This page has the most up to date information as of March 22, 2026 and is currently under construction. There are notes in sections designed for the internal team. *These notes will be replaced as updated.
Embedded Files
Strength in numbers 81 Members and growing: Join today!
What can you do to contribute?
Refer to CCA (Coastal Conservation Alliance) Coilition Letter for guidence on submitting your own letter of support or position. You are encouraged NOW to submit your position. Visit here
Monitor April 14 CDFW Tribal Committee Meeting Update and Discussion of Bin 2 Petitions w/Tribal Components (5 petitions not yet evaluated by CDFW)
Update! March 20 - CDFW releases Draft Evaluations for non-Tribally-led 2023 Bin 2 Petitions
Comments, questions, and supplemental information on the evaluations should be submitted to the Commission. Written comments can be submitted three ways. This ensures that your feedback is formally received by the Commissioners. You can also provide verbal comments on the petitions in person or virtually at one of the upcoming Regional MPA Petition Commission meetings or at a regular Commission meeting
Important Upcoming Dates
April 14 CDFW Tribal Committee Meeting Update Discussion of Bin 2 Petitions w/Tribal Components (5 petitions not yet evaluated by CDFW)
Regional Fish and Game Commission Meetings
Half Moon Bay April 21 Venue and Time TBD
Santa Barbara May 5, 6 Venue and Time TBD
Oceanside Northern San Diego May 19 Venue and Time TBD
Milestones/Updates
March 20
CA Department Fish and Wildlife Recomendations to CA Fish and Game Commission View Here
March 20 - CDFW releases Draft Evaluations for non-Tribally-led 2023 Bin 2 Petitions
Comments, questions, and supplemental information on the evaluations should be submitted to the Commission. Written comments can be submitted three ways. This ensures that your feedback is formally received by the Commissioners. You can also provide verbal comments on the petitions in person or virtually at one of the upcoming Regional MPA Petition Commission meetings or at a regular Commission meeting
Local / Regional Areas Impacted
Support: (Accept)
Petition 2023-14MPA
Allow commercial sea urchin take in 9 MPAs statewide
Petition 2023-15MPA-AM
Reclassify 3 Channel Islands SMRs to allow take
Petition 2023-18MPA
Multiple changes to Santa Barbara Channel MPAs
Local / Regional Areas Impacted
Oppose: (Reject)
Petition 2023-27MPA-AM
Reclassify all or part of Anacapa Island SMR
Petition 2023-29-AM
Add new MPA near Carpinteria
Petition 2023-33
Add new MPA near Pleasure Point and expand 6 MPAs statewide
(including South Santa Rosa Island)
Statewide Areas Impacted
Support: (Accept)
Petition 2023-16MPA
Reclassify 2 North Coast SMRs to allow take
Petition 2023-21MPA
Multiple changes to Pyramid Point SMCA
Statewide Areas Impacted
Oppose: (Reject)
Petition 2023-19MPA
Add new MPA near Morro Bay
Petition 2023-20MPA
Multiple changes to Point Buchon MPAs
Petition 2023-23MPA-AM
Multiple changes to Monterey County MPAs
Petition 2023-24MPA-AM
Expand Laguna Beach no-take SMCA
Petition 2023-28MPA-AM
Add new MPA near Point Sal
Petition 2023-32MPA
Reclassify and expand Duxbury Reef SMCA
Petition 2023-34MPA
Reclassify Point Buchon SMCA and modify regulations in Farnsworth MPAs
Tribal Committee
August 13, 2024 (1:30 pm): California Fish and Game Commission Tribal Committee discussed MPA Petition Process. Item 5 on the agenda. Agenda and meeting information
Discussed the approach to reviewing and evaluating public petitions for MPA regulation changes following the decadal management review of the MPA network and management program, as underway by the Commission Marine Resources Committee.
August 14-15, 2024 (Wed 9:00 am) & (Thu 8:30 am): California Fish and Game Commission Meeting Item 7 on the agenda. Agenda and meeting information
Consider whether to grant, deny, or refer for additional review, petitions for regulation change received at previous meetings. Petitions granted today will be added to the Commission’s rulemaking calendar for development and future consideration.
August 14-15, 2024 (Wed 9:00 am) & (Thu 8:30 am): California Fish and Game Commission Meeting Item 9 on the agenda. Agenda and meeting information
Marine Resources Committee Receive summary and consider approving recommendations from the July 17-18, 2024 committee meeting. Discuss referred topics and consider revisions to topics and timing.
