Adapting Marine Protected Areas to Better Serve All Californians
Fish On’s Recommendations for California MPA Petitions
Diver exploring Pt. Dume State Marine Reserve. Photo: D. Malana
Though Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are not a fishery management tool, they have consistently shown positive benefits for fish and fishers around the world. With climate change, biodiversity loss and other emerging threats to the ocean and marine ecosystems, MPAs are a critical tool to protect life in the ocean and the future for us who depend on it.
California’s MPA Network is young, but proving effective. It will likely be another decade or more before we have a good grasp on the full extent of its impacts, but we do have a sense of some of the gaps. Luckily, “adaptive management” was included in the law that established the MPA Network in the first place. This means we have an opportunity to address issues as they come to light and adapt the rules so our Network can better serve people and planet. From small tweaks like colors on a map so that it’s easier to understand which MPAs are no-take, to potential new and expanded MPAs as advancements in science and technology improve our ability to understand the environment and impacts from climate change, adaptive management is the cornerstone of effective conservation policy.
We would have preferred an overarching proposal from the state—using updated ecological data and the information collected from a decade of monitoring California’s MPAs—to address gaps in the Network, equity oversights and adapt it to better serve our coasts and communities. Instead, it was up to members of the public to pull together proposals in a short time frame in hopes of addressing some of the more noticeable gaps. Though many of these petitions to expand and strengthen California’s MPA Network have clear, robust data behind them, it creates the impression that they are not scientifically backed because they are coming from public interest organizations. We hope that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Fish and Game Commission (FGC) will review these proposals fairly and with current and future challenges in mind. And we hope they will entertain a more comprehensive review to meaningfully adapt the Network when future opportunities for MPA adaptive management arise. This first decadal review is at risk of being a missed opportunity by the state, and a disservice to Californians and our beloved marine ecosystems if meaningful action isn’t taken.
Fish On’s Guiding Principles for Proposed MPA Network Changes
Equity and environmental justice
California’s MPA Network was created with extensive stakeholder engagement, however many communities were excluded. Subsistence fishing communities and many nearshore fisheries that shore-based fishers depend on are not considered in broader ocean or fishery management. Updates to the network should enhance equitable ocean access for these and other marginalized communities, including Tribes. MPAs are a tool to support environmental justice; the state has an opportunity to mitigate past harms and we urge the Fish and Game Commission to prioritize the needs and potential benefits to those marginalized from decision-making.
Climate resilience
Climate change was not a consideration in the design of the current MPA Network. Though the Network has shown to support the resilience of California’s marine ecosystems through the stresses of the last decade—like the marine heat wave—there is a critical need to enhance the Network to protect species and biodiversity through future uncertainties. MPAs are an insurance policy and an important backstop to potential failures of fishery management as ocean conditions become more unpredictable. Strengthening the MPA Network for climate resilience also supports more equitable use and recreation for future generations of Californians.
Science and understanding
There is a lot we don’t know about the ocean, and climate change is adding uncertainty to what we do know. MPAs are a living laboratory that can help us understand how marine ecosystems function, and how they are impacted by climate change. This enhanced knowledge supports better fishery management and can help us continue to adapt the MPA Network to better serve everyone in the future. The Network should also be seen as an opportunity to reconnect California’s Indigenous communities with their native waters, restore Tribal stewardship, and better understand how to incorporate this type of traditional ecological knowledge into future decision-making.
Recommendations for FGC Action on Marine Protected Area Petitions
We are open to more community input on the position statements below. Please reach out if you’d like to contribute additional on-the-water insight or knowledge to these recommendations. We’d particularly like to hear from folks near Monterey, Pt. Sal, Laguna Beach and Pt. Conception.
Email us: fishon.conservation@gmail.com
-
There has been significant decline in kelp along much of the California coast and evidence of urchin barrens. However, the petitioners make no distinction between red and purple urchins in their justification. It is our understanding that much of the commercial urchin fishery is focused on red urchins, but it is the abundance of purple urchins that has contributed to the kelp decline cited in the petition. The lack of species distinction in the reasoning to open these nine MPAs to commercial activity seems misleading. Furthermore, sea urchins collected from barren areas are unlikely to meet the quality standards to be commercially viable.
