Dear Mr. Reilly,

I'd like to talk about Marine Protected Areas conceptually first and then
talk about some of the proposed MPAs.

As a member of the Nearshore Fishery Management Plan (NFMP) Advisory Committee, I represent divers (both extractive and non-extractive) and fishermen who depend solely on the nearshore for their access to ocean resources and I consider fisheries issues with that perspective in mind. Since we are completely dependent on the nearshore for access, we are especially sensitive to any measure that impacts us disproportionately. Since our limited mobility and efficiencies help to promote sustainable resources, we believe it is fair to expect management measures that will accommodate those limitations.

Six general issues I consider very important with regard to MPAs are:
1. Definitions

2. Rationale
3. Access
4. Managing agency
5. Monitoring, assessment, and modification mechanisms
6. Enforcement and cost

1. DEFINITIONS:

The definitions need to be tightened up. One of the goals of the MLPA is that MPAs shall have "clearly defined objectives." Under the designations, Park, and Conservation Area, it seems harvest may be restricted to almost any degree. In other words, all three designations COULD have the same effect as a Reserve. To me, this renders the designations somewhat ambiguous. They are too malleable and therefore not clearly defined.

Parks and Conservation Areas:

One example of the problem stated above is the proposed Salt Point Marine Park. The proposed regulations are as follows:

"No commercial fishing permitted. No recreational fishing for finfish permitted. Only recreational abalone, chiones, clams, cockles, crabs, ghost shrimp, sea urchins, squid, and sea cucumbers may be taken."

This area could as easily have been designated a reserve. Much of the coastline in the area is inaccessible without a boat or kayak and is highly exposed, so allowing abalone take along the west facing coastline north of Salt Point is moot to the swim in diver (unless he or she feels like risking life or limb). If you were to remove the meaningless abalone exception, and because the other invertebrates are not highly sought after in the area, it could virtually be considered a reserve.

Cannot an attempt be made to designate Marine Parks as areas that allow ALL recreational take and no commercial take with variants to "allowed or restricted" activities to be made under the "Conservation Area" designation? Would it be possible to completely restrict ALL commercial take and/or ALL recreational take under the SMCA designation? If so, the Marine Park designation could have the more clearly defined purpose suggested above. Otherwise it will be hard to advocate or support the Park designation if it could easily mean we MIGHT be supporting a virtual reserve.

Reserves:

They should be no take except for research purposes. It has come to my attention that there are three "Marine Reserves" that restrict all recreational take while still allowing commercial. They are Pt.Cabrillo, Bodega Marine Lab, and Pt. Reyes Marine Reserves. There may be more, but these three were brought to my attention. Do I need to say this is unacceptable? What is particularly troubling about the existence of these commercial exceptions is that it evidences a commercial bias within fisheries management. Somehow, perhaps through lobby pressure, commercial entities defeated the purpose of the reserves. For this process to have credibility, this kind of bias must be eliminated.

There should be NO EXTRACTION of any kind in a reserve except for the purpose of research. If research needs require extraction, that extraction should be demonstrated as NECESSARILY from that Reserve area with no available alternatives. I also don't think extraction for an aquarium’s purposes should qualify as “educational”. The "Friends of Ricketts" folks will have something to say to that with regard to the Aquarium trade.

2. RATIONALE:

As part of the rationale for these MPAs, there needs to be some discussion, with specific examples, of their effectiveness in other locales. What observed effects have been recorded with regard to present reserves? A few places have been off limits to harvest for some time. One example that comes to mind is Pt. Lobos. Have the effects to the area around the reserve been measured? Someone mentioned the de-facto reserve at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Apparently "Danger zone 4" is perpetually closed to all boat traffic. It goes out 3 miles from Point Arguello to the Santa Inez River mouth creating about 7 miles of untouched coastline. According to my source, It has been closed since the base was established in the 50's or 60's. Has this area and/or the areas around it been assessed to ascertain the effects of the “closure”? If not, why not? If so, what were the results? Again, this should be part of the discussion.

There is some suspicion among some of the veteran activists in our coalition that the DFG is likely to willy nilly impose drastic restrictions without significant evidence that those restrictions will do any good. There is also the general feeling expressed, “once it’s gone, the government sure isn’t going to give it back.” Can this fear be addressed?

