Central and Southern California 

Tuesday May 5th (Mainland) San Luis Obispo County to Santa Barbara County

Wednesday May 6th (Offshore) Northern Channel Islands and Santa Barbara Island

May 5. 8:00 a.m. 

Join in person or online

Hilton Garden Inn

Goleta, CA

Address and Link to Meeting below

May 6. 8:00 a.m. 

Join in person or online

Hilton Garden Inn

Goleta, CA

Address and Link to Meeting below

• Create a NEW MPA at Point Sal (~14.2 sq mi)

• Designate it as either:

  • SMR (No-Take) or

  • SMCA with very limited access

• Amended version allows only:

  • Recreational shore-based hook-and-line fishing

  • Potential tribal cultural/subsistence use

• All other take (including commercial fishing) would be prohibited

Concerns for Commercial Fishing

• New closure (primary impact):

  • Creates a brand new no-take or near no-take area where none currently exists

• Full loss of access:

  • Commercial fishing would be entirely prohibited in the proposed area

• Offshore extension:

  • Boundaries extend to the 3-mile state waters line, impacting offshore activity

• Precedent risk:

  • Establishes new MPAs in previously open areas, not just modifying existing ones

• Cumulative effect:

  • Adds to the broader trend of increasing total closed area statewide

• Downplayed economic impact:

  • Petition claims minimal impact due to low current use, but still overlaps:

    • ~231K lbs / ~$678K annual landings in the region

This is a new MPA creation petition with full commercial closure—even if current fishing effort is relatively low, it represents a net loss of fishable water and a precedent for expanding MPAs into currently open areas.

• Create a NEW State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) at Carpinteria (Santa Barbara County)

• Establish tribal co-management, recognizing Indigenous use and stewardship

• Allow for:

  • Tribal take (cultural/subsistence/commercial depending on framework)

• Restrict or prohibit non-tribal commercial and recreational take (depending on final designation details)

Concerns for Commercial Fishing

• New closure to non-tribal commercial fishermen:

  • Creates a new restricted area where access did not previously exist

• Access exclusivity:

  • Fishing opportunity may be limited to tribal use, excluding existing fishermen

• Precedent-setting:

  • Introduces tribal co-managed MPAs that could be replicated elsewhere

• Localized impact:

  • Carpinteria area is actively fished, so even a smaller footprint matters

• Cumulative effect:

  • Adds to the broader trend of increasing restricted areas along the coast

This is a new-use designation MPA, not just a boundary tweak—while relatively localized, it creates restricted access for non-tribal commercial fishermen and sets a new policy direction around co-managed MPAs.

• Create a NEW State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) between Morro Bay and Cambria

• Establish tribal co-management with the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians

• Allow:

  • Tribal take (with hand-based gear)

  • Limited recreational take (finfish + some invertebrates by hand)

 Concerns for Commercial Fishing

• New closure to commercial fishing:

  • This is a brand-new SMCA where commercial take is not allowed

• Access exclusivity:

  • Tribal take allowed, but non-tribal commercial fishermen excluded

• Location matters:

  • Near Morro Bay = important transition zone for multiple fisheries

• Precedent-setting:

  • One of the first tribal-led MPA proposals in California

  • Could lead to more co-managed MPAs with restricted access

• Cumulative impact:

  • Adds to overall loss of fishable water in Central Coast region

• Promotes co-management as a new governance model

• Amend the existing Point Buchon SMCA to become a Chumash co-managed MPA

• Allow:

  • Tribal take using hand-based gear

  • Limited recreational take:

    • Finfish

    • Some invertebrates by hand harvest

  • Boundary adjustment to the adjacent SMR (northward expansion offshore)

Concerns for Commercial Fishing

• Reduced or restricted commercial access:

  • Existing allowances in the SMCA are tightened or redirected toward tribal/recreational use

• Access shift (key issue):

  • Tribal take allowed, but non-tribal commercial access limited or removed

• Offshore impact potential:

  • Proposed SMR boundary expansion northward could further reduce nearby fishing grounds

• Precedent-setting:

  • Expands the model of co-managed MPAs with selective access

• Cumulative effect:

  • Adds to incremental loss of access along the Central Coast, especially around Morro Bay / Port San Luis region

This is a conversion-style petition—it doesn’t create a brand-new MPA, but it changes who can access it and how, with likely impacts to non-tribal commercial fishermen and potential additional loss of nearby fishing grounds due to boundary adjustments.

