine Life Protection 

Act (MLPA). These areas were established within state waters to regulate or prohibit ‘take’ of 

marine organisms, in an effort to alleviate anthropogenic pressure on subtidal biological 

communities (MLPA 2004). In addition, there were seven areas of special biological 

significance (ASBS), which are coastal areas established by the State Water Resources Control 

Board (SWRCB) to prohibit discharge into the marine environment (SWRCB 2011). A total of

nine regulated fishing areas, including federal essential fish habitat (EFH), and rockfish 

conservation areas (RCAs), were identified. These areas restrict either recreational or 

commercial fishing based on the type of gear used to catch fish (Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Fishery 2011). The boundaries of the RCAs shift annually, so a new area may be protected from 

one year to the next. The remaining management areas identified include Sanctuary designated 

overflight restriction zones, as well as the California Sea Otter Game Refuge, the subtidal area of 

Julia Pfieffer Burns State Park, Point Lobos State Reserve (SR), a special closure area, and the 

Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR). Figure 1 depicts the spatial 

extent of each management area and the presiding managing agencies. 
3

Table 1. Marine management areas(Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA), State Marine Reserve 

(SMR), Essential fish habitat (EFH), National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR), State Reserve (SR), Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA), and State 

Parke (SP)) in the Sanctuary and the respective management agencies: State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), California Department of Fish

and Game (CDFG), and National Marine Fishereies Service (NMFS), Montery Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS).

Marine Management Area Management Agency Marine Management Area Management Agency

Año Nuevo Point & Island ASBS SWRCB Lovers Point SMR CDFG

Año Nuevo SMCA CDFG Montara SMR CDFG

Asilomar SMR CDFG Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary MBNMS

Big Creek SMCA CDFG Moro Cojo Slough SMR CDFG

Big Creek SMR CDFG Natural Bridges SMR CDFG

CA Sea Otter Game Refuge CDFG Non-Trawl RCA NMFS

Cambria SMCA CDFG Overflight Restriction (Moss Landing) MBNMS

Carmel Bay ASBS SWRCB Overflight Restriction (North Bay) MBNMS

Carmel Bay SMCA CDFG Overflight Restriction (South Site) MBNMS

Carmel Pinnacles SMR CDFG Pacific Grove Marine Gardens SMCA CDFG

Edward F. Ricketts SMCA CDFG PG Marine Gardens & Hopkins Refuge ASBS SWRCB

EFH 1 (Davidson Seamount) NMFS Piedras Blancas SMCA CDFG

EFH 2 (Big Sur Coast/Port San Luis) NMFS Piedras Blancas SMR CDFG

EFH 2 (Half Moon Bay) NMFS Pillar Point SMCA CDFG

EFH 2 (Monterey Bay/Canyon) NMFS Point Lobos Ecological Reserve ASBS SWRCB

EFH 2 (Point Sur Deep) NMFS Point Lobos SMCA CDFG

Egg Rock to Devil's Slide Special Closure CDFG Point Lobos SMR CDFG

Elkhorn Slough NERR CDFG Point Lobos SR CDFG

Elkhorn Slough SMCA CDFG Point Sur SMCA CDFG

Elkhorn Slough SMR CDFG Point Sur SMR CDFG

Federal trawl closure at 700 fathoms NMFS Portuguese Ledge SMCA CDFG

Greyhound Rock SMCA CDFG Recreational RCA NMFS

James V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve ASBS SWRCB Salmon Creek ASBS SWRCB

Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park ASBS SWRCB Soquel Canyon SMCA CDFG

Julia Pfeiffer SP (underwater area) State Parks State Waters trawl closures CDFG

Trawl RCA NMFS
4

Figure 1. Extent of various marine management areas in the Sanctuary. Management areas are 

color-coded based on the governing agency (State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS)). Explicit use areas refer to zones designated

for specific activities, such as shipping or military practice. 
5

Conservation Potential Analysis

All management areas in this analysis are within the Sanctuary boundaries, below the mean high 

tide line, and have regulations that affect the use of marine resources within their boundaries. 

Similar to Recchia et al. (2001) we developed a total of nine criterion based on an in-depth 

literature review on ecosystem based management, threats to ecosystem health, and marine 

management area design. Our findings were compiled to create criterion to assess conservation 

level of individual marine management areas. The criterion fall under two main categories: 

design attributes of marine management areas (such as size, permanence, and adjacency) and 

restricted or prohibited uses (such as commercial fishing, recreational fishing, and kelp 

harvesting ). Criteria are discussed below in order of their contribution to the level of protection 

afforded (Table 2). 

Scoring Criteria

Regulation of Commercial Fishing 

The extent to which a particular management area regulated commercial fishing was weighted 

the highest for calculating level of protection because of its extensive impacts on the marine 

environment. To date, modern commercial fishing has been proposed as the single greatest 

human impact to the oceans (Jackson et al. 2001; Crowder et al. 2006). In the last century, 

technological advances in fishing methods, coupled with rapid human population growth have 

resulted in widespread overexploitation or collapse of commercially fished species (Dayton et al. 

2002). Specifically, large predatory fishes are of great commercial importance and many 

populations have declined by 90% since preindustrial times (Myers and Worm 2003). 

Commercial fishing has negatively impacted ecosystems, stemming from altered trophic levels 

and entire fish assemblages, degraded habitats, reduced biodiversity, and even the extinction of 

species (Auster and Langton 1999; Yoklavich et al. 2000; Jackson et al. 2001; Lindholm et al. 

2001; Dayton et al. 2002; Levin et al. 2006). 

Permanence of Protection

Protected species within marine conservation areas recover at different rates depending on life 

history, trophic level, and growth rate (Hutchings and Reynolds 2004). Therefore, some areas are 

established for the short term (such as one fishing season), while others are permanent. Marine 

conservation areas created permanently or longterm, offer a higher level of conservation because 

the resources within them have a longer time period to respond (Gleason 2006). Additionally, to 

understand the effect of marine spatial management areas, longer term or permanent protection is 

preferable because it is difficult to track short term changes (Hutchings and Reynolds 2004). The 

longer a marine reserve exists, the more feasible a direct comparison between protected and 

unprotected areas becomes. If regulations within a spatial management area are revoked, the 

benefits of conservation are reversed (Ballantine and Langlois 2008). Since permanent protection 

offers long-term conservation benefits, we weighted “permanence” as the second most important 

criteria for determining the level of protection of a marine management area. 

Regulation of Recreational Fishing

We weighted the extent to which recreational fishing was regulated as the third most important 

criterion for determining level of protection of marine management areas. Although commercial 
6

fishing has a large impact on fish stocks in the United States, the impact of recreational fishing 

cannot be overlooked. Many commercial fishery management plans are based on total catch 

limits, while recreational fisheries are managed through bag and size limits, which makes it 

difficult to track the total number of fishes caught (NOAA 2007; CDFG 2011). This can be 

detrimental to the management of exploited species in the United States because many 

recreational fisheries are large enough to extract a nontrivial amount of fish each year (Coleman 

et al. 2004; Ihde et al. 2010). Total catch from some recreational fisheries can be greater than 

commercial fisheries (Coleman et al. 2004). For example, recreational fishing accounted for 87% 

of total bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinus) landings along the Pacific coast in 2002 (Coleman et al. 

2004). Allowing recreational fishing in marine protected areas can have negative effects on 

impacted fish stocks by removing top predators and therefore, altering food webs (Schroeder and 

Love 2002). 