Marine Recources Committee
July 17-18: MPA Petitions submitted and Bin selection discussed.
July 17-18: MPA Petitions submitted and Bin selection discussed.
In 2023, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) publicly released the first 10-year comprehensive review of California’s Marine Protected Area (MPA) Network that included 28 adaptive management recommendations prioritizing strategies for the next decade of MPA management. One of the near-term priority recommendations called for applying what was learned from the comprehensive management review to support proposed changes to the MPA Network and Management Program. To advance this recommendation, the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) requested that MPA regulation change petitions be submitted for their December 2023 meeting. CFGC received 20 petitions with over 80 unique requests for changes to the MPA Network.
It is anticipated the Marine Resources Committee will make a recommendation on the draft proposed binning for the CFGC’s consideration at their August meeting. Following the CFGC’s approval of petition binning, CDFW will move forward with the evaluation of Bin 1 petitions for subsequent discussion and consideration by the Marine Resources Committee and the CFGC.
Future California Fish and Game Commission meeting schedule here Next CFGC meeting August 13-15
Future MRC (Marine Recourse Committee) schedule here Next MRC Meeting July 17-18
Petitions are categorized into two bins (Tables 1 and 2) using the criteria outlined below to determine which petitions can be evaluated in the near-term (Bin 1) and which petitions will require additional policy guidance, information, and/or resources prior to evaluation (Bin 2). The proposed binning of petitions by CDFW are recommendations for the MRC to consider at their July 17 meeting. It is anticipated the MRC will make a recommendation on the binning of petitions for the CFGC to consider at their August meeting. Inclusion in Bin 1 does not automatically mean the requests in any given petition will be granted.
Following approval of the binning of petitions by CFGC, CDFW will move forward with the evaluation of Bin 1 petitions for subsequent discussion and consideration by the MRC and CFGC.
Bin 1
Petitions that can be evaluated in the near-term must meet all the following criteria
• Policy direction not needed for next phases: The requested changes are consistent with existing policies regarding the MPA Network.
• Within CFGC authority: CFGC has clear regulatory authority over the changes requested in the MPA petitions.
• Immediate evaluation possible: Information and resources are available to evaluate petitions in the near-term
• Limited clarification needed from petitioner: The changes requested in the petitions are clear and understandable.
• Limited controversy anticipated: Changes that have limited impact on human uses and network design, such as minor boundary changes and/or updating regulatory language, are expected to cause limited controversy.
Bin 2
Petitions that do not meet all the above criteria are categorized into Bin 2.
The analysis of these petitions will be more complex as they will likely require additional policy guidance, information, and/or resources before they move forward into the evaluation phase.
Bin 2 petitions that could move forward based on CFGC guidance will be evaluated in the longer-term. In addition, due to the larger breadth and scope of these petitions, they will likely require more extensive coordination with California Native American Tribes, other government agencies, partners, and stakeholders.
The tables below outline the proposed Bin 1 and Bin 2 petitions. There are brief justifications following each table that describe why a metric was met or not, and why petitions are categorized into Bin 1 or Bin 2. CFGC is seeking feedback on the draft proposed binning of petitions into either Bin 1 or Bin 2.
Comments should be sent directly to CFGC to inform the discussions scheduled for July 17, 2024 at the MRC meeting. Written comments must be received by CFGC by July 5 to be included in the July MRC meeting materials. The CFGC website includes instructions for how to submit written comments and a schedule of upcoming Commission meetings.
At its February 2024 meeting, the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) referred 20 petitions with over 80 unique requests to amend marine protected area regulations to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for review, evaluation, and recommendation.