3. ACCESS:

Reserves:
Every attempt should be made to allow public access to all areas. Pat Lovejoy mentioned the Pt. Lobos reserve having areas that are off limits to public access. It's recognized that SOME areas of SOME reserves may
necessarily restrict public access. In those cases, the reserves should not be located in an area frequented by the public. Regarding Reserves located near public access points, opportunities for the public to view and/or photograph there should be maximized. An attempt should be made to open all reserves currently restricting public access (I understand these would be the reserves created under Proposition 132)

The access issue is so important, and the distrust among divers toward management so high, that we would like to see guarantees, in writing, of future access rights to these reserves by the non-extractive public.

Marine Parks:

A Marine Park should be reserved for recreational, non-commercial uses only. Opportunities for that part of the recreational sector that is dependent on the nearshore should be closely guarded simply because their opportunities are already so limited. Members of that sector do not access remote and/or deeper sections of the coast as larger commercial vessels can. To prevent a disproportionate reduction of recreational opportunity, reserves should generally be located in areas that are not frequented by the nearshore dependent recreational community. An exception to this would be to allow small reserves in access areas to accommodate the non-extractive recreational community.

For example, while I am opposed to the Salt Point Marine reserve being so large, I AM in favor of a smaller reserve in that location to accommodate the many scuba divers and photographers that use the area. For example, the current Reserve is marked on the south by a yellow painted rock. I would not be opposed to extending this southern boundary in a westerly direction. This would create a Reserve in the north part of the whole of Gerstle cove but leave the south part of the cove open to extractive use. By the way, though Salt Point has been heavily used due to its somewhat protected location, it is still able to offer a very satisfying fishing and spearfishing experience. Please don’t take this important access away from an area where access is already so limited.

Similarly, the Ricketts Reserve proposed by "Friends of Ricketts" is appropriate since the area is so heavily depended on by non-extractive users and other surrounding access points would still be available to extractive
users. Most other goals for reserves (scientific research etc) should primarily be met using more remote sites.

Marine Parks or Conservation Areas allowing all recreational take should be located in all important access areas. Parks should extend to encompass any area depended on by those users who access the area from shore whether shore anglers, local private or rental boat fishers, swim in divers, or kayak divers and fishermen. The Salt Point Park, for example, should extend, at least to Horseshoe point, to the north, and south to include Podatti's reef. This is my opinion and perhaps others would insist the area should be larger or smaller.

Eliminating or restricting commercial pressure from these areas will likely result in vast improvements in ecosystem quality and fish populations and thus contribute to the MLPA goals of a sustainable resource and improved recreational opportunities. For this reason I am pleased with the conservation areas in the north that allow recreational gear and bag limits only for commercial fishermen. That will go far in restoring sustainability and excellent recreational opportunities and shows that fisheries managers have the will to implement the hard choices that will be necessary.

Party Boats Vs Private Boats, Shore Anglers, and Divers:

Should CPFVs (party boats) be considered commercial or recreational? I think this discussion needs to be resolved. It WILL be a contentious issue as is always the case when money is involved.

In my opinion a CPFV is an extractive commercial operation that should generally be prohibited from using Marine Parks. The argument has been made that the CPFV industry simply provides a platform to the non-boat owning public and thus represents the recreational public. In reality, CPFVs take many different inexperienced anglers and turn them into virtual professionals. They repeatedly take different groups to some of the best fishing areas, something individuals from those groups would never have been able to do if they each owned a boat. CPFVs get them there quickly and safely and teach them the most effective fishing techniques. Party boat Captains use their knowledge of the area, electronics (GPS, fish finders, radar) and live bait, even telling their customers how deep to let their bait down, among other things, to ensure happy customers. They are motivated by profit which, when combined with competition from other CPFV businesses, drives them to offer the best product to their customer so those customers will come back, bringing their friends with them. They thus concentrate a large amount of effort over a specific area until it no longer produces. These practices and motivations have all the earmarks of an extractive commercial business operation.

In contrast, the private boat fisherman will typically guard his "secret"hot spots. It is difficult to get specific co-ordinates from most recreational fishermen when it comes to their best spots. When they DO take a few friends out with them it is just that, a FEW friends, not a different group every day. In general, the typical recreational fisherman or diver tries to create a measure of INEFFICIENCY in the overall recreational take for the sake of future fishing opportunities.

At the same time, the general goal of the CPFV business is to create a measure of EFFICIENCY in his customer’s take for the sake of their future business opportunities. For this reason, it's misleading to say the party boat "simply" provides a platform for the recreational fisherman.