Size of Management Area

The size of a marine management area is important when considering the effectiveness of 

protecting marine ecosystems (Claudet et al. 2008). The size of a management area is directly 

related to the amount of biomass protected, and therefore larger reserves have the capacity to 

protect larger fish stocks and more species (Halpern 2003; Moffitt et al. 2011). Stocks within 

large reserves are more protected from the effects of fishing along the perimeter because larger 

reserves often have smaller perimeter to area ratios (Bartholomew et al. 2007). Our scoring 

system reflects these findings and predicates conservation area “size” as the fourth most 

important criterion when scoring conservation potential of a marine management area.

Extent of Non-Extractive Uses

Non-extractive uses of marine regions have less of an impact than extractive activities, such as 

fishing, but can also alter the ecosystem. For example, setting or dragging anchors can result in 

the decrease of structural complexity of seafloor habitats essential for the persistence of fish 

populations (Rogers and Miller 2006). Recreational boating, SCUBA diving, tide-pooling and 

snorkeling are popular marine activities that can alter the composition of algal communities in 

marine reserves by disturbing kelp and increasing suspended sediments (Brown and Taylor 1999; 

Schaeffer et al. 1999; Smith et al. 2008; Claudet et al. 2010; Thurstan et al. 2012). Nonextractive uses considered in this study include recreational boating, SCUBA diving, snorkeling 

and wildlife viewing. While these uses can promote overall conservation through appreciation 

and education, the physical disturbance can have negative impacts. Marine management areas

that limit non-extractive uses offer a larger benefit to conservation than areas where nonextractive uses are allowed. We placed regulation of “non-extractive uses” as the fifth most 

important criteria when scoring the conservation potential of a marine management area.

Adjacency of Other Management Areas

Marine management areas that are adjacent to, or in close proximity of, each other increase the 

total area and level of protection of numerous species (Moffitt et al. 2011). Fish populations 

often have ranges beyond the spatial scale of politically feasible reserve sizes. One strategy to 

protect fish populations is to create networks of MPAs. These networks are created to protect 

stocks with planktonic larvae that drift large distances and also migratory species (Dunlop et al. 

2009; Christie et al. 2010). Home range and larval dispersal are important considerations of 

marine spatial management design. Kinlan and Gaines (2003) found that the average distance 
7

traveled between marine conservation areas was 10 km. Because networks of marine 

management areas and adjacency to other protected areas offer expanded protection, we consider 

that marine areas adjacent or in close proximity (<10km) to each other receive a higher 

conservation scores. 

Regulation of Dredging

Harbors and ports often fill with sediment and must be dredged to maintain the appropriate water 

depth for ship travel. Dredging can also occur in the open ocean to obtain sand or other 

materials. Removal of this sediment in harbors or anywhere in the ocean is considered dredging 

and the act is highly regulated due to the potential negative impacts to habitat (EPA 1978).

Dredging typically destroys benthic habitat such as seagrass, mounds, and depressions (Boyd et 

al. 2005; Erftemeijer and Lewis 2006). The activity also disturbs species, suspends sediments 

and can alter the benthic community for up to four years after the dredge activity (Nairn et al. 

2004). Within the Sanctuary, the Santa Cruz, Moss Landing and Monterey harbors are all 

periodically dredged. Dredged material is then deposited offshore and the disposal site of the 

dredged material suffers similar impacts as the material blankets existing habitat, suspends 

sediment and introduces foreign material. Because of the potentially negative impact on habitats 

marine management areas that prohibit dredging received a higher conservation score. 

Regulation of Oil and Gas

Oil and gas drilling in the marine environment can have rare but potentially widespread negative 

impacts. Although infrequent, oil spills can impact every aspect of the marine environment 

including immediate death and long-term disease of birds, marine mammals, fish, plants, and 

invertebrates (Piatt et al. 1990; Peterson et al. 2003). If oil and gas development is prohibited or 

restricted, a management area received a higher conservation score because the threats from

negative impacts from oil and gas extraction are reduced. 

Regulation of Intake and Discharge

The coastline of the Sanctuary is approximately 466 km long and there are numerous facilities 

that extract seawater from the Sanctuary, including aquaria, educational facilities, desalination, 

cities and power plants. Entrainment, impingement and exposure to warm water within intake 

systems negatively impacts marine populations during the intake process (Heimbuch et al. 2007). 

Discharge of effluent water into the Sanctuary impacts the natural state of marine ecosystems by 

warming coastal waters and introducing foreign material, even if treated to federal standards. 

The combined effects of sewage discharge and other anthropogenic disturbances can result in 

unexpected alteration of marine ecosystems (Grigg 1994). Because of the potential effects of 

intake and discharge of seawater from industrial uses, we consider that prohibition of these 

activities adds to the conservation level of management areas within the Sanctuary.

Scoring System

Specific numbers were assigned based on a 100 point scale. Scores were assigned to each of the 

criteria based on the conservation potential of the regulations or attributes within the marine 

management area. Complete prohibition of any activity received the highest possible score, while 

restriction of some activities received a lower score. The “some prohibited” category was created

within each criteria due to the wide range in regulated activities. For example, a State Marine 

Conservation Area (SMCA) may restrict all fishing, except for recreational take of one species.
8

Because the “some prohibitive” category was different for each regulation within each 

management area, we decided to score “some prohibited” with less than half of the maximum 

points of the criteria. 

Each marine management area was evaluated based on the nine scoring criteria. Points were 

assigned based on the scores which matched the individual laws and attributes of each

management area (Table 2). The highest number of points was assigned to the areas with the 

highest conservation potential-- large, permanent areas that prohibit uses which compromise the 

protection of marine ecosystems. The lowest number of points was assigned to the areas with the 

lowest conservation potential—smaller, temporary areas that allow uses which compromise the 

conservation of marine ecosystems. 

The following general rules were applied when scoring marine zones:

1. If an end date is not specified in the management areas regulations, the area was 

considered permanent.

2. If an activity is not explicitly prohibited in governing regulations, then it is not 

considered prohibited.

3. If a marine management area overlaps but is not encompassed within another area it is 

scored as ‘adjacent’.

4. For fishing, any restriction of gear type, species or season results in a score of “some” 

prohibited fishing. 
9

Table 2. List of criteria and their respective scores.

Criteria Points

Commercial Fishing

All Prohibited 30

Some Prohibited 10

None Prohibited 0

Permanence

Permanent 20

Not Permanent 0

Recreational Fishing

All Prohibited 16

Some Prohibited 6

None Prohibited 0

Size

> 100 km2 10

10 km2

 - 100 km2 4

< 10 km2 2

Non-Extractive Uses

All Prohibited 8

Some Prohibited 4

None Prohibited 0

Adjacency

Shares a Boundary 8

< 10 km of another zone 4

> 10 km of another zone 0

Dredging

Prohibited 3

Not Prohibited 0

Oil and Gas

Prohibited 3

Not Prohibited 0

Intake and Discharge

Prohibited 2

Not Prohibited 0
10

Explicit Use Area Analysis

There are certain areas within the Sanctuary that were created for the purpose of focusing

specific human activities rather than to promote conservation. For the purpose of this study, such 

areas are called “explicit use areas.” These areas include military use, personal watercraft, 

shipping lanes, dredge dumping, cruise anchor locations, and jade collection (Table 3). Explicit 

use areas were included in this study because of their potential negative impact on the marine 

environment. This is especially true when considering overall conservation within the Sanctuary 

because many explicit use zones overlap with conservation management areas. 

Table 3. Explicit use areas in the Sanctuary. The purpose of each area is also included for better 

understanding of potential impacts on the marine environment.