20 MPA petitions received in December are scheduled for action and summarized
Bin 1 / Bin 2
Note: ...Continue to scroll down this webpage for All Proposed MPA Changes in detail:
I. Petition 2023-14MPA: Allow commercial take of red sea urchins in nine state marine conservation areas (SMCAs) (Exhibit B3)
II. Petition 2023-15MPA: Reclassify three northern Channel Islands state marine reserves (SMRs) to SMCAs and allow either the limited take of highly migratory species and possession of coastal pelagic species, or the take of pelagic finfish (Exhibit B4) (note: this corrects the agenda description of petitioned changes)
III. Petition 2023-16MPA: Reclassify Stewarts Point and Bodega Head SMRs to SMCAs and allow commercial take of salmon (Exhibit B5)
IV. Petition 2023-18MPA: Modify allowed uses for four MPAs in Santa Barbara Channel and eliminate two special closures (Exhibit B6)
V. Petition 2023-19MPA: Designate new "Chitqawi" SMCA near Morro Bay with tribal take exemption for and co-management with the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (Exhibit B7)
VI. Petition 2023-20MPA: Add tribal take exemption to Point Buchon SMCA for comanagement with Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, and modify northern boundary of Point Buchon SMR (Exhibit B8)
VII. Petition 2023-21MPA: Modify Pyramid Point SMCA to remove recreational take of surf smelt; continue current tribal take exemption for Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation (Exhibit B9)
VIII. Petition 2023-22MPA: Define "rocky intertidal zone," add research, monitoring, restoration and education allowance, and clarify protections in several Orange County MPAs (Exhibit B10)
IX. Petition 2023-23MPA: Reclassify three SMCAs to SMRs, designate one new SMR in Monterey, and make various changes related to kelp restoration (Exhibit B11)
X. Petition 2023-24MPA: Expand Laguna Beach no-take SMCA southward to border of City of Laguna Beach and modify Dana Point SMCA boundaries (Exhibit B12)
XI. Petition 2023-25MPA: Change boundaries and allowed uses at several Catalina Island MPAs (Exhibit B13)
XII. Petition 2023-26MPA: Shift Swami's SMCA southward, and clarify protections at three estuarine no-take SMCAs in San Diego County (Exhibit B14)
XIII.Petition 2023-27MPA: Reclassify a portion or all of Anacapa SMCA to an SMR (Exhibit B15)
XIV. Petition 2023-28MPA: Designate a new SMR at Point Sal, or designate as an SMCA with a tribal take exemption based on tribal consultation (Exhibit B16)
XV. Petition 2023-29MPA: Designate new “Mishopshno” SMCA near Santa Barbara with a tribal take exemption for and co-management with Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (Exhibit B17)
XVI. Petition 2023-30MPA: Revise the recreational crab take regulations for Big River SMCA (Exhibit B18)
XVII. Petition 2023-31MPA: Reclassify Drakes Estero SMCA to an SMR and combine with Estero de Limantour SMR as a single SMR (Exhibit B19)
XVIII. Petition 2023-32MPA: Reclassify Duxbury Reef SMCA as an SMR and expand northern and southern boundaries (Exhibit B20)
XIX. Petition 2023-33MPA: Expand the boundaries of five SMRs and one SMCA, and designate a new SMR off Pleasure Point, in Santa Cruz (Exhibit B21)
XX. Petition 2023-34MPA: Reclassify Point Buchon SMCA to an SMR and modify take at Farnsworth Onshore and Offshore SMCAs to only allow recreational spearfishing (Exhibit B22)
Source: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline
Bin 1 initial Proposals
Justifications for Proposed Bin 1 Petitions DRAFT 06/20/2024 Proposed Bin 1 petitions do not need policy direction from the CFGC to move forward with evaluation, are within CFGC regulatory authority, can be evaluated in the near-term, require minimal follow-up with the petitioner, and limited controversy is anticipated regarding petition requests. Justifications for each criterion are outlined below.
Bin 1
Note: ...Continue to scroll down this webpage for All Proposed MPA Changes in detail:
Petition Number: 2023-22MPA Petitioner: Wendy Berube, Orange County Coastkeeper
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (N): Changes requested do not require policy guidance from CFGC.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y/N):
o Modifying the descriptions of specific MPAs and updating regulatory language are within CFGC authority.
o Changing the color of a purple no-take SMCA to red on outreach materials only is a non-regulatory request. However, alternative pathways for this and other similar non-regulatory requests may be explored as a part of the 3-phase approach to evaluate petitions.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (Y): Related information and data needed to evaluate petition are currently available.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (Y): Limited controversy anticipated because the requested changes are to simplify and clarify regulatory language.