I do not mean to imply that CPFV business practices are wrong. In fact, I think they provide a legitimate and necessary service to the public. Unfortunately, allowing these extractive commercial operations and their practices in Park areas frequented by the nearshore dependent (non-commercial) user has a disproportionate and excessive impact on the resource and the recreational opportunities of nearshore dependent users.

The nearshore Parks are already such relatively miniscule habitat areas that I think it’s fair to ask that they be reserved for those who depend solely on the nearshore for access to the resource (local private boats, divers, etc) and NOT a commercially driven industry.

As these Park areas are frequently used by divers, an additional concern regards the common technique employed by CPFVs of drifting across nearshore reefs in search of benthic species. Any diver can describe the dread he or she feels at the prospect of one of these large operations drifting over their underwater location. There is plenty of coastline remote from these very important diver access areas that could be used by CPFVs where no such dangerous conflict would exist.

4. MANAGING AGENCY:

The "Designations" section states that use may be restricted or allowed by the "designating entity or managing agency".

A concern has been voiced that under the above stipulation, park rangers could have the authority to determine allowable uses of an area in their jurisdiction. If so, this is unacceptable. Access determinations should be made
under the authority of the DFG only. This point has been brought home by statements made by Park rangers at Salt Point and Ft. Ross State Parks who voiced their intent to limit spearfishing groups access because they "take too many fish". Those determinations should not be left to entities using little if any scientific basis for their decisions. If a particular sector is determined to "take too many fish", that determination should be made by an authorized agency in a scientific manner (rather than emotional). One of the goals of the MLPA is to "Ensure that California's MPAs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures, and adequate enforcement, and are BASED ON SOUND SCIENTIFIC GUIDELINES”. Allowing park rangers with little scientific training or data to make access decisions is not basing those decisions on sound scientific guidelines. This is not to suggest that park rangers and any other available personnel should not be used for enforcement.

5. MONITORING, ASSESSMENT, AND MODIFICATION MECHANISM:

Many have voiced concern that these areas will be implemented and then forgotten, along with the folks who used to use them. Please write into the plan, specific mechanisms for future monitoring of the areas for effectiveness, resource assessment, and mechanisms and criteria for modifications. These should include some sort of time element and public notification.

6. ENFORCEMENT AND COST:

Identify funds and resources needed to implement and enforce these areas. Stipulate penalties for repeat offenders. These should be mandatory and severe in light of the ever inadequate attention given to enforcement needs. The concern is that these areas could become a haven for the poacher if penalties are not severe enough.

I'd like to address some specific MPAs

Areas North of MacKerricher State Park:

I will defer my opinion on these areas to those folks who live or play on the north coast. I will only reiterate that any reserve should be remote from areas giving local access to shore dependent users. Those same areas should always receive priority as Parks or, at least Conservation Areas.

MacKerricher SMR:

Please do not remove access to this site for the local recreational user. I love camping there with my family, as do many of my friends. It will diminish its attractiveness if we can’t go out and spear a couple of fish or grab a couple of abalone for the evening dinner. If an SMR is necessary in that area, please move it so it isn’t right in front of a recreational access point.

Pt. Cabrillo SMR:

First, eliminate all exceptions to commercial fishing in the present Pt. Cabrillo “reserve”. No more backroom deals. Second, the proposed SMR will eliminate the Caspar cove access. In keeping with the aforementioned principle of maintaining nearshore dependent recreational access, please turn the proposed area into a Marine Park, keeping the current boundary for the Pt. Cabrillo Reserve. If deemed necessary, create another Reserve north of Jug Handle without infringing on local access from Noyo harbor.

Mendocino SMCA:

I like this proposal with a couple of exceptions. One, how is it proposed to enforce the commercial bag limit? Can’t a commercial fisherman simply claim the fish on board came from outside the SMCA? How many commercial fishermen will be interested in a recreational bag limit of rockfish? If I’m missing the point of this regulation, please fill me in. Either convert the area into a Park or allow commercial fishing for pelagics and other species besides nearshore species. I WOULD like to commend you however on your courage in proposing the recreational gear limitation for the commercial sector.

Russian Gulch, Van Damme, and Greenwood SMPs:

Each one Excellent and well reasoned. I hope to see more rationale like this used for the rest of the coast!