Explicit Use Areas Management Agency Purpose

Cruise Anchorage MBNMS Anchoring of cruise ships

Jade Collection Area MBNMS Collection of jade

MBNMS ML SF-12 MBNMS Disposal of dredge materials

MBNMS Monterey Dredge MBNMS Disposal of dredge materials

MBNMS MPW 1 MBNMS Operation of motorized personal watercraft

MBNMS MPW 2 MBNMS Operation of motorized personal watercraft

MBNMS MPW 3 MBNMS Operation of motorized personal watercraft

MBNMS MPW 4 MBNMS Operation of motorized personal watercraft

MBNMS SC Dredge MBNMS Disposal of dredge materials

Military Dumping US Military Disposal of military waste

Military Zone (SubArea 1) US Military Military practice

Military Zone (SubArea 2) US Military Military practice

Military Zone (SubArea 3) US Military Military practice

Military Zone (SubArea 4) US Military Military practice

Naval Operating Area (SC) US Military Military practice

Ord Military Zone (Outer) US Military Military practice

Ord Military Zone (Shore) US Military Military practice

Shipping Lanes US Coast Guard Shipping

Spoil Ground US Military Disposal of military waste

Because the explicit use areas were designed for human activities, the criteria used to evaluate 

them were adapted from the conservation analysis scoring criteria. The scoring criteria for 

explicit use areas include size, permanence, and adjacency. Similar to the conservation analysis, 

scoring criteria are listed in order of importance.

Size of Management Area

We ranked size as the most important criteria for determining the extent of human impacts on 

conservation because larger areas will have a larger negative effect than a smaller explicit use 

area. For example, a large dumping area will alter a larger area of seafloor than a smaller one. 
11

Permanence of Management Area 

Permanence is also an important criterion in determining the impacts of explicit use areas. Areas 

that are permanent promote prolonged, long term disturbances to the marine environment with 

little possibility of the ecosystem recovering from the impact. 

Adjacency of Other Management Areas

If an explicit use area is adjacent to, or in close proximity of, a conservation area it will have a 

higher probability of impacting conservation level of surrounding marine conservation areas. 

Scoring System

While the impact of explicit use areas is important and warrant inclusion in this study, their 

presence should not completely negate all positive impacts of conservation areas. Because of 

this, the maximum points of each criteria were assigned based on a 30 point scale. Explicit use 

areas were evaluated based on the three scoring criteria. Points were assigned on a negative scale 

to reflect their negative impacts on the environment (Table 4). Large, permanent explicit use 

areas that shared a boundary with another area were assigned the lowest scores. With respect to 

these three criteria, large areas are assumed to have a larger spatial footprint and were assigned 

the lowest points. Permanent areas have the potential for long-term impacts and were assigned 

the second lowest total possible criteria points. 

Table 4. Scoring system used to evaluate the impact of explicit use areas. Criteria are in order of importance.

Criteria Points

Size

> 100 km2 -15

10 km2

 - 100 km2 -7

< 10 km2 -3

Permanence

Permanent -10

Not Permanent 0

Adjacency

Shares a Boundary -5

< 10 km of another zone -3

> 10 km of another zone 0

Overlap Analysis

Because overlapping marine management areas can help or hinder level of protection, it is 

important to look at the conservation level of all areas that overlap one another within the 

Sanctuary. Many of the marine management areas analyzed here overlap each other and the 

conservation potential can increase where regulations overlap. For example, a state marine 

reserve (SMR) may overlap with an ASBS. The conservation scores of these two areas have an 

additive effect because their regulations complement each other. To account for this we 

conducted an overlap analysis to visualize the cumulative effects of overlapping spatially explicit 
12

regulations, using similar methods to the conservation potential analysis of individual 

management areas.

To calculate the adjusted conservation score for overlapping management areas, the individual 

area scores were added. In contrast, areas designated for conservation may be negatively 

impacted if they are adjacent to, or in close proximity of, explicit use areas. While explicit use 

areas are created to limit the extent of human uses in the Sanctuary, these areas also concentrate 

the activities and their impacts. For example, a Personal Watercraft Area allows use of jet skis, 

which limits the activity in other areas of the Sanctuary, but concentrates negative impacts to 

marine birds and mammals such as noise pollution and boat strikes. To calculate the adjusted 

conservation scores for areas overlapping explicit use areas, the explicit use score was subtracted 

from the original conservation score (Figure 2). 

Explicit use area

Conservation 

management area

A

Conservation 

management area

B

90

a. b.

50

40

-20

50

30

Conservation 

management area

Figure 2. Methods used to calculate conservation scores in regions where spatially explicit management 

overlaps. Figure 2a illustrates the increase in conservation level where two conservation areas overlap. Figure 

2b shows the decrease in conservation level within the area where a conservation area and an explicit use area 

overlap
13

Results

Conservation Analysis

Based on our criteria, the evaluation of management areas within the Sanctuary produced 

conservation levels consistent with the management objectives of each area (Appendix 1 and 2). 

Overall, the scores ranged from high (82) to low (20), with a mean of approximately 53 (Table 

6). High scoring areas (≥82) consisted of the larger SMR that prohibit all commercial and 

recreational fishing. The medium-high range of scores (81 – 72) consisted mostly of the smaller 

SMR, Point Lobos SR, Elkhorn Slough NERR, and the special closure area. Although these 

areas offer a relatively high level of protection, they are much smaller (mean 2.05 km2) than the 

larger marine reserves (mean 27.4 km2) in the high conservation level category. The medium 

score range of marine management areas (71 – 52) was entirely made up of SMCA. These 

management areas are commonly the less protected counterpart to the SMR, wherein they allow 

some forms of recreational and commercial fishing. The medium-low ranked marine 

management areas (51 – 32) consisted of the remaining SMCA, all ASBS, areas of overflight 

restriction, the underwater area of Julia Pfieffer Burns State Park, California state waters, and the 

Sanctuary itself. These areas have a broad range of sizes; however offer little as far as 

comprehensive legal protection, particularly from fishing. The low scored areas (≤31) included 

predominantly non-permanent regulated fishing areas that allow some types of commercial or 

recreational fishing. Spatially, the areas of higher conservation scores tend to be closer to the 

coastline while lower scored areas are predominantly found beyond California state waters 

(Figures 3-6). 
14

Table 5. Conservation scores of marine management areas. Conservation level was determined by each area’s final score.

Marine Management Area Score Rank Marine Management Area Score Rank

Big Creek SMR 82 Pacific Grove Marine Gardens SMCA 50

Montara SMR 82 Carmel Bay SMCA 50

Piedras Blancas SMR 82 Edward F. Ricketts SMCA 50

Point Lobos SMR 82 Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 50

Point Sur SMR 82 James V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve ASBS 48

Asilomar SMR 80 State Waters trawl closures 48

Carmel Pinnacles SMR 80 EFH 2 (Big Sur Coast/Port San Luis) 48

Elkhorn Slough NERR 80 EFH 2 (Monterey Bay/Canyon) 48

Elkhorn Slough SMR 80 Julia Pfeiffer SP (underwater area) 47

Lovers Point SMR 80 EFH 2 (Half Moon Bay) 44

Point Lobos SR 80 CA Sea Otter Game Refuge 42

Egg Rock to Devil's Slide Special Closure 76 Overflight Restriction (Moss Landing) 42

Moro Cojo Slough SMR 76 Overflight Restriction (North Bay) 42

Natural Bridges SMR 76 Overflight Restriction (South Site) 42

Elkhorn Slough SMCA 70 EFH 1 (Davidson Seamount) 40

Cambria SMCA 66 EFH 2 (Point Sur Deep) 40

Ano Nuevo SMCA 62 PG Marine Gardens & Hopkins Refuge ASBS 35

Big Creek SMCA 52 Ano Nuevo Point & Island ASBS 34

Greyhound Rock SMCA 52 Carmel Bay ASBS 32

Piedras Blancas SMCA 52 Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park ASBS 32

Pillar Point SMCA 52 Point Lobos Ecological Reserve ASBS 32

Point Lobos SMCA 52 Salmon Creek ASBS 32

Point Sur SMCA 52 Federal trawl closure at 700 fathoms 28

Portuguese Ledge SMCA 52 Non-Trawl RCA 28

Soquel Canyon SMCA 52 Trawl RCA 28

Recreational RCA 24

Low 

(≤31)

High 

(≥82)

Medium - High 

(81 - 72)

Medium 

(71 - 52) 

Medium - Low 

(51 - 32)
15

Figure 3. Overview map of the level of conservation within management areas in the Sanctuary.
16

Figure 4. Map of conservation levels in the north region of the Sanctuary. Conservation scores are written in 

parentheses after the name of the management area examples shown on the map.
17

Figure 5. Map of conservation levels in the central region of the Sanctuary. Conservation scores are written in 

parentheses after the name of the management area examples shown on the map.
18

Figure 6. Map of conservation levels in the south region of the Sanctuary. Conservation scores are written in 

parentheses after the name of the management area examples shown on the map.