Petition Number: 2023-25MPA Petitioner: Burton Miller, Catalina MPA Collaborative
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (N): Changes requested do not require policy guidance from CFGC.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y/N):
o Boundary clarification at Long Point SMR, and the proposed removal of fish feeding from the regulations all fall within the CFGC’s authority.
o Changing the color of a purple no-take SMCA to red on outreach materials only is a non-regulatory request. However, alternative pathways for this and other similar non-regulatory requests may be explored as a part of the 3-phase approach to evaluate petitions.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (Y): Related information and data needed to evaluate petition are currently available.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (Y): Limited local controversy is anticipated regarding the request to end fish feeding within the Lover’s Cove and Casino Point SMCAs.
Petition Number: 2023-26MPA Petitioner: Lisa Gilfillan, WILDCOAST and San Diego MPA Collaborative
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (N): Changes requested do not require policy guidance from CFGC.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y/N): o Changing the boundaries of an MPA is within CFGC authority.
o Changing the color of a purple no-take SMCA to red on outreach materials only is a non-regulatory request. However, alternative pathways for this and other similar non-regulatory requests may be explored as a part of the 3-phase approach to evaluate petitions.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (Y): Related information and data needed to evaluate petition are currently available.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (Y): Limited local controversy is anticipated regarding the proposed boundary shift. Petition Number: 2023-30MPA Petitioner: Robert Jamgochian
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (N): Changes requested do not require policy guidance from CFGC.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): The proposed amendments to the allowed take and gear type are within CFGC authority.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (Y): Related information and data needed to evaluate petition are currently available.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Limited clarification with the petitioner may be necessary to determine the request for Type A hoop nets only.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (Y): Limited local controversy is anticipated regarding proposed change in Dungeness crab take regulations. Petition Number: 2023-31MPA Petitioner: Ashley-Eagle Gibbs, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (N): Changes requested do not require policy guidance from the CFGC. The requested redesignation aligns with the intent of this MPA identified during the north central coast marine life protection act (MLPA) Initiative design and siting process to redesignate as an SMR once the pre-existing aquaculture lease was terminated.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): The proposed amendments to the allowed take and gear type are within CFGC authority. • Is immediate evaluation possible? (Y): Related information and data needed to evaluate petition are currently available.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (Y): Limited local controversy regarding ending recreational clamming. This petition is consistent with the recommendation of the northcentral coast MLPA regional stakeholder group at the end of the MLPA Initiative design and siting process.
Petition Number: 2023-30MPA Petitioner: Robert Jamgochian
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (N): Changes requested do not require policy guidance from CFGC.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): The proposed amendments to the allowed take and gear type are within CFGC authority.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (Y): Related information and data needed to evaluate petition are currently available.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Limited clarification with the petitioner may be necessary to determine the request for Type A hoop nets only.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (Y): Limited local controversy is anticipated regarding proposed change in Dungeness crab take regulations.
Petition Number: 2023-31MPA Petitioner: Ashley-Eagle Gibbs, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (N): Changes requested do not require policy guidance from the CFGC. The requested redesignation aligns with the intent of this MPA identified during the north central coast marine life protection act (MLPA) Initiative design and siting process to redesignate as an SMR once the pre-existing aquaculture lease was terminated.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): The proposed amendments to the allowed take and gear type are within CFGC authority.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (Y): Related information and data needed to evaluate petition are currently available.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (Y): Limited local controversy regarding ending recreational clamming. This petition is consistent with the recommendation of the northcentral coast MLPA reg
Justifications for Proposed Bin 2 Petitions Petitions that do not meet the above criteria for Bin 1 petitions are categorized into Bin 2. The analysis of these petitions will be more complex as they will likely require additional policy guidance, information, and/or resources, before they can be evaluated. Below are brief justifications that describe why a metric was met or not.
Bin 2 initial Proposals
Bin 2
Note: ...Continue to scroll down this webpage for All Proposed MPA Changes in detail:
Petition Number: 2023-14MPA Petitioner: David Goldenberg, California Sea Urchin Commission
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (Y): Requires guidance regarding changing take regulations in SMCAs over a large geographic scale.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): All requested regulatory changes are within CFGC authority.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (N):
o Requested changes will require coordination with other management priorities such as the Kelp Restoration, Recovery, and Management Plan (KRMP) and updates to invertebrate take regulations.
o A more in-depth examination of the original MPA design guidance will be needed for this petition before staff can analyze the proposed change.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (N): Changing take regulations in several MPAs statewide is likely to be controversial.
