Sim n o Says TRACKING THE HEALTH OF OUR SANCTUARY Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary INSIDE Welcome to the second issue of SIMoN Says, the As part of the sanctuary’s research program, SIMoN voice of the Sanctuary Integrated Monitoring staff also plans and implements various monitoring 1 Introduction Network (SIMoN). A program of the Monterey activities that result in an enhanced understanding Bay National Marine Sanctuary, SIMoN’s purpose of the biological and physical factors of protected 2 MPAs is to fund and track Sanctuary monitoring programs areas. These activities include nearshore rocky reef along the central and northern California coastline surveys along the Big Sur coast, habitat characteri- 3 Seasonal Upwelling and to synthesize and present the research to scien- zation surveys of the continental shelf and fish habi- tists and the public. This issue focuses on monitor- tat surveys of deep rocky shelf and slope habitats. ing efforts that are influencing processes to estab- 4 Habitat More information on SIMoN’s role in sanctuary lish new marine protected areas - one of the most monitoring, including these specific projects, can be significant marine management efforts in central found at http://mbnms-simon.org. 5 biodiversity and northern California since the sanctuary’s desig- nation in 1992. WHAT’S INSIDE 6 Synopsis PROTECTED AREAS IN THE SANCTUARY This issue of SIMoN Says highlights important fac- tors used in designating MPAs, including physical “Marine protected area” (MPA) is a broad term 8 SIMoN Web Site ocean conditions, habitat distribution, biodiversity describing a managed area in the marine environ- and monitoring of protected areas. This issue will ment that provides some level of resource protec- answer many questions regarding MPAs, including: tion. MPAs are established as a means to protect the marine environment - from preserving existing • How does a major oceanographic condition, organisms and habitat to promoting the re-establish- such as upwelling, affect MPAs? (See p. 3) ment of absent species. The sanctuary is a federal • What is the significance of bottom habitat in MPA, but there are also MPAs within it that provide establishing MPAs? (See p. 4) additional protection measures. • How do decision makers know the location of HOW IS SIMON INVOLVED? high biodiversity areas? Why is biodiversity The sanctuary actively funds and participates in important? (See p. 5) monitoring efforts that focus on marine protected In addition, this issue provides an update on the areas. Each year, SIMoN releases requests for pro- SIMoN web site, an online resource with detailed posals for new monitoring programs. After an information about the sanctuary’s natural history extensive scientific review process, SIMoN funds and the research and monitoring that takes place selected proposals and makes the data and findings here. Visit http://mbnms-simon.org for more infor- available through its web site and this publication. mation. Rosy rockfish (Sebastes rosaceus), giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera), and opalescent nudibranch (Hermissenda crassicornis). MONTEREY BAY SANCTUARY FOUNDATION Photos: MBNMS Sim n MARINE PROTECTED AREAS o Says As a management tool, a marine protected area (MPA) may employ a range of strate- gies to protect the marine environment, including prohibiting marine life harvest- ing, allowing take of selected species or restricting other kinds of human activities. Besides having different levels of protec- tion and use, MPAs vary dramatically in size and shape, protect a range of natural or cultural resources and are established under a variety of authorities (Figure 1). The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) is an MPA itself: some human activities that are potentially harmful to the sanctuary's health - such as oil drilling, ocean discharges or seabed mining - are restricted or prohibited in sanctuary waters. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF MPAS? Scientific research has shown that careful- ly crafted MPAs - particularly those that restrict or prohibit the removal of marine life - can be effective tools for conserving plant and animal diversity, protecting habi- tats and increasing both numbers and indi- Figure 1. Map of existing marine protected areas in the Monterey Bay and Gulf of vidual sizes of some species. A well- Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries. designed MPA, in which the removal or ments requesting greater ecosystem pro- habitats, populations and ecological alteration of marine life is prohibited or tection for the MBNMS by establishing a processes. When a need is identified, the restricted, generally contains greater network of MPAs. sanctuary will design potential MPA net- species abundance, higher species