Explicit Use Area Analysis

The values calculated for each explicit use area ranged from the minimum value of -30 to a 

maximum of -13, with a mean of approximately -22 (Table 7). The lowest scoring values (-30), 

were associated with the largest of the explicit use areas, such as the shipping lanes and larger 

military use areas. The intermediate scoring areas (-22 to -18) consisted of several smaller 

military practice areas, motorized personal water craft areas (MPW), and several dredge disposal 

sites. The remaining low scoring areas (≥-16) were a small MPW area, cruise anchoring points, 

a small dredge disposal site near Monterey harbor, and the Jade Collection area. 
19

Table 6. Scores of explicit use areas which detract from conservation levels across the Sanctuary.

Explicit Use Area Score

Shipping Lanes -30

Military Dumping -30

Military Zone (SubArea 1) -30

Military Zone (SubArea 2) -30

Military Zone (SubArea 3) -30

Naval Operating Area (SC) -30

MBNMS MPW 2 -22

MBNMS MPW 4 -22

Military Zone (SubArea 4) -22

MBNMS MPW 3 -20

Ord Military Zone (Outer) -20

Ord Military Zone (Shore) -20

MBNMS SC Dredge -18

MBNMS ML SF-12 -18

Spoil Ground -18

MBNMS MPW 1 -16

MBNMS Monterey Dredge -16

Cruise Anchorage -16

Jade Collection Area -13

Overlap Analysis

By incorporating the scores of the explicit use areas and overlapping conservation areas, the 

conservation scores were calculated to reflect a more realistic depiction of conservation level 

throughout the Sanctuary (Figures 7-10). We found that marine management areas do not 

overlap completely in most cases, resulting in a patchwork of varying conservation scores within 

one area. This is an important finding because it shows the reality of conservation potential 

throughout the Sanctuary (in general, most areas immediately offshore are less protected than 

those outside of the California 3-nautical mile limit). This change in conservation potential is 

likely caused by the overlap of the Recreational RCA, which features a boundary starting at 30 to 

40 fathoms extending seaward, and the trawl closure within California state waters. Most areas 

seaward of the California 3-nautical mile limit have low to medium-low conservation levels. 

This area has a suite of fishing regulations, however the non-permanent status of the RCA

boundaries, as well as the presence of large explicit use areas, makes this area of the Sanctuary 

vulnerable to human uses. Overall, more than half of the Sanctuary was scored as having a 

medium-low conservation level (57%). Another 35% of the Sanctuary was ranked as having a 

low level of conservation, while 6% was found to have a medium level of conservation. Less 

than 1% of the Sanctuary is categorized as having high or medium high levels of conservation

(Table 8).
20

Table 7. The coverage of conservation levels throughout the Sanctuary after considering overlap of spatially 

explicit management.

Rank Area (km2

) Percent of Sancutary Area

High 12.02 0.08

Medium - High 146.82 0.93

Medium 1032.23 6.54

Medium - Low 9,035.18 57.25

Low 5,556.99 35.21

Figure 7. Overview map of the level of conservation in the Sanctuary after considering the overlap of spatially 

explicit management. The dashed line denotes the boundary of California state waters.
21

Figure 8. Map of conservation levels in the north region of the Sanctuary after considering the overlap of 

spatially explicit management. The dashed line denotes the boundary of California state waters.
22

Figure 9. Map of conservation levels in the central region of the Sanctuary after considering the overlap of 

spatially explicit management. The dashed line denotes the boundary of California state waters.
23

Figure 10. Map of conservation levels in the south region of the Sanctuary after considering the overlap of 

spatially explicit management. The dashed line denotes the boundary of California state waters.
24

One area of the Sanctuary received higher conservation scores as a result of the overlap analysis. 

The area surrounding Point Lobos, approximately 10 km southwest of Monterey had the highest 

overall conservation score after the overlap analysis (Figure 11). This area is overlapped with

several marine management areas: a large SMR, California state waters trawl closure, EFH, 

Point Lobos SR, Point Lobos Ecological Reserve ASBS, and a low-overflight restriction zone. 

While all of these marine management areas increased the conservation scores of each other dues 

to their proximity, only a small area of overlap is subject to regulations established by multiple 

agencies. 

Figure 11. Map of the marine management areas surrounding Point Lobos and the increase in conservation 

level due to the overlap of management areas.
25

The area with the lowest conservation level is near the north western boundary of the Sanctuary 

(Figure 12). This area is overlapped by the Sanctuary and the Recreational RCA, which increase

conservation level. However, this area also features several naval practice zones, and a military 

dumping zone. The explicit use scores of the naval practice zones and military dumping zone 

were subtracted from the conservation score of the Sanctuary and Recreational RCA, reducing 

the overall conservation scores and in turn conservation level within the area.

Figure 12. Map of the northwest region of the Sanctuary and the decrease in conservation levels due to 

overlap with explicit use areas.
26

Discussion

Our results indicate that despite the numerous and overlapping management areas present in the 

Sanctuary, the level of legal protection within the Sanctuary’s boundary is low, with less than 

1% of management areas within the Sanctuary receiving a conservation rank of high or mediumhigh. Nearshore state waters had higher conservation scores, primarily due to eleven nonextractive State Marine Reserves implemented as part of the MLPA process. Offshore, federal 

waters encompass larger management areas (such as Essential Fish Habitat closures) which offer 

little conservation potential because many were created to only manage single activities. While 

the goal of the Sanctuary is to “protect and manage ecological resources,” our study indicates 

that a sizable portion of the Sanctuary’s resources receive little legal protection.

The Sanctuary itself received a medium conservation score of 50 out of 100 independent of the 

other fifty management areas. This is largely because federal directives do not give the Sanctuary 

the authority to regulate either commercial or recreational fishing (NOAA 1992). Fishing has 

been identified as the primary anthropogenic factor contributing to the alteration of marine 

ecosystems worldwide (Jackson et al. 2001). Managing recreational, and most importantly,

commercial fisheries not only preserves scarce resources but also prevents ecosystem 

degradation (Tegner and Dayton 1999; Cardinale et al. 2011; Srinivasan et al. 2012). Therefore, 

Montara, Point Lobos, Point Sur, Big Creek, and Piedras Blancas State Marine Reserves all 

received a high conservation score of 82 out of 100 because, in addition to other management 

attributes, recreational and commercial fishing are prohibited within their boundaries.