Increase protection levels in existing MPAs (not creating new ones)

• Specifically:

  • Upgrade Point Buchon SMCA → full no-take SMR

  • Restrict Farnsworth Onshore & Offshore SMCAs to:

    • Recreational spearfishing only (eliminating most other fishing activity)

Concerns for Commercial Fishing

• Direct loss of commercial access (key issue):

  • Point Buchon currently allows commercial salmon & albacore → would be fully closed

• Additional fishery impacts:

  • Farnsworth changes could impact:

    • Market squid

    • Other pelagic/commercial activity

• Conversion effect (important):

  • This is not expansion of area—but tightening existing access to zero or near-zero

• Precedent risk:

  • Opens the door to:

    • Upgrading SMCAs → SMRs statewide

• “Minimal impact” claim:

  • Petition states impacts are negligible, but:

    • Still removes existing legal fishing opportunities

This is a high-impact regulatory tightening petition—it doesn’t expand MPAs geographically, but it eliminates existing commercial fishing access within them, particularly at Point Buchon, making it a direct loss-of-access issue rather than a boundary issue.

This petition proposes a series of MPA expansions and new designations across California including:

• Expanding multiple existing MPAs (e.g., Cabrillo SMR, Point Dume SMCA, Natural Bridges SMR, South Point SMR)

• Creating at least one new MPA (Pleasure Point area)

• Expansions range from a few square miles to 20+ sq mi per site

Concerns for Commercial Fishing

• Significant loss of access (cumulative):

  • Multiple expansions across the state = large net reduction in fishable waters

• Targets productive areas:

  • Specifically focuses on healthy, resilient kelp zones—often the same areas fishermen rely on

• Expansion into deeper waters:

  • Some proposals extend offshore to 3-mile limit, including areas not directly tied to kelp

• Precedent-setting:

  • Moves toward broad MPA expansion strategy, not isolated adjustments

• Limited commercial consideration:

  • Some areas noted as having “little commercial fishing,” but that is not statewide reality

⚖️ Bottom Line

This is a large-scale expansion petition—one of the most impactful overall. It raises major concerns for commercial fishing due to cumulative loss of access, overlap with productive fishing grounds, and expansion beyond clearly justified habitat areas.

This petition is NOT about creating a brand-new large MPA.
It’s about 7 targeted “refinements” (changes) to existing MPAs in the Santa Barbara / Ventura region.

• Improve MPA management, enforcement, clarity, and compliance

• Focus on “fine-tuning” existing MPAs, not wholesale expansion

1. Vandenberg SMR

   • Allow limited shore fishing (hook & line only) in a narrow strip

   • Goal: address equity issues between military & public access

2. Point Conception SMR

   • Expand use of radar monitoring (M2 system)

   • More surveillance of vessel activity

3. Kashtayit SMCA (Gaviota)

   • Simplify rules so people understand what they can take

4. Campus Point SMCA

   • Change map color to red (clearer “no-take” signal)

5. San Miguel Island Closure

   • Consider removing or modifying a special closure

   • Due to redundancy + stable marine mammal populations

6. Anacapa – Frenchy’s Cove

   • Allow boat landing access where it was unintentionally restricted

7. Anacapa Full-Island Closure

   • Reassess and possibly remove overlapping closure rules

   • Reduce confusion and improve enforceability

Concerns for Commercial Fishing

1. Enforcement Expansion (BIG ONE)

• Increased radar + monitoring at Point Conception

• Sets precedent for:

  • More surveillance

  • More citations / enforcement pressure

• Could expand statewide if adopted as a “model”

Concern: This strengthens enforcement tools without addressing fishing access.

2. “Refinement” = Backdoor Adjustment Risk

• While this petition doesn’t expand MPAs directly, it:

  • Modifies structure and rules

  • Opens the door for future incremental tightening

Concern: Death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach to access.

3. Normalization of MPA Tweaks Without Full Review

• Uses Decadal Review justification

• But changes are happening piecemeal, not full MLPA redesign

Concern: Avoids big-picture evaluation of impacts to fishing.

4. Lost Opportunity for Real Access Gains

• Only one proposal actually adds fishing access (Vandenberg shore fishing)

• Everything else is:

  • Enforcement

  • Clarification

  • Administrative cleanup

Concern: Very little benefit to commercial fishermen overall.

5. Anacapa / San Miguel Changes – Mixed Bag

• Some proposals could:

  • Improve access (Frenchy’s Cove landing)

  • Remove redundant closures

This is actually positive, but:

• It’s limited

• Doesn’t offset broader MPA restrictions

👉 This petition is not an outright threat like a new MPA, but it leans pro-MPA system strengthening.