diversi- works with these goals in mind. The sanctuary is considering the need for ty and larger fishes within its boundaries new MPAs and their potential locations for MPA ACTION PLAN relative to similar habitats outside the pro- several reasons: tected area. As part of the JMPR process, a ‘Marine • To restore naturally functioning ecosys- Protected Areas Action Plan’ was devel- In some cases, these larger fishes produce tems and ecological health in sanctuary oped jointly with a working group com- many more young than smaller fishes do. waters prised of a variety of stakeholders and Studies on larger, older female rockfish partners in order to ensure community have shown that their larvae are healthier • To provide areas where marine research involvement in the decision-making and more likely to survive than larvae and monitoring can occur apart from process. Sanctuary staff have been meet- from younger females. These protected the extraction of animals and plants ing regularly with stakeholders, including areas are a useful tool for preventing, • To provide ecological 'insurance' environmental representatives, researchers, slowing or reversing the degradation of against environmental variability and fishermen, fisheries managers, harbor mas- ocean habitats and maintaining the diversi- unintentional mismanagement ters, divers and others since 2002. Staff ty and abundance of species inhabiting are also working closely with the State of them. The sanctuary’s broad goal is to determine if additional MPAs, in which the removal California in the Marine Life Protection WHY ARE WE CONSIDERING or alteration of marine life is restricted or Act process (see p. 5.), and they plan to NEW MPAS? prohibited, may play a role in effective address this issue in offshore, federal waters at a later date. During the scoping period of the Joint marine conservation and sanctuary man- Management Plan Review (JMPR), the agement. With partners, the sanctuary will For more information, visit the sanctuary National Marine Sanctuary Program evaluate whether additional MPAs can web site at http://montereybay.noaa.gov. received approximately 7,000 public com- help protect, restore or enhance natural 2 TRAC KING THE HEALTH OF OUR SANCTUARY Sim n o Says SEASONAL UPWELLING Typically, spring is an upwelling season - of March through May from 1985 to 2004 negative effects throughout the pelagic and when northwesterly winds blow along the allow stakeholders in the MPA process to coastal food webs (Figure 2). coastline, driving warm surface waters off- determine ‘hot-spots’ where upwelling is Observations during the 2005 relaxed shore which are replaced with cold, nutri- typically high. Some of the potential ‘hot- spring-time upwelling included: ent-rich subsurface water. Coupled with spots’ include areas near Año Nuevo, Point increasing amounts of sunlight, these cold Sur (on the Big Sur coast) and Soquel • Krill: researchers from the Center for waters allow phytoplankton (single-celled Point (in Santa Cruz). Integrated Marine Technologies (CIMT) plants) to bloom in the Monterey Bay recorded May 2005 as the lowest month National Marine Sanctuary and along LATENT UPWELLING OF 2005 for juvenile krill recruitment since 1998 (a much of the West Coast of the United Oceanographic conditions such as 10-fold decrease from the long-term aver- States and Canada. Zooplankton, such as upwelling do not always adhere to their age). krill, respond to these phytoplankton typical patterns. Oceanographers and • Fisheries: NOAA Fisheries encountered blooms and also dramatically increase, marine ecologists noticed an example of the fewest pelagic juvenile rockfishes in leading to an abundance of food for larger this by July 2005, as information was the 23 years of its May-June mid-water predators, such as fishes, birds and whales. compiled from disparate monitoring pro- trawl survey. grams. The various data sets indicated TYPICAL UPWELLING YEARS • Seabirds: the Beach COMBERS program that sea surface temperatures were abnor- reported that malnutrition and emaciation The patterns of upwelling conditions - mally high in April, May and June (0.5- due to the reduction in juvenile fish caused including their frequency, duration and any 1.5° C warmer than average) - particularly an increase in beach strandings and mor- persistent location - are important in con- close to shore along central California. tality and a decrease in nesting success of sidering the establishment of marine pro- Since the prevailing winds were relatively some seabirds. tected areas (MPAs). Through the use of weak or absent, upwelling was diminished, NOAA satellites, ocean observing pro- Abnormal upwelling events such as these grams track seasonal upwelling patterns. so less of the colder, nutrient-rich water are difficult to factor into the MPA desig-