While the smaller State Marine Reserves scored high (80-82) several large management areas 

such as Essential Fish Habitat and Rockfish Conservation Areas scored comparatively low (24-

40). This indicates that the effect of management area size is less influential on conservation 

potential when regulations are not comprehensive (Robb et al. 2011). To illustrate, the area of 

Essential Fish Habitat in the Sanctuary totals over 14,000 km2

, nearly 25% of the Sanctuary by 

area, but the overall conservation level within these areas was low. The low score was a 

consequence of the lack of regulations of extractive activities as well as their isolation, and 

therefore no additive conservation effects of adjacent spatial regulations. Similarly, the Rockfish 

Conservation Areas (trawl, non-trawl and recreational) are large in size but only regulate fishing 

by restricting a few specific types of fishing gear and are not permanent which decreases their 

contribution to conservation (Claudet et al. 2008). Our scoring system reflects research which 

has shown that partial restrictions on fishing activities in management areas do not have the same 

benefit to conservation as no-take reserves (Lester and Halpern 2008). Management areas in the 

Sanctuary that are larger are not more valuable for conservation if they do not provide an 

adequate level of protection for resources (Halpern 2003; Robb et al. 2011).

Three of the State Marine Conservation Areas (Edward F. Ricketts, Carmel Bay and Pacific 

Grove Marine Gardens) assessed as part of this study received the same score as the Sanctuary--

however for very different reasons. These three State Marine Conservation Areas are small, all 

less than 10km2

, and their regulations allow some extractive activities. So while the Sanctuary 

received a higher score for its large size, the State Marine Conservation Areas scores were higher 

due to some regulation of recreational and commercial fishing. Stricter management regulations 

that protect marine resources provide a larger benefit to conservation than a larger area that does 

not offer complete resource protection (Robb et al. 2011). 
27

This study was an assessment of the conservation level of management areas within the 

Sanctuary based on the established regulations, where the analysis was based solely on the text 

of those regulations and other physical attributes of MPA design. The purpose of this study was 

twofold: 1. Identify all marine management areas within the boundary of the Sanctuary and 2. 

Evaluate their independent and cumulative contribution to conservation based on a ranking 

system. We recognize that other social and economic factors, such as the level of enforcement 

within a given management area, or the magnitude and frequency of impactful activities, will 

greatly affect the actual level of conservation within the Sanctuary beyond just the legal 

regulations. However, this study did not seek to evaluate these social or economic factors 

because the data are often subjective, dynamic and therefore difficult to measure. This study also 

did not include land-based impacts such as pollution. Factors such as non-point source pollution 

from land-based sources highlight gaps in data because the impacts on the marine environment

have not been well studied throughout the Sanctuary. Including information on land based 

regulations and pollutants could improve an overview analysis of management within the 

Sanctuary. Because of the challenges of assessing the effect of multiple human stressors few 

studies have attempted to map numerous anthropogenic impacts. One study focusing on 25 

human impacts has been conducted on a broader scale for the entire California current (Halpern 

et al. 2009). However, this study differed from ours in that Halpern et al. (2009) evaluated 

impacts on multiple habitats on a pixel-by-pixel bases rather than evaluating established

management areas. Both analytical approaches have their advantages and for this study, we aim 

to provide information about existing management regimes by evaluating state and federal 

waters using marine management boundaries.

Ultimately, we hope that this study serves as a point of departure for a larger discussion about the 

relative level of protection in US waters in general, and in Sanctuaries in particular. Given the 

multiple management areas and agencies involved within the Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary (MBNMS), successful management will require the type of inter-agency cooperation

espoused by recent Federal coastal and marine spatial planning efforts. To this end, rather than 

being viewed as a condemnation of the MBNMS, we believe that the challenges identified in this 

study bring into clear relief the vital role that the MBNMS can carry out in the region. The 

MBNMS, with its consensus-based approach to management, is perfectly situated to orchestrate 

the multi-agency cooperation that successful management will require. Its unique facilitative role 

(Lindholm and Pavia 2010) will be central to any effort to implement marine spatial planning 

efforts in the area and the productive interaction between Sanctuaries and other agencies could 

serve as a model for moving forward with similar efforts nation-wide.
28

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Dr. Andrew DeVogelaere (MBNMS) for his valuable input 

during the formulation of our scoring criteria. We are also grateful to Ms. Sophie DeBeukelaer 

(MBNMS) for her insights on marine zones within the Sanctuary, as well as her comprehensive 

inventory of those zones available in GIS format. The contributions of three anonymous 

reviewers greatly improved the manuscript. This work was conducted as a collaborative class 

project by the ENVS 645 Advanced Marine Science and Policy class in the Coastal & Watershed 

Science and Policy graduate program at California State University Monterey Bay. 
29

Literature Cited

Auster, P.J., Langton, R.W. 1999. The effects of fishing on fish habitat. In: Fish Habitat:

Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation, editor L Benaka. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium, Bethesda Maryland. 150-187. 

Ballantine, W.J., Langlois, T.J. 2008. Marine reserves: The need for systems. Hydrobiologia

606:35–44. 

Bartholomew, A., Bohnsack, J.A., Smith, S.G., Ault, J.S., Harper, D.E., McClellan, D.B. 2007. 

Influence of marine reserve size and boundary length on the initial response of exploited 

reef fishes in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, USA. Landscape Ecology 23: 

55-65.

Boyd, S.E., Limpenny, D.S., Rees, H.L., Cooper, K.M. 2005. The effects of marine sand and 

gravel extraction on the macrobenthos at a commercial dredging site (results 6 years postdredging). ICES Journal of Marine Science 145-162. 

Brown, P.J., Talor, R.B. 1999. Effects of trampling by humans on animals inhabiting coraline 

algal turf in the rocky intertidal. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 

235(2): 45-53.

Byers, J.E., Noonburg, E.G. 2007. Poaching, enforcement, and the efficacy of marine reserves.

Ecological Applications 17: 1851-1856.

[CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2011. Ocean sport fishing regulations 2011-

2012. [Internet]. [Cited 10 Nov 2011]. Available from: 

http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=36328&inline=true

Cardinale, M., Nugroho, D., Jonson , P. 2011. Serial depletion of fishing grounds in an

unregulated, open access fishery. Fisheries Research 108(1): 106-111.

Christie, M.R., Tissot, B.N., Albin,s M.A., James, P.B., Jia, Y., Ortiz, D.M., Thompson, S.E.,

Hixon, M.A.2010. Larval connectivity in an effective network of marine protected areas. 

PLoS ONE 5(12): e15715, 1-8.

Cicin-Sain, B., Belfiore, S. 2005. Linking marine protected areas to integrated coastal and ocean

management: A review of theory and practice. Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 19.

Claudet, J., Osenberg, C.W., Benedetti-Cecchi, L., Domenici, P., Garcia-Charton, J.A., PerezRuzafa, A., Badalamenti, F., Bayle-Sempere, J., Brito, A., Bulleri, F., Culioli, J.M., 

Dimech, M., Falcon, J.M., Guala, I., Milazzo, M., Sanchez-Meca, J., Somerfield, P.J., 

Stobart, B., Vandeperre, F., Valle, C., Planes, S. 2008. Marine reserves: size and age do 

matter. Ecology Letters 11: 481-489.
30

Claudet, J., Lenfant, P., Schrimm, M. 2010. Snorkelers impact on fish communities and algae in

a temperate marine protected area. Biodiversity Conservation 19: 1649-1558.

Coleman, F.C., Figueira, W.F., Ueland JS, Crowder LB. 2004. The impact of United States

recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. Science 305: 1958-1960.

Crowder, L.B., Osherenko, G., Young, O.R., Airame, S., Norse, E.A., Baron, N., Day, J.C., 

Douvere, F., Ehler, N., Halpern, B.S., Langdon, S.J., McLeod, K.L., Ogden, J.C., 

Peach, R.E., Rosenberg, A.A.,Wilson, J.A. 2006. Resolving mismatches in US ocean 

governance. Science 313: 617-618. 