Pt. Arena SMR:

The only part of this proposal that should be Reserve is a ½ square mile around Arena Rock. The rest of the area, and it should be expanded to include several miles north and south of Arena Cove, should be a SMCA. It should allow all recreational take and commercial take for all species except for nearshore finfish species. This will protect the area from commercial over-harvest as well as its importance as an isolated recreational access. In addition, it will allow the continuation of the ongoing commercial urchin and crab fisheries that exist there.

Del Mar Point SMR:

I defer most comments on this area to others of more local knowledge. In the absence of local objections, I would like to suggest a much larger area of MPA on the coastline between Del Mar and Anchor Bay. This could be a Park or Conservation Area allowing commercial take similar to the SMCA proposed at Mendocino. Since there is less recreational pressure there, I would suggest a Conservation Area allowing CPFV take for all finfish.

Salt Point SMR:

Salt Point’s Gerstle Cove (outside the current SMR) represents extremely important resource access for many divers, local private boat and kayak fishermen, and shore anglers. The cove continues to provide a satisfying experience. Therefore, it is suggested that most of the goals for SMRs be realized north of the immediate area. Since the coastline north of Salt Point State park is difficult to access, it is suggested that a Reserve be placed somewhere well north. I would suggest somewhere along Richardson ranch between Horseshoe point and Sea Ranch, or even extending into Sea Ranch. At the same time, it is recognized that non-extractive scuba divers also frequent the Gerstle area and need to be accommodated. A possible compromise that has been discussed with members of the Friends of Ricketts Park (avid non-extractive users) would be to propose a PART of the greater Gerstle cove as an SMR. It is suggested that the current reserve’s southern boundary be extended to the west to a point due south of Salt Point proper. This would increase the size of the present Gerstle Cove SMR, creating a rectangular reserve that extends out to the point. I believe consensus has been found in this regard with our scuba diving friends.

Salt Point SMP:

Disallowing recreational finfishing in this proposed Park is totally unacceptable to its MANY nearshore dependent users. As mentioned, this is a very important access and is one of few in the area. Please do not use the designation of “Park” to create a virtual reserve in this area. This is the kind of action that leads some to believe that fisheries managers are completely out of touch with our user group.

Ft. Ross SMR:

No WAY! Some of the same comments can be made here as to Salt Point. This is one of the few places beginning kayak fishermen, divers, and abalone hunters can go to get out of the swell. Close this to them and you WILL see some deaths or injuries as they attempt other areas not so protected. This area from north of Ft. Ross, to a little south of Podatti’s reef is again, one of the most important resource accesses for a group who’s access is already very limited in the area. I propose a SMP from Podattis to the North edge of Salt Point SMP. All recreational finfishing allowed, no CPFV fishing. This will protect divers from underwater encounters with CPFVs, protect the resource from over-harvest, and protect the best, and almost only, access nearshore dependent users have available on the Sonoma coast.

Sonoma Coast SMCA:

This area should provide Bodega area recreational anglers with opportunities beyond salmon fishing. The area will rebound into a good rock fish fishery if commercial pressure is curtailed. In addition, a good recreational halibut fishery is being eliminated. I propose the SMCA but with recreational finfishing allowed. While I don’t personally frequent the area, many do. This proposed SMCA is putting a disproportionate burden on them.

Bodega SMR:

This infringes on access for many local private boat fishermen and shouldn’t be necessary. Please allow a significant portion of Bodega head to remain open as a SMP.

Bird Rock SMR:

Are harbor seals, California sea lions, elephant seals, murres, and cormorants having a difficult time co-existing with human activity in this area? I don’t understand the validity of this rationale. I have seen nothing inhibiting the activities of these animals.

In the Piedras Blancas area of San Simeon, the recent emergence of a huge elephant seal haul-out has caused some to wonder if human activity always takes a back seat whenever marine mammals move in. I asked this question of one of the docents at the Piedras Blancas site. He replied that human activity such as windsurfing, diving, etc were still allowed as long as folks didn’t go out of their way to disturb these animals.

Before closing an important access to protect mammals and birds, please justify it with evidence that human activity IS having an effect on populations and that closing the area is necessary because those populations are in some way threatened.

The Bird rock area should not be a SMR, especially for the reasons stated. It is also an important abalone access point for many divers.

Pt. Reyes SMR:

It has come to my attention that the current Reserve there allows commercial take. Please address this. I will defer any other concern to others more knowledgeable.