The petitioners did not provide any supporting data for the claim that these nine MPAs have had a significant negative impact on the urchin fishery, nor data on urchin abundance within these MPAs that could be used to do a cost-benefit analysis. This information would be helpful to understand how much the fishery would truly benefit from opening such a small percentage of state waters to commercial activity.
MPAs are a living laboratory that can help us understand how climate change is impacting the marine environment. Having areas with limited intervention, especially in the form of commercial extractive uses, will help us better understand to what extent MPAs support kelp resilience, how kelp is responding to climate change and, as a result, inform more meaningful adaptive management of our MPAs in the future.
-
The Channel Islands State Marine Reserves (SMRs) and Federal Marine Reserves are among the biggest, oldest and most effective MPAs in the country, offering critical information on MPA outcomes with global implications for conservation efforts. While we support science-backed opportunities to enhance recreational fishing, we believe maintaining these areas as no-take reserves is best for our fisheries, coastal habitats and communities. These areas are difficult to access and opening them will only benefit a limited number of individuals who may already reach a wide swath of offshore waters by boat. The broader benefits of maintaining these SMRs to ecological health, scientific study, enhanced fishery management and global MPA best practices outweigh the limited potential benefits of reclassifying and weakening these areas.
The petitioners provided no data showing that these closed areas have had a significant negative impact on the fisheries referenced. The same reasons cited to open these MPAs to highly migratory species are also the reasons why we believe it is unnecessary to do so. Given the highly migratory nature of these species, and the fact that these areas are only accessible by boat, those that would fish in these SMRs can simply fish for those species outside of the protected region. There is also no guarantee that all fishing methods proposed within these areas can be selective to only the pelagic species referenced in the petition, impacts to other species and bycatch are unavoidable.
The petitioners also make an “equality” argument, saying that there are lower percentages of protected areas in other regions of California’s coast, and these Reserves should be weakened to match. For many anglers and spearfishers, State Marine Reserves are an opportunity to experience healthier marine ecosystems and understand what our ocean may have looked like historically; we see value in letting species thrive within them. We also recognize that there are many ways of connecting with the ocean—tidepooling, surfing, diving, etc.—and while we love to fish, we also appreciate and participate in these other activities. In our view, the petitioners’ point on equality is an argument to enhance MPAs in other regions of California’s coast so there is more equitable access to Reserves and their associated benefits for everyone.
-
The petitioners offered no supporting data to show that opening Stewart’s Point and Bodega Head State Marine Reserves to commercial take of salmon by trolling will enhance the “resiliency” of the fishery. Climate and land-use changes have had significant impacts on salmon populations; the resiliency of salmon seems to be dependent upon these kinds of impacts being addressed. Evidence or supporting information on how the State Marine Reserve has negatively impacted the salmon fishery, distinguished from climate and land-use impacts, would be essential to supporting the petitioners’ arguments.
The petitioners reference one of the long-term monitoring reports from the MPA review process: “The science developed to date indicates that fishing for pelagic fishes (including salmon) in SMCAs does not appear to affect their performance compared to SMRs where no fishing is allowed (Carr et.al., 2021).” However, they neglect to mention that this report was specific to kelp forests. Both of the Reserves in this proposal protect other habitats, as well, and the science doesn’t yet support this statement for other habitats. Our assumption is that trolling through kelp forests would be inefficient, if not disruptive to the habitat, and that the other habitats found in the Reserves would be impacted by this commercial fishing activity.
The petitioners also cite CDFW’s JEDI (justice, equity, diversity and inclusion)* goal 6c as justification for allowing commercial take within these reserves. The goal suggests exploring “innovative approaches to engage the fishing industry in MPA research and management,” yet there is no further explanation provided in the proposal of how the salmon fishing industry intends to support MPA research efforts moving forward.
Finally, every angler knows bycatch of other species is inevitable through most methods of fishing, including trolling for salmon. And while this fishery could have relatively less bycatch and contact with bottom habitat than other fisheries, the petitioners provided no supporting evidence to these claims. We find it hard to support the notion that the fishery can definitively only capture salmon.
*We affirm that CDFW mischaracterized this recommendation as a JEDI goal because no type of industry is considered a protected class under state Environmental Justice policy or guidance.