Dayton, P.K., Thrush, S., Coleman, F.C. 2002. Ecological effect of fishing in marine ecosystems

of the United States. Report to the Pew Oceans Commission. Available from: 

http://conserveonline.org/library/testE.pdf

Duffy, J.E., Stachowicz, J.J. 2006. Why biodiversity is important to oceanography: potential 

roles of genetic, species, and trophic diversity in pelagic ecosystem processes. Marine 

Ecological Progress Series 311: 179-189.

Dunlop, E.S., Baskett, M.L., Heino, M., Dieckmann, U. 2009. Propensity of marine reserves to 

reduce the evolutionary effects of fishing in migratory species. Evolutionary Applications 

2(3): 371-393.

[EPA/USACE]. 1978. Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers Technical

Committee on criteria for dredged and fill material, ecological evaluation of proposed 

discharge of dredged material into ocean waters. Implementation Manual for Section 103 

of Public Law 92-532 (Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972). July 

1977 (2nd printing April 1978). Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Ekstorm, J.A., Young, O.R., Gaines, S.D., Gordon, M., McCay, B.J. 2009. A tool to navigate 

overlaps in fragmented ocean governance. Marine Poilcy 33(3): 532-353.

Erftmeijer, P.L.A., Lewis, R.R.R. 2006. Environmental impacts of dredging on seagrasses: A

review.Marine Pollution Bulletin 52: 1553-1572. 

Gleason, M.G., Merrifield, M.S., Cook, C., Davenport, A.L., Shaw, R. 2006. Assessing gaps in

marine conservation in California. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(5): 249-

258.

Grigg, R.W. 1994. Effects of sewage discharge, fishing pressure and habitat complexity on coral

ecosystems and reef fishes in Hawaii. Marine Ecology Progress Series 103: 25-34.
31

Grorud-Colvert, K., Lester, S.E., Airame, S., Neeley, E., Gaines, S.D. 2010. Communicating 

marine reserve science to diverse audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Science 107(43): 18306-18311.

Halpern, B. 2003. The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does size matter?

Ecological Applications 13(1): S117-S137.

Heimbuch, D.G., Dunning, D.J., Ross, Q.E., Blumberg, A.F. Assessing potential effects of 

entrainment and impingement on fish stocks of the New York-New Jersey harbor estuary 

and Long Island sound. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136: 492-508.

Hutchings, J., Reynolds, J.D. 2004. Marine fish population collapses: Consequences for recovery 

and extinction risk. Bioscience 54(4): 297-309. 

Ihde, .TF., Wilber, M.J., Loewensteiner, D.A., Secor, D.H., Miller, T.J. 2010. The increasing 

importance of marine recreational fishing in the US: Challenges for management. 

Fisheries Research 108(2-3): 268-276.

Jackson, J.B.C., Kirby, M.X., Berger, W.H., Bjorndal, K.A., Botsford, L.W., Bourque, B.J.,

Bradbury, R.H., Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes, J.A., Hughes, T.P., Kidwell, S., Lange,

C.B., Lenihan, H.S., Pandoll, J.M., Peterson, C.H., Steneck, R.S., Tegner, M.J., Warner,

R.R. 2001 Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 

293: 629-638.

Kinlan, B.P., Gaines, S.D. 2003. Propagule dispersal in marine and terrestrial environments: a

community perspective. Ecology 84(8): 2007-2020.

Lester, S.E., Halpern, B.S. 2008. Biological responses in marine no-take reserves versus partially

protected areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series 367: 49–56.

Le Quesne, W.J.F. 2009. Are flawed MPAs any good or just a new way of making old mistakes? 

ICES Journal of Marine Science 66: 132–136.

Levin, P.S., Holmes, E.E., Piner, K.R., Harvey, C.J. 2006. Shifts in a Pacific Ocean fish

assemblage: The potential influence of exploitation. Conservation Biology 20(4): 1181–

1190.

Lindholm JB, Auster PJ. Ruth M. Kaufman L. 2001. Modeling the effects of fishing and

implications for the design of marine protected areas: juvenile fish response to various

seafloor habitat. Conservation Biology 15(2): 424-437.

Lindholm, J. and R. Pavia (Eds). 2010. Examples of ecosystem-based management in national

marine sanctuaries: moving from theory to practice. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation 

Series ONMS-10-02. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 33pp.
32

[MLPA] Marine Life Protection Act. California Fish & Game Code 2850-2863. Amended July

2004. 

Moffitt EA, White JW, Botsford LW. 2011. The utility and limitations of size and spacing

guidelines for designing marine protected area (MPA) networks. Biological Conservation 

144: 306-318.

Myers RA, Worm B. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature

423: 280-283. 

Nairn R, Johnson JA, Hardin D, Michel J. 2004. A biological and physical monitoring program

to evaluate long-term impacts from sand dredging operations in the United States outer 

continental shelf. Journal of Coastal Research 20(1): 126-137. 

[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Designation document Section 

304(a)(4) of the Sanctuaries Act. 1992. [Internet] [cited 25 November 2011]. Available 

from: http://montereybay.noaa.gov/intro/mp/archive/original_eis/appendixB_sII.html

[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2007. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, as amended through January12th 2007. [Internet]. 

[cited 15 Nov 2011]. Available from: 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/sfd/MSA_amended_20070112_FINAL.pdf

Norse EA, Crowder LB (Eds). 2005. Marine conservation biology: The science of maintaining

the sea's biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

[ONMS] Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. 2011. Facilitating research in Monterey Bay

National Marine Sanctuary: Summary of the 2010 workshop to inform the ecosystembased management initiative. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-11-06. 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery. 50CFR Part 660.360. September 2, 2011.

Peterson CH, Rice SD, Short JW, Esler D, Bodkin JL, Ballachey BE, Irons DB. 2003. Long-term

ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science 302: 2082-2086. 

Piatt, J.F., Lensink, C.J., Butler, W., Kendziorek, M., Nysewander, D.R. 1990. Immediate impact 

of the 'Exxon Valdez' Oil Spill on marine birds. The Auk 107(2): 387-397.

Recchia, C., Farady, S., Sobel, J., Cinner, J. 2001. Marine and coastal protected areas in the 

United States Gulf of Maine Region. Baltimore: Reese Press; p.1-98.

Robb, C.K., Bodtker, K.M., Wright, K., Lash, J. 2011. Commercial fisheries closures in marine 

protected areas on Canada's Pacific coast: The exception, not the rule. Marine Policy 

35(3): 309-316.
33

Rogers, C.S., Miller, J. 2006. Permanent ‘phase shifts’ or reversible declines in coral cover?

Lack of recovery of two coral reefs in St. John, US Virgin Islands. Marine Ecological 

Progress Series 306: 103-114.

Ruckelshaus, M., Klinger, T., Knowlton, N., DeMaster, D.P. 2008. Management in practice: 

scientific and governance challenges. BioScience 58(1): 53-63.

Schaeffer, T.N., Foster, M.S., Landrau, M.E., Walder, R.K. 1999. Diver disturbance in kelp

forests. Environmental Science 85(4): 170-176

Schroeder, D.M., Love, M.S. 2002. Recreational fishing and marine fish populations in

California.CalCOFI Report Vol. 43.

Simonetta, F., Paolo, D., Florenza, M., Pizzolanta, F., Bussotti, S., Terlizzi, A. Design of marine 

protected areas in a human-dominated seascape. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 375: 

13-24.

Smith, J.R., Fong, P., Ambrose, R.F. 2008. The impacts of human visitation on mussel bed 

communities along the California coast: are regulatory marine reserves effective in 

protection these communities? Environmental Management 41(4): 599-612.

Srinivasan, U.T., Watson, R., Sumaila, U.R. 2012. Global fisheries losses at the exclusive 

Economic zone level, 1950 to present. Marine Policy 36(2): 544-549.