Positives:

• Some cleanup and simplification

• Minor access improvements (localized)

Negatives:

• Expanded enforcement (radar, monitoring)

• No meaningful increase in commercial fishing opportunity

• Sets precedent for incremental MPA tightening

This petition isn’t expanding MPAs outright—but it strengthens enforcement and continues the trend of adjusting MPAs without increasing fishing access. There are a few small wins, but overall it does little to help working fishermen and sets precedent for more control, not less.

This petition is NOT about creating a brand-new large MPA.
It’s about 7 targeted “refinements” (changes) to existing MPAs in the Santa Barbara / Ventura region.

• Improve MPA management, enforcement, clarity, and compliance

• Focus on “fine-tuning” existing MPAs, not wholesale expansion

1. Vandenberg SMR

   • Allow limited shore fishing (hook & line only) in a narrow strip

   • Goal: address equity issues between military & public access

2. Point Conception SMR

   • Expand use of radar monitoring (M2 system)

   • More surveillance of vessel activity

3. Kashtayit SMCA (Gaviota)

   • Simplify rules so people understand what they can take

4. Campus Point SMCA

   • Change map color to red (clearer “no-take” signal)

5. San Miguel Island Closure

   • Consider removing or modifying a special closure

   • Due to redundancy + stable marine mammal populations

6. Anacapa – Frenchy’s Cove

   • Allow boat landing access where it was unintentionally restricted

7. Anacapa Full-Island Closure

   • Reassess and possibly remove overlapping closure rules

   • Reduce confusion and improve enforceability

Concerns for Commercial Fishing

1. Enforcement Expansion (BIG ONE)

• Increased radar + monitoring at Point Conception

• Sets precedent for:

  • More surveillance

  • More citations / enforcement pressure

• Could expand statewide if adopted as a “model”

Concern: This strengthens enforcement tools without addressing fishing access.

2. “Refinement” = Backdoor Adjustment Risk

• While this petition doesn’t expand MPAs directly, it:

  • Modifies structure and rules

  • Opens the door for future incremental tightening

Concern: Death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach to access.

3. Normalization of MPA Tweaks Without Full Review

• Uses Decadal Review justification

• But changes are happening piecemeal, not full MLPA redesign

Concern: Avoids big-picture evaluation of impacts to fishing.

4. Lost Opportunity for Real Access Gains

• Only one proposal actually adds fishing access (Vandenberg shore fishing)

• Everything else is:

  • Enforcement

  • Clarification

  • Administrative cleanup

Concern: Very little benefit to commercial fishermen overall.

5. Anacapa / San Miguel Changes – Mixed Bag

• Some proposals could:

  • Improve access (Frenchy’s Cove landing)

  • Remove redundant closures

This is actually positive, but:

• It’s limited

• Doesn’t offset broader MPA restrictions

👉 This petition is not an outright threat like a new MPA, but it leans pro-MPA system strengthening.

Positives:

• Some cleanup and simplification

• Minor access improvements (localized)

Negatives:

• Expanded enforcement (radar, monitoring)

• No meaningful increase in commercial fishing opportunity

• Sets precedent for incremental MPA tightening

This petition isn’t expanding MPAs outright—but it strengthens enforcement and continues the trend of adjusting MPAs without increasing fishing access. There are a few small wins, but overall it does little to help working fishermen and sets precedent for more control, not less.

The petition is trying to increase protections at Anacapa Island SMCA, with three main options:

1. Convert the SMCA into a full SMR (no-take)

2. OR close the nearshore zone (0–30m depth) to lobster fishing

3. OR ban lobster gear / anchoring near eelgrass entirely

Bottom line: Reduce or eliminate commercial lobster fishing in the area

Major Concerns for Commercial Fishing

1. Direct Target on Lobster Fishery

This is the big one.

• Explicitly calls out:

  • Commercial lobster traps

  • Requests year-round prohibition in the area

This is not subtle — it directly removes access to fishing grounds.

2. Potential Full Closure (SMR Conversion)

• Converting SMCA → SMR = full no-take zone

Worst-case scenario:

• Total loss of fishing access at Anacapa in that zone

3. Expansion of Restricted Depth Zone

• Current: ~0–20 ft restriction

• Proposed: 0–30 meters (~100 ft)

That’s a massive expansion of closure area

• Cuts into prime lobster grounds

4. Gear-Based Restrictions (Precedent Risk)

• Targeting “hard-bottom gear” (lobster traps, anchors)

This is dangerous because:

• Could expand to:

  • crab gear

  • other trap fisheries

  • anchoring restrictions statewide

5. Narrative Framing Against Fishermen

• Claims:

  • Traps are damaging habitat

  • Fishing is harming eelgrass recovery

• Uses select studies + restoration narrative

This builds a policy justification to remove fishing

6. “Short-Term Pain, Long-Term Gain” Argument

• They openly admit:

  • There will be economic impacts

• But claim:

  • It’ll be offset by ecosystem benefits later

Classic justification used to override industry concerns

This is a high-impact petition for commercial fishing, especially lobster fishermen.