Petition Number: 2023-15MPA Petitioner: Blake Hermann
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (Y): Requires guidance regarding re-designation of entire SMRs into SMCAs.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): All requested regulatory changes are within CFGC authority.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (N): Requested changes will require in-depth analysis of many resources and extensive coordination with external partners, including but not limited to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuaries, National Parks Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (N): Redesignating SMRs to SMCAs is likely to be controversial.
Petition Number: 2023-16MPA Petitioner: Richard Ogg
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (Y): Requires guidance regarding re-designation of entire SMRs to SMCAs.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): All requested regulatory changes are within CFGC authority
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (N): Requested changes will require coordination with other management efforts regarding the ocean salmon fishery.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (N): Redesignating SMRs to SMCAs is likely to be controversial.
Petition Number: 2023-18MPA Petitioner: Greg Helms, on behalf of the Santa Barbara Channel MPA Collaborative
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (Y): Requires guidance regarding partial designation change of an SMR to an SMCA and modifications to special closures.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y/N):
o Creation of an SMCA and modifications to, or removal of, an existing state MPA or special closure are within CFGC authority.
o Continued support of M2 radar is a non-regulatory request. Changing the color of a purple, no-take SMCAs to red on outreach materials only is a non-regulatory request. However, alternative pathways for this and other similar non-regulatory requests may be explored as a part of the 3-phase approach to evaluate petitions.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (N): Evaluation of this petition will require coordination with many external partners including National Marine Sanctuaries and the National Park Service. A more in-depth examination of the original MPA design guidance will also be needed to analyze the proposed changes.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (N): The partial redesignation and changes to special closures around the Channel Islands are likely to be controversial.
Petition Number: 2023-19MPA Petitioner: Sam Cohen, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (Y): Requires guidance regarding approach to co-management of MPAs with California Native American Tribes and creation of new MPAs.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): All requested regulatory changes are within CFGC authority.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (N): Requested changes will require coordination with the California Natural Resources Agency, other state and federal agencies, local jurisdictions, and other partners regarding policies for co-management of the state’s natural resources with California Native American Tribes.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (Y): Additional clarification needed from the petitioner regarding the definition of tribal co-management in the context of this petition and proposed regulation changes.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (N): Establishing a new MPA is likely to be controversial.
Petition Number: 2023-20MPA Petitioner: Sam Cohen, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (Y): Requires guidance on approach to co-management of MPAs with California Native American Tribes and changes in take regulations of an SMCA.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): All requested regulatory changes are within CFGC authority.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (N): Requested changes will require coordination with the California Natural Resources Agency, other state and federal agencies, local jurisdictions, and other partners regarding policies for co-management of the state’s natural resources with California Native American Tribes.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (Y): Significant clarification is needed from the petitioner regarding the definition of tribal co-management in the context of this petition.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (N): Decreasing the level of protection of an SMCA and proposed differences in take allowances by diverse sectors are likely to be controversial.
Petition Number: 2023-21MPA Petitioner: Rosa Laucci, Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (Y): Requires guidance on approach to co-management of MPAs with California Native American Tribes and the creation of a tribal take-only MPA.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): All requested regulatory changes are within CFGC authority.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (N): Requested changes will require coordination with the California Natural Resources Agency, other state and federal agencies, local jurisdictions, and other partners regarding policies for co-management of the state’s natural resources with California Native American Tribes.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (Y): Clarification is needed from the petitioner about the tribal take exemption.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (N): Creating a tribal-take only MPA and proposed differences in take allowances by diverse sectors are likely to be controversial.
Petition Number: 2023-23MPA Petitioner: Keith Rootsaert, Giant Giant Kelp Restoration
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (Y): Requires guidance regarding redesignation of entire MPAs and creation of new MPAs.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y/N): Several requested changes are within CFGC authority, while many are non-regulatory requests.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (N): Several requested changes will require coordination with other management priorities such as the KRMP and updates to statewide invertebrate take regulations. Evaluation of the requested changes will require in-depth analysis and coordination with many partners including National Marine Sanctuaries and several other state agencies.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (Y): The scope of changes requested in this petition are extensive and complex and will require extensive coordination with the petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (N): Establishment of new MPAs is likely to be controversial. Stakeholders in the Monterey area have consistently provided public comments on prior CFGC actions like those proposed within the petition, indicating a high degree of anticipated controversy on other petition components.