[SWRCB] State Water Resources Control Board. 2011. California Areas of Special Biological

Significance [Internet]. [cited 2011 November 9]. Available from: 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/asbs_map.shtml.

Tegner, M.J., Dayton, P.K. 1999. Ecosystem effects of fishing. Trends in Ecology and Evolution

14: 261–262.

Thurstan, R.H., Hawkins, J.P., Neves, L., Roberts, C.M. 2012. Are marine reserves and nonConsumptive activities compatible? A global analysis of marine reserve regulations. 

Marine Policy 36(5): 1096-1104.

Yoklavich, M.M., Greene, H.G., Cailliet, G.M., Sullivan, D.E., Lea, R.N., Love, M.S. 2000.

Habitat associations of deep-water rockfishes in a submarine canyon: an example of a 

natural refuge. Fishery Bulletin 98(3): 625-641. 

Young, O.R., Osherenko, G., Ekstorm, J., Crowder, L.B., Ogden, J., Wilson, J.A., Day, J.C., 

Douvere, F., Egler, C.N., McLeod, K.L., Halpern, B.S., Peach, R. 2007. Solving the crisis 

in ocean governance place-based management of marine ecosystems. Environment 49(4): 

20-32
34

Appendix 1. Management areas and their individuals scores for each of the nine criteria. The 51 

management areas are listed in order of total score, from highest to lowest.

Final Score

Permanence

Size Category (Km2

)

Commercial Fishing 

Prohibited?

Recreational Fishing 

Prohibited?

Dredging 

Prohibited?

Intake/ Discharge?

Prohibited?

Oil and Gas 

Non-Extractive 

Prohibited?

Adjacency to Other 

Protected Areas?

Big Creek SMR 82 20 4 30 16 0 0 0 4 8

Montara SMR 82 20 4 30 16 0 0 0 4 8

Piedras Blancas SMR 82 20 4 30 16 0 0 0 4 8

Point Lobos SMR 82 20 4 30 16 0 0 0 4 8

Point Sur SMR 82 20 4 30 16 0 0 0 4 8

Asilomar SMR 80 20 2 30 16 0 0 0 4 8

Carmel Pinnacles SMR 80 20 2 30 16 0 0 0 4 8

Elkhorn Slough NERR 80 20 2 30 16 0 0 0 4 8

Elkhorn Slough SMR 80 20 2 30 16 0 0 0 4 8

Lovers Point SMR 80 20 2 30 16 0 0 0 4 8

Point Lobos SR 80 20 2 30 16 0 0 0 4 8

Egg Rock to Devil's Slide 

Special Closure 76 20 2 30 16 0 0 0 4 4

Moro Cojo Slough SMR 76 20 2 30 16 0 0 0 4 4

Natural Bridges SMR 76 20 2 30 16 0 0 0 4 4

Elkhorn Slough SMCA 70 20 2 30 6 0 0 0 4 8

Cambria SMCA 66 20 4 30 0 0 0 0 4 8

Ano Nuevo SMCA 62 20 4 10 16 0 0 0 4 8

Big Creek SMCA 52 20 4 10 6 0 0 0 4 8

Greyhound Rock SMCA 52 20 4 10 6 0 0 0 4 8

Piedras Blancas SMCA 52 20 4 10 6 0 0 0 4 8

Pillar Point SMCA 52 20 4 10 6 0 0 0 4 8

Point Lobos SMCA 52 20 4 10 6 0 0 0 4 8

Point Sur SMCA 52 20 4 10 6 0 0 0 4 8

Portuguese Ledge SMCA 52 20 4 10 6 0 0 0 4 8

Soquel Canyon SMCA 52 20 4 10 6 0 0 0 4 8

Carmel Bay SMCA 50 20 2 10 6 0 0 0 4 8

Edward F. Ricketts SMCA 50 20 2 10 6 0 0 0 4 8

Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary 50 20 10 0 0 3 2 3 4 8

Pacific Grove Marine Gardens 

SMCA 50 20 2 10 6 0 0 0 4 8
35

EFH 2 (Big Sur Coast/Port San 

Luis) 48 20 10 10

000008

EFH 2 (Monterey Bay/Canyon) 48 20 10 10000008

James V. Fitzgerald Marine 

Reserve ASBS 48 20

2 10602008

State Waters trawl closures 48 20 10 10000008

Julia Pfeiffer Burns SP 

(underwater area) 47 20

2 10030048

EFH 2 (Half Moon Bay) 44 20 10 10000004

CA Sea Otter Game Refuge 42 20 100000048

Overflight Restriction (Moss 

Landing) 42 20 10

0000048

Overflight Restriction (North 

Bay) 42 20 10

0000048

Overflight Restriction (South 

Site) 42 20 10

0000048

EFH 1 (Davidson Seamount) 40 20 10 10000000

EFH 2 (Point Sur Deep) 40 20 10 10000000

Pacific Grove Marine Gardens 

Fish Refuge and Hopkins 

Marine Life Refuge ASBS


35 2020032008

Ano Nuevo Point & Island 

ASBS 34 20

40002008

Carmel Bay ASBS 32 2020002008

Julia Pfeiffer Burns 

Underwater Park ASBS 32 20

20002008

Point Lobos Ecological 

Reserve ASBS 32 20

20002008

Salmon Creek ASBS 32 2020002008

Federal trawl closure at 700 

fathoms 28

0 10 10000008

Non-Trawl RCA 280 10 10000008

Trawl RCA 280 10 10000008

Recreational RCA 240 100600008
36

Appendix 2. Management areas and their regulations pertaining to each of the nine criteria. The 51 management areas are listed in order of total score, 

from highest to lowest.

Final Score

Permanent

Size Category (Km2

)

Commercial Fishing 

Prohibited?

Recreational Fishing 

Prohibited?

Dredging Prohibited?

Intake/ Discharge Prohibited?

Oil and Gas Prohibited?

Non-Extractive Uses 

Prohibited?

Adjacency to Other Protected 

Areas?

Big Creek SMR 82 Yes 10-100

All. Take of all living marine 

resources is prohibited.

All. Take of all living 

marine resources is 

prohibited. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Montara SMR 82 Yes 10-100

All. Take of all living marine 

resources is prohibited.

All. Take of all living 

marine resources is 

prohibited. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Piedras Blancas 

SMR 82 Yes 10-100

All. Take of all living marine 

resources is prohibited.

All. Take of all living 

marine resources is 

prohibited. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Point Lobos SMR 82 Yes 10-100

All. Take of all living marine 

resources is prohibited.

All. Take of all living 

marine resources is 

prohibited. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. Restrictions on 

boating and diving. 

Shares 

boundary

Point Sur SMR 82 Yes 10-100

All. Take of all living marine 

resources is prohibited.

All. Take of all living 

marine resources is 

prohibited. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Asilomar SMR

80 Yes 0-9.99

All. Take of all living marine 

resources is prohibited.

All. Take of all living 

marine resources is 

prohibited. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary
37

Carmel Pinnacles 

SMR 80 Yes 0-9.99

All. Take of all living marine 

resources is prohibited.

All. Take of all living 

marine resources is 

prohibited. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Elkhorn Slough 

National Estuarine 

Research Reserve 80 Yes 0-9.99

All commercial fishing 

prohibited.

All recreational fishing 

prohibited. No No No

Some. Pets, camping, 

biking, riding, boating, 

and fishing are 

prohibited. 

Shares 

boundary

Elkhorn Slough 

SMR 80 Yes 0-9.99

All. Take of all living marine 

resources is prohibited.

All. Take of all living 

marine resources is 

prohibited. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Lovers Point SMR 80 Yes 0-9.99

All. Take of all living marine 

resources is prohibited.

All. Take of all living 

marine resources is 

prohibited. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Point Lobos SR 80 Yes 0-9.99

All. Commercial fishing 

prohibited.

