Click Here to view 2023-21MPA Petition Details

VCCFA Recommendation DENY

• 2023-21 Multiple changes to Pyramid Point SMCA 

  • Pyramid Point SMCA 

Click Here to view 2023-14MPA Petition Details

VCCFA Recommendation APPROVE

• 2023-14* Allow commercial sea urchin take in 9 MPAs statewide

  • Double Cone Rock SMCA

  • Sea Lion Cove SMCA

  • Stewart's Point SMCA

  • Salt Point SMCA

Click Here to view 2023-16MPA Petition Details

VCCFA Recommendation APPROVE

• 2023-16 Reclassify 2 North Coast SMRs to allow take

  • Stewart's Point SMR

  • Bodega Head SMR

Click Here to view 2023-32MPA Petition Details

VCCFA Recommendation DENY

• 2023-32 Reclassify and expand Duxbury Reef SMCA

  • Duxbury Reef SMCA

Click Here to view 2023-33MPA Petition Details

VCCFA Recommendation DENY

• 2023-33* Add new MPA near Pleasure Point and expand 6 MPAs statewide

  • Natural Bridges SMR

  • New - "Pleasure Point SMCA" 

Click Here to view 2023-23MPA Petition Details

VCCFA Recommendation DENY

• 2023-23 Multiple changes to Monterey County MPAs

  • Pacific Grove Marine Gardens SMCA

  • Edward F. Ricketts SMCA

  • Carmel Bay

  • SMCA Point Lobos SMR

  • New - "Tanker's Reef SMR"

*Denotes Petition will or has been discussed in other MPA Regional Meetings.  This meeting will deal with the areas effected within this Regional Meeting of those particular MPA Petitions.

Northern California commercial fishermen—and the businesses that depend on them—are at a critical moment as MPA petitions move toward review at the April 21 Fish and Game regional meeting

• Changing the area to a No-Take SMCA (effectively closing it to all non-tribal take)

• Removing surf smelt as an allowable species for recreational/commercial take

• Maintaining a Tribal exemption for Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation

• Adjusting the northern boundary to align with the CA/OR state line

Potential Concerns for Commercial Fishing

• Loss of access (incremental): While surf smelt is not a major commercial fishery, this sets a precedent of tightening take allowances within SMCAs

• Shift toward “No-Take” designation: Moving an SMCA closer to full closure could signal a broader trend of upgrading protections in other areas

• Cumulative impact risk: Alone, minimal commercial impact—but combined with other petitions, contributes to gradual reduction of accessible fishing areas

• Equity concern: Creates user-group differences (tribal vs. non-tribal access), which may raise broader policy discussions

Balanced Take

• Low direct commercial impact (surf smelt is not a key commercial species)

• Strong justification tied to cultural use + species decline

• More of a targeted, species-specific restriction rather than a broad fishery closure

• 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

• Reclassify two State Marine Reserves (SMRs) to SMCAs

  • Stewarts Point SMR (Sonoma County)

  • Bodega Head SMR (Sonoma County)

• Allow commercial salmon trolling within these areas

Core reasoning:

• The salmon fishery is in severe decline (including recent full season closures)

• Current MPAs create inefficient fishing patterns and block access to productive grounds

• Salmon trolling is:

  • Highly selective

  • Midwater (no bottom impact)

  • Targeting migratory species not dependent on MPA habitat

Benefits to Commercial Fishing

• Directly increases access to historic salmon trolling grounds

• Improves efficiency and safety (less navigating around closures)

• Supports recovery of struggling salmon fleet

• Aligns with adaptive management and climate realities

 Bottom Line

This is a strong pro-fishing petition with minimal ecological downside (given gear type and species), aimed at restoring access and improving viability of the salmon fleet—but it may face resistance due to the symbolic shift of opening SMRs.

This petition is asking for three major changes to the existing Duxbury Reef SMCA:

1. Convert SMCA → SMR (full no-take)

2. Expand the MPA south to include the full reef

3. Expand the MPA north to connect with another protected area

In simple terms:
Turn a partially open area into a fully closed MPA and make it bigger

Direct Impacts to Commercial Fishing

1. Full Closure (SMR Conversion)

• Current:

  • Some limited take allowed (mainly recreational shoreline)

• Proposed:

  • No take of any kind

Even if commercial activity is low:

• This is still a complete removal of access

2. Expansion of Closed Area

• Extends both:

  • North

  • South

3. Limited Current Commercial Use (But Still Matters)

• Petition itself states:

  • There may be fewer people able to harvest food commercially and recreationally

BUT:

• Area already has:

  • Federal wilderness restrictions nearby

• So they argue impact is “minimal”

Important reality:

• “Minimal” = not zero

• And still contributes to overall loss of access statewide

Bigger Concerns (Industry Perspective)

1. Precedent: SMCA → SMR Conversion

• This is a key trend:

  • Take areas that allow some fishing → make them no-take

Risk:

• Could be applied elsewhere (including SoCal)

2. Intertidal Harvest Targeting

• Focus is on:

  • Shore-based take

  • Invertebrates

• But narrative expands to:

  • “all take is harmful”

Risk:

• Expands justification to:

  • Urchin

  • Crab

  • Other nearshore fisheries

3. “Confusion = Closure” Argument

• Petition claims:

  • Rules are confusing → people violate them

• Solution:

  • Ban everything

Dangerous precedent:

• Instead of better enforcement → remove access entirely

Bottom Line

This is a moderate-impact petition locally, but important strategically

Locally:

• Limited direct commercial impact (low activity area)

Strategically:

• Reinforces:

  • No-take expansion model

  • SMCA → SMR conversions

  • “simplify by closing” approach

While this petition targets a low-use area, it converts a limited-take MPA into a full no-take reserve and expands its boundaries, continuing the broader trend of removing fishing access and setting precedent for similar closures elsewhere.

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 is a multi-part petition that proposes to:

• Convert multiple SMCAs → full SMRs (No-Take):

  • Edward F. Ricketts SMCA

  • Pacific Grove Marine Gardens SMCA

  • Carmel Bay SMCA

• Create a new SMR at Tanker’s Reef

Concerns for Commercial Fishing

• Loss of access (primary issue):

  • Converts partially open areas → full closures (SMRs)

  • Adds new closed areas (Tanker’s Reef)

• Expansion of no-take policy:

  • Strengthens trend of SMCA → SMR upgrades

• Displacement of effort:

  • Petition itself acknowledges fishing pressure gets concentrated elsewhere

• Selective allowance:

  • Allows urchin take for restoration, but restricts broader fishing access

• Long-term uncertainty:

  • Suggests closures could be “temporary,” but no clear path to reopening