Duxbury reef SMCA:

It has come to my attention from talking with local fishermen that this area encompasses a very important recreational and commercial fishing ground. The suggestion was made to move the SMCA to the Slide Ranch area. With allowed harvesting of summer schooling salmon and a provision for sport angling ‘from shore only’ this area could replenish dwindling rockfish achieving the desired MLPA guidelines and have little if any impact on local fishermen or visiting commercial and recreational fishermen.

Natural Bridges SMR:

Because the Natural Bridges Reserve area is an important access for local divers and private boat fishers, I recommend it be eliminated and included in the Natural Bridges SMCA. A SMR could be located to the north of this area where access is already very limited to nearshore dependent users.

Hopkins SMR:

As a representative of Cencal, which includes extractive and non-extractive divers, I believe we have arrived at consensus between the two groups regarding this area. We support a reserve that extends from the current Hopkins reserve to and including the entire breakwater to the west. We support the northern boundary at 60 feet in depth. This area is one of extreme importance to the non-extractive dive community which is the predominate underwater user. In addition, Friends of Ricketts proponents have worked long and hard to establish just such an area. The Friends of Ricketts have also apparently come to some consensus with local squid fishermen regarding this area. It is requested the area be named “Ed Ricketts SMR” rather than “Hopkins”.

This is an example of the kind of reserve that is acceptable to us even in an important access area for the shore dependent user. Normally we would ask that a large Reserve such as Ricketts be located in an area remote from easy shore access but we see it as a necessary accommodation of the non-extractive user group.

Pacific Grove SMCA:

I support the western boundary of this area (east edge of Ricketts) but advocate that the area be extended along the Monterey peninsula to the south to Cypress point. The rationale for this is the area's very important value to the recreational fishing and diving community. I advocate that commercial fishing in the area, including CPFVs, be allowed for the excepted species currently named in the proposed conservation area description.

Carmel Bay SMP
I advocate the Park boundaries be extended to the north to the Cypress Point buoy and to the south to the north western boundary of Pt Lobos reserve. No fishing from CPFVs allowed since there are many important underwater sites frequented by the dive community. These sites are very specific and would be highly susceptible to the fishing pressure from CPFV practices. In addition, the same dangers would exist here as at other sites frequented by divers. I would be willing to compromise with the CPFV industry here and allow them to fish in areas to deep for diving access, perhaps in excess of 100 feet would be appropriate (this number is a suggestion off the top of my head. I will defer to the scuba community for better recommendations).

Point Lobos SMR:

Please expand this reserve to include Mono Lobo wall. I refer to Pat Lovejoy’s letter in this regard. This is one of the reserves that should be open to public access, without restrictions on numbers. I don’t believe Park personnel should be deciding how many should be able to access these waters except as parking and space limitations apply to the onshore park.

Point Sur SMCA:

This area is not susceptible to overfishing by individuals accessing the resource from shore, whether by swimming or kayaking. It is already a difficult area to get to but several hardy individuals have indicated a strong interest. Please allow for recreational take for all finfish for non-commercial individuals, especially those accessing the area directly from shore.

I have little knowledge of recreational use between Pt. Sur and Piedras Blancas so will defer to others on those proposals.

Piedras Blancas SMCA and Cambria SMCA:

These two areas should be joined and regulations adopted should be those proposed for the Cambria SMCA. Recreational fishing should be permitted for all species, commercial fishing should be limited to salmon, albacore, sardine, anchovy, herring, and mackerel. Rationale for this is the heavy pressure this area has seen from the live fish industry. It is also an extremely important area for local recreational fishermen and divers and has provided a very satisfying recreational experience.

I will defer to more knowledgeable individuals for comments on areas south of Cambria with the exception of the proposed Leo Carillo site. Leo Carillo is an important recreational access point which I have had the pleasure of diving. By placing a reserve there, you are disproportionately impacting the divers and local fishermen who are dependent on that location. I’d like to reiterate my request that all reserves be located away from nearshore dependent user access areas. These areas should be SMPs or SMCAs with a small part as reserve to accommodate the non-extractive user.

Thank you for your kind attention to these matters,

Bob Humphrey
Volunteer Marine Resources Director

Central California Council of Dive Clubs (Cencal)
Volunteer NFMP Advisory Committee member

Freedive Enthusiast 30 years

925-946-9216