Petition Number: 2023-24MPA Petitioner: Mike Beanan, Laguna Bluebelt Coalition
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (N): Changes requested do not require policy guidance from the CFGC.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): All requested regulatory changes are within CFGC authority.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (N): A more in-depth examination of the original MPA design guidance will be needed for this petition to analyze the proposed change.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (N): Public comments/letters have already been received by CDFW and CFGC about this petition, indicating a high degree of anticipated controversy
Petition Number: 2023-27MPA Petitioner: Azsha Hudson, Environmental Defense Center
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (Y): Requires guidance regarding re-designation of SMCA to SMR. The requested change does not align with the intent of this MPA identified during the Channel Islands planning process and would affect current tribal take allowances.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory Authority? (Y): All requested regulatory changes are within CFGC authority.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (N): Evaluation of this petition will require coordination with the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians and many external partners including National Marine Sanctuaries, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Park Service. A more in-depth examination of the original MPA design guidance will also be needed to analyze the proposed changes.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (N): Re-designation of entire MPA, effects on tribal take exemptions, and effects of proposed changes to the commercial and recreational lobster fisheries are likely to be controversial.
Petition Number: 2023-28MPA Petitioner: Lisa Suatoni, Natural Resources Defense Council
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (Y): Requires guidance regarding the creation of new MPAs.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): All requested regulatory changes are within CFGC authority
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (N): Requested changes will require coordination with the California Natural Resources Agency, other state and federal agencies, local jurisdictions, and other partners regarding policies for co-management of the state’s natural resources with California Native American Tribes.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (N): Establishment of a new MPA is likely to be controversial.
Petition Number: 2023-29MPA Petitioner: Lisa Suatoni, Natural Resources Defense Council
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (Y): Requires guidance regarding the creation of new MPAs.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): All requested regulatory changes are within CFGC authority.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (N): Requested changes will require coordination with the California Natural Resources Agency, other state and federal agencies, local jurisdictions, and other partners regarding policies for co-management of the state’s natural resources with California Native American Tribes. A more in-depth examination of the original MPA design guidance will be needed for this petition before staff can analyze the proposed change.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (Y): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (N): Establishment of a new MPA is likely to be controversial.
Petition Number: 2023-32MPA Petitioner: Ashley Eagle-Gibbs, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (Y): Requires guidance regarding the redesignation of an SMCA to an SMR that does not align with MLPA design process intent of the MPA and expansion of the existing MPA.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): All requested regulatory changes are within CFGC authority.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (N): A more in-depth examination of the original MPA science design guidance will be needed to analyze the proposed change.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (N): Due to this site being a popular area for human use, a designation change and boundary expansion are likely to be controversial
Petition Number: 2023-33MPA Petitioner: Laura Deehan, Environment California Research and Policy Center and Azul
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (Y): Requires guidance regarding the redesignations of SMCAs to an SMRs that do not align with MLPA design process intent of the MPA, creation of a new MPA, and expansion of existing MPAs.
Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): All requested regulatory changes are within CFGC authority.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (N): Because this petition’s stated intent is to assist in kelp forest recovery, this petition will need to be evaluated in concert with the KRMP, which is not yet complete.
• Is clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (N): Creation of a new MPA and large expansion of existing MPAs are likely to be controversial. There has already been significant local stakeholder discussion regarding the proposed Pleasure Point MPA in Santa Cruz County
Petition Number: 2023-34MPA Petitioner: Laura Deehan, Environment California Research and Policy Center and Azul
• Is policy guidance needed for the next phase of evaluation? (Y): Requires guidance on the redesignation of the SMCA to an SMR that does not align with MLPA design process intent of the MPA.
• Does the petition fall within CFGC regulatory authority? (Y): All requested regulatory changes are within CFGC authority.
• Is immediate evaluation possible? (N): Analysis will require a more in-depth examination of the original MPA design guidance regarding the proposed changes.
• Is Clarification needed from the petitioner? (N): Changes requested are straightforward and do not require detailed clarification from petitioner.
• Is limited controversy anticipated? (N): Anticipated to be highly controversial with the recreational and commercial fishing communities in the areas of the proposed changes.