-
Vandenberg - No position
The proposal is to create a narrow alongshore State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) within the existing Reserve. This would allow shore fishing for finfish by hook and line only. We have mixed feelings about this. The potential for this kind of protected area scheme to directly support shore-based fishing for subsistence and recreational communities is exciting, and a much needed opportunity. However due to the adjacent military base, this area is not accessible to the general public and raises equity concerns.
Pt. Conception - Support
The request for continued support for radar systems to enhance compliance and enforcement may be outside the scope of this petition process, but seems like an important component of monitoring and enforcement of the Reserve.
Kashtayit - No position
Updating regulatory language to make it easier for people to understand is a no-brainer to us. However, the proposed language in this petition would change take allowances for rock scallops, mussels and kelp, yet provides no supporting justification for this. We would also like to ensure that Tribal exemptions will continue to be honored.
Campus Point - Support
The request is to change the color on this map to match SMRs since this MPA is no-take. We support this change to make it easier for people to understand regulations.
San Miguel Island - Opposed
There is no evidence provided to support the need to remove the special closure, which protects sea lion rookeries in the area. Given that San Miguel Island isn’t easily accessible to most people, and the special closure limits human-marine mammal interactions, we would prefer for this area to remain a special closure.
Anacapa Island - Opposed
The proposal would allow vessels to access Frenchy’s Cove and remove the special closure which protects seabird populations. While, again, we generally support regulatory updates to simplify language and enhance public understanding, we would prefer that CDFW explore potential visible landmarks to align boundaries for easier enforcement and compliance. This request would also undermine the opportunity to protect sensitive habitat outlined in petition 2023-27MPA.
-
In addition to supporting efforts for Tribal stewardship and co-management, this petition directly supports Fish On’s community of anglers and spearfishers by allowing and enhancing recreational fishing for finfish.
-
We support opportunities for the state to recognize and enhance opportunities for Tribal co-management. This proposal does not significantly change the allowances in these MPAs for non-Tribal anglers and spearfishers in the Fish On community, except the slight northern boundary extension will be easier to understand and remain compliant.
-
Again, supporting a co-management proposal like this from a Tribal community aligns with Fish On’s principles. The main impact to non-Tribal fishing communities would be removing the allowance for surf smelt, and the petitioners lay out a compelling case for doing so which gives us confidence in opportunities presented for cultural practices, stewardship and ecological knowledge contributions.
Aligning the MPA boundary appropriately to the California-Oregan border seems like a common sense regulatory change in our view.
-
-
The scientific case, methodology and opportunity outlined in this proposal for kelp restoration efforts are more compelling than what was presented in the rationale for urchin allowances in petition 14. However, we would like to hear more from our local shore-based fishing communities to understand the true impact of these changes.
Piers and jetties are essential for subsistence fishing communities in California. While we support enhancing protections to directly benefit pier and jetty fishing, we can’t support enhancing the protection here without a continued exception for hook and line fishing on the north side of the breakwater.
We are wary of proposals for artificial enhancements in the marine environment. With rare exception, we would prefer to see more meaningful, alternate conservation pathways and marine protections over artificial reefs.
-
Given both the level of community support for and the arguments we’ve heard against this proposal, Fish On would be interested in the state trialing a shore-based catch and release area in the proposed expansion. By limiting boat anchorage and motorized access to fishing, the kelp habitat could receive expanded protections as outlined in the petition, and we could establish monitoring data on the impacts of catch-and-release fishing within an MPA which could help inform future adaptive management of California’s MPA Network. We would like further input from the Fish On community on whether or not this recommendation should include an allowance for shore-based recreational take of lobster by hand.
-
-
-
The petitioners lay out a compelling argument with clear science to show the detrimental impacts on sensitive eelgrass habitat in the area. To us, the benefits to everyone by enhancing protection here far outweigh the immediate impacts on fishers. Some of the area is already only open for two months out of the year and those that can get to Anacapa Island for fishing likely have access to other areas by boat. Fully protecting this section off of Anacapa Island has helpful implications for elsewhere along the California coast as we determine if and how to meaningfully restore important habitats like eelgrass beds, which have been lost by over 90% in some areas. Eelgrass meadows are an important nursery habitat for many of the species we love and are able to catch from shore. The opportunity of these protections to advance our scientific understanding on bringing back eelgrass in other coastal areas is an important consideration for us in support of this proposal.