What it really does:

• Targets a specific fishery (lobster)

• Uses habitat protection as justification

• Pushes toward:

  • gear restrictions

  • area closures

  • potentially full no-take expansion

This petition directly targets commercial lobster fishing at Anacapa by proposing trap bans, expanded closure zones, or even a full no-take MPA. It would remove access to productive fishing grounds and sets a precedent for restricting fishing gear under the guise of habitat protection.

• Sonoma & Mendocino (Stewarts Point, Salt Point, Sea Lion Cove, Double Cone Rock)

• Southern California (Anacapa Island, Point Dume, Point Vicente, Swami’s, Naples)

Core idea:

• Use commercial urchin fishing as a management tool to reduce urchin barrens

• Support kelp forest recovery and ecosystem balance

• Help rebuild a collapsed urchin fishery (from ~4.2M lbs in 2013 to ~284K lbs in 2022)

Benefits to Commercial Fishing

• Increases access to previously restricted areas

• Provides economic recovery opportunity for urchin divers

• Aligns fishermen as part of the solution (active ecosystem management)

• Could help stabilize kelp ecosystems, benefiting broader fisheries

Modify 3 existing no-take MPAs:

• • The Footprint (Santa Cruz Island)

  • Gull Island

  • Santa Barbara Island

• Convert them from full no-take (SMR) → limited-take areas (SMCA-style)

What It Would Allow

Depending on the option chosen, it would allow:

• Commercial fishing for:

  • Pelagic species (tuna, swordfish, etc.)

  • Highly migratory species (HMS)

  • Swordfish by harpoon (explicitly supported)

• Gear restrictions:

  • Focus on non-bottom contact gear

  • Options range from:

    • hook-and-line

    • surface-only methods

    • spear / harpoon only (most restrictive)

Key idea:

• Keep protections for bottom species (rockfish, habitat)

• Allow fishing for mobile offshore species

Stated Reason

The petition argues:

• These MPAs were designed for non-pelagic species (rockfish, reef habitat)

• Pelagic/HMS species don’t benefit from MPAs because they migrate widely

• Current rules:

  • Unnecessarily block fishing opportunity

  • Especially in historic fishing grounds

Also highlights:

• Decadal Review supports allowing pelagic take in MPAs

• Channel Islands network is:

  • ~96% no-take vs ~60% statewide (way more restrictive)

Concerns (From a Commercial Fishing Perspective)

1. This is beneficial overall

• Opens access to:

  • Swordfish

  • Tuna

  • Other HMS

• Supports:

  • Harpoon fishery

  • Potential DSBG expansion

This is aligned with industry goals.

Key Industry-Relevant Point (VERY IMPORTANT)

This petition also highlights a real operational issue:

Swordfish gear drifting into MPAs

• Harpooned fish can tow gear into closures

• DSBG fish can drift into closures

Currently:

• Retrieving legally caught fish inside an MPA = illegal

This petition tries to fix that problem

👉 This petition HELPS commercial fishing

• Opens closed areas to pelagic fishing

• Supports swordfish fleet (harpoon + future DSBG)

• Aligns with Decadal Review recommendations

• Addresses real-world fishing conflicts

This petition supports opening existing MPAs to highly migratory species fishing while maintaining protections for local habitat. It would restore access to historic fishing grounds and address real operational issues like drifting swordfish gear into closures. 

This petition proposes a series of MPA expansions and new designations across California including:

• Expanding multiple existing MPAs (e.g., Cabrillo SMR, Point Dume SMCA, Natural Bridges SMR, South Point SMR)

• Creating at least one new MPA (Pleasure Point area)

• Expansions range from a few square miles to 20+ sq mi per site

Concerns for Commercial Fishing

• Significant loss of access (cumulative):

  • Multiple expansions across the state = large net reduction in fishable waters

• Targets productive areas:

  • Specifically focuses on healthy, resilient kelp zones—often the same areas fishermen rely on

• Expansion into deeper waters:

  • Some proposals extend offshore to 3-mile limit, including areas not directly tied to kelp

• Precedent-setting:

  • Moves toward broad MPA expansion strategy, not isolated adjustments

• Limited commercial consideration:

  • Some areas noted as having “little commercial fishing,” but that is not statewide reality

⚖️ Bottom Line

This is a large-scale expansion petition—one of the most impactful overall. It raises major concerns for commercial fishing due to cumulative loss of access, overlap with productive fishing grounds, and expansion beyond clearly justified habitat areas.