All. Recreational fishing 

prohibited. No No No

Some. No pets. Diving is 

limited. No introduction 

of new species or 

feeding animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Egg Rock to Devil's 

Slide special 

closure 76 Yes 0-9.99

All. Only government employees 

allowed to enter.

All. Only government 

employees allowed to 

enter. No No No

Some. Only government 

employees allowed 

access. 

Within 

10km

Moro Cojo Slough 

SMR 76 Yes 0-9.99

All. Take of all living marine 

resources is prohibited.

All. Take of all living 

marine resources is 

prohibited. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Within 

10km

Natural Bridges 

SMR 76 Yes 0-9.99

All. Take of all living marine 

resources is prohibited.

All. Take of all living 

marine resources is 

prohibited. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Within 

10km

Elkhorn Slough 

SMCA 70 Yes 0-9.99

All. Take of all living marine 

resources is prohibited.

Some. Take of finfish by 

hook-and-line and clams 

allowed. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary 
38

Cambria SMCA 66 Yes 10-100

All. Take of all living marine 

resources is prohibited.

None. All recreational take 

is allowed. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Ano Nuevo SMCA 62 Yes 10-100

Some. Commercial giant kelp 

harvest by hand allowed.

All. Take of all living 

marine resources is 

prohibited. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Big Creek SMCA 52 Yes 10-100

Some. Take of all living marine 

resources is prohibited except 

the commercial take of salmon, 

albacore and spot prawn.

Some. Recreational take 

of salmon and albacore 

allowed. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Greyhound Rock 

SMCA 52 Yes 10-100

Some. Only the following species 

may be taken commercially. 

giant kelp (by hand harvest only), 

salmon, and squid. 

Some. The following 

species may be taken 

recreationally. giant kelp 

(by hand harvest only), 

squid, salmon,

and, by hook-and-line from 

shore only, other finfish. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Pillar Point SMCA 52 Yes 10-100

Some. The commercial take of 

pelagic finfish* with troll fishing 

gear or seine, Dungeness crab 

by trap and market squid by 

round haul net.

Some. Recreational take 

of pelagic finfish by 

trolling, Dungeness crab by 

trap and squid by handheld dip net allowed. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Point Lobos SMCA 52 Yes 10-100

Some. Allows commercial take 

of salmon, albacore and spot 

prawn.

Some. Allows recreational 

take of salmon and 

albacore. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Point Sur SMCA 52 Yes 10-100

Some. All take prohibited except 

for salmon and albacore.

Some. all take is prohibited 

except for salmon and 

albacore No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary
39

Portuguese Ledge 

SMCA 52 Yes 10-100

Some. Take of all marine aquatic 

plants, invertebrates and finfish 

prohibited, except pelagic finfish. 

Some. No take of marine 

aquatic plants or 

invertebrates. Hook & line 

for pelagic finfish is 

allowed. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Soquel Canyon 

SMCA 52 Yes 10-100

Some. Take of pelagic finfish 

allowed.

Some. take of pelagic 

finfish allowed No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Carmel Bay SMCA 50 Yes 0-9.99

Some. Bull kelp and giant kelp 

allowed. 

Some. Take of finfish by 

hook & line prohibited. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Edward Ricketts 

SMCA 50 Yes 0-9.99

Some. Bull kelp and giant kelp 

allowed. 

Some. Take of finfish by 

hook & line prohibited. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

Monterey Bay 

National Marine 

Sanctuary 50 Yes >100 None None Yes Yes Yes

Some. Aircraft, 

watercraft and species 

introductions are 

regulated. 

Shares 

boundary

Pacific Grove 

Marine Gardens 

SMCA 50 Yes 0-9.99

Some. Allows commercial take 

of giant and bull kelp by hand. 

Some. Allows recreational 

take of finfish. No No No

Some. No introduction of 

new species or feeding 

animals. 

Shares 

boundary

EFH 2 

(Big Sur Coast/ Port 

San Luis) 48 Yes >100

Some. Prohibited, except for 

demersal purse seiners. None No No No None

Shares 

boundary

EFH 2 

(Monterey 

Bay/Canyon) 48 Yes >100

Some. Prohibited, except for 

demersal purse seiners. None No No No None

Shares 

boundary

James M Fitzgerald 

Marine Reserve 

ASBS 48 Yes 0-9.99

 Some. Take of mollusks, 

crustaceans and other 

invertebrates prohibited. 

 Some. Finfish may be 

taken by hook and line or 

spearfishing. No Yes No None

Shares 

boundary
40

State Waters trawl 

closures 48 Yes >100

Some. Use of bottom trawl gear 

is prohibited in state waters and 

all of Monterey Bay. None. No No No None

Shares 

boundary

Julia Pfeiffer Burns 

State Park 

(underwater park) 47 Yes 0-9.99

Some. Some invertebrate species 

may be taken commercially. 

Some. Some invertebrate 

species may be taken 

recreationally. No take of 

marine plants. Yes No No

Some. Scuba, hanggliding or parachuting 

restricted.

Shares 

boundary

EFH 2 

(Half Moon Bay) 44 Yes >100

Some. Prohibited, except for 

demersal purse seiners. None No No No None

Within 

10km

CA Sea Otter Game 

Refuge 42 Yes >100 None None No No No

Some. Overflight lower 

than 1000ft restricted.

Shares 

boundary

Overflight 

Restriction 

(Moss Landing) 42 Yes >100 None None No No No

Some. Overflight lower 

than 1000ft restricted.

Shares 

boundary

Overflight 

Restriction 

(North Bay) 42 Yes >100 None None No No No

Some. Overflight lower 

than 1000ft restricted.

Shares 

boundary

Overflight 

Restriction (South 

Sanctuary) 42 Yes >100 None None No No No

Some. Overflight lower 

than 1000ft restricted.

Shares 

boundary

EFH 1 

(Davidsons 

Seamount) 40 Yes >100

Some. Commercial vessels 

fishing with bottom-contact gear 

or other gear deployed deeper 

than 500 fathoms are prohibited. None No No No None

Farther 

than 

10km

EFH 2 

(Point Sur Deep) 40 Yes >100

Some. Prohibited, except for 

demersal purse seiners. None No No No None

Farther 

than 

10km

Pacific Grove 

Marine Gardens 

Fish Refuge and 

Hopkins Marine 

Life Refuge ASBS 35 Yes 0-9.99 None None Yes Yes No None

Shares 

boundary
41

Ano Nuevo Point 

and Island ASBS 34 Yes 10-100 None None No Yes No None

Shares 

boundary

Carmel Bay ASBS 32 Yes 0-9.99 None None No Yes No None

Shares 

boundary

Julia Pfeiffer Burns 

Underwater Park 

ASBS 32 Yes 0-9.99 None None No Yes No None

Shares 

boundary

Point Lobos 

Ecological Reserve 

ASBS 32 Yes 0-9.99 None None No Yes No None

Shares 

boundary

Salmon Creek 

ASBS 32 Yes 0-9.99 None None No Yes No None

Shares 

boundary

Federal trawl 

closure at 700 

fathoms 28 No >100

Some. Bottom trawl prohibited 

between 700 fathoms (1280 

meters) and 1094 fathoms (3500 

meters). None No No No None

Shares 

boundary

Non Trawl RCA 28 No >100

Some. All gear prohibited, except 

for bottom-trawl gear. None No No No None

Shares 

boundary

Trawl RCA 28 No >100

 Some. Bottom trawl gear 

prohibited. None No No No None

Shares 

boundary

Recreational RCA 24 No >100 None

All. Restricts recreational 

fishing to 40 fathoms south 

of Pillar Point and 30 

fathoms above it. No No No None

Shares 

boundary