-
We would like to hear more from the shore-based anglers within the Fish On community to take a position on this proposal. The scientific case in this petition is compelling, particularly the importance of this area as a larval retention zone, which would directly support fisheries. There’s very little shoreline access here, so we have equity concerns. An SMCA adjacent to the boundary which includes physically accessible areas would allow for the benefits of this new SMR to directly support shore-based anglers who were overlooked in the original MPA Network design. Other state agencies or municipalities might consider shoreline access infrastructure to support equitable access to this proposed SMR.
-
The original scientific guidance for California’s MPAs used the best available information at the time to help ensure the protected areas could function as a network that was ecologically connected. The largest physical gap in the Network, where the spacing guidelines were not followed, is between Campus Point no-take SMCA in Santa Barbara and Point Dume SMCA in Los Angeles. The proposed Mishopshno SMCA would address this critical gap.
We also support opportunities for Tribal self-determination, stewardship and co-management. As co-petitioners, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians have presented an important case for reconnecting Tribal communities in this region to their native waters.
To better support non-recognized Tribes and enhance shore-based fishing opportunities, Fish On is working with the petitioners on an amendment that would allow shore-based and non-motorized recreational fishing within this proposed MPA.
-
-
-
This proposal is evidence-based and has broad community support, including from relevant government agencies. The opportunity to support enforcement and compliance, along with the educational opportunities outlined have garnered our support for this proposal.
-
Kelp loss is a significant and widespread concern, and has an impact on many of the fisheries we depend on. We would have preferred a Network-wide analysis and proposal from the state to address this issue and other gaps that were either missed from the original MPA designation or that have become obvious through research, monitoring and advancements in science. That said, there are some potential opportunities within this proposal and we’ve outlined our take by site.
Cabrillo - Support with Fish On’s suggested amendment
The existing MPA does not meet the sizing guidance from the original designation process. With the impacts from the Tijuana River affecting the quality of the MPA near Imperial Beach to the south, communities in southern San Diego deserve equitable access to an enhanced MPA. We believe that this Reserve should be expanded. To ensure that the benefits of this expansion can directly support our shore-based fishing communities, we would recommend that the northern boundary be modified to south of New Hope Rock.
Pt. Dume - Support with Fish On’s suggested amendments
Los Angeles is the largest urban area in California, yet Angelenos have extremely limited access to MPAs. You can no longer access Abalone Cove SMCA from shore, topography limits access points to Pt. Vicente no-take SMCA, and there are only eight regular parking spots at Pt. Dume State Marine Reserve’s main access point at the state park, and visitors often face intimidation and localism. We see value in expanding the boundary of the adjacent Pt. Dume SMCA, so that more people can safely experience the healthier marine environment in this area. We have requested that the petitioners amend their original proposal for a regulation change that would allow shore-based and non-motorized recreational fishing in the SMCA.
Gull Island - No position
Open to further community input
Pt. Conception - No position
We are open to further community input. There is no public access to the proposed expanded area so while this will have limited community impact, it also raises equity concerns for us.
Natural Bridges - Support
Given that shore-based access is already restricted, expanding this State Marine Reserve will have no negative impact on marginalized fishing communities. However, recreational fishing outside this area could be considerably enhanced if the Reserve is expanded to a meaningful size.
Pleasure Point - Support with Fish On’s suggested amendments
We have requested the petitioners amend their proposal for a new MPA at Pleasure Point to be a State Marine Conservation Area that allows shore-based and non-motorized recreational fishing.
-
Pt. Buchon - Support
This change will have no negative impact on our fishing communities. With easier enforcement and the benefits of a larger protected area, we hope this change will enhance the benefits of California’s MPA Network.
Farnsworth - No position
This area is largely inaccessible to most Californians, and home to sensitive habitat that we believe may benefit from enhanced protections. We are open to changes that mitigate enforcement challenges, and also note that most of the species open to fishing in this area do not require bottom-contact gear. There may be other regulation changes to consider here that can better protect the sensitive habitat and we are open to hearing further community input.