All Proposed MPA Changes in detail:
I. Petition 2023-14MPA Placed in Bin 2
Submitted By: David Goldenberg, Executive Director, California Sea Urchin Commission
Overview: Allow the commercial take of urchins in the following State Marine Conservation Areas (SMCAs): 1) Sea Lion Cove SMCA 2) Stewart’s Point SMCA 3) Salt Point SMCA 4) Double Cone Rock SMCA 5) Naples SMCA 6) Anacapa Island SMCA 7) Point Dume SMCA 8) Point Vicente SMCA 9) Swami’s SMCA
Rational: The commercial urchin fishery and the resiliency of California’s kelp forests have been identified as being at risk due to climate change. This became a reality with the warm water event that started in 2014 and led to urchin barrens and a decline in kelp forests along the California coast, with declines in kelp as high as 90% along the north coast. This resulted in a catastrophic decline in urchin landings (4.2 million pounds in 2013 down to 284,000 pounds in 2022), leading to a federal fishery disaster declaration. Allowing commercial urchin fishing within the listed SMCAs will improve the sustainability of the urchin industry and may also support kelp recovery efforts endorsed by the Fish and Game Commission (FGC), Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), and the Ocean Protection Council (OPC).
This proposal is consistent with goals and objectives 1.1, 1.5, 2.4, and 5.1 identified in the 2016 Master Plan for Marine Protected Areas (MPA), along with the identified design considerations relative to climate change impacts and preservation of diverse commercial uses. Managed urchin fishing can promote the stability of species diversity and abundance consistent with natural fluctuations in environmental conditions. We believe that commercial urchin fishing can help the recovery of kelp ecosystems impacted by over-abundant urchin populations (urchin barrens) ultimately caused by climate change. This belief is based on the kelp restoration projects funded by the OPC along the north coast that are showing promise. Our petition sets up an economical approach that can be used to expand this effort in selected SMCAs along the entire coastline.
Our proposal is consistent with the Master Plan by protecting habitats (kelp forests) while allowing commercial harvest, thus mitigating some of the significant negative impacts experienced by the fishery when the MPA network was established. The Master Plan also states that the MPA network should consider several factors, including the potential impacts of climate change and the diversity of commercial fishing. The proposal is also consistent with the comprehensive recommendations and science guidelines of DFW’s Decadal Management Review, which acknowledged inadequate engagement with the fishing industry and the continuing need for adaptive management under a changing climate. DFW’s JEDI Governance recommendation #6(c) clearly states the need to explore innovative approaches to engage the fishing industry in MPA research and management. The industry believes that with the collaboration of CDFW, FGC, OPC, NGO’s, academic institutions, and the Tribes it can help address urchin barrens and ultimately restore kelp forests the ecosystems reliant upon them.
Our proposal is supported at the Sea Lion Cove and Double Cone Rock SMCAs by the MPA Collaborative recommendations. The Collaborative also supports continuing the commercial urchin harvest at Saunders Reef SMCA.
The commercial urchin fishery has a long track record of working with DFW, and in recent years with OPC, on research and management issues and is ready to continue that partnership using the recommended changes to the MPA network listed in this petition as an important step in fulfilling the goals of the Marine Life Protection Act and mandates in the Fish and Game Code to support sustainable commercial fisheries.
The science developed to date indicates that in areas lacking significant urchin predators, urchin populations can have negative cascading effects on kelp forests in MPAs and reference sites (Carr et.al., 2021). By functioning as predators, commercial urchin fishermen may help restore and protect kelp forests in MPAs. In accordance with the adaptive management elements of the Master Plan, decadal review, and DFW recommendations, we ask that this petition be collaboratively evaluated by all stakeholders through the rulemaking process of the FGC with respect to improving the resiliency of both the commercial urchin fishery and kelp forests to climate change.
More Information https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 27-30)
II. Petition 2023-15MPA Placed in Bin 2
Submitted By: Blake Hermann
Overview: This petition requests a modification to three Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) off Southern Santa Cruz Island and Santa Barbara Island, known as the Footprint Marine Reserve (The Footprint), Gull Island Marine Reserve (Gull Island), and The Santa Barbara Island Marine Reserve (SBI). The Footprint and Gull Island Reserves are located on the southeast and southwest sides of Santa Cruz Island respectively, and the SBI Reserve is located on the southeast corner of Santa Barbara Island. This petition requests, for the reasons stated in the accompanying sections, that The Footprint, Gull Island, and SBI Reserves be modified and partially opened and converted into limited take conservation areas with implementation of one the following options (listed from the most to least allowances):
Option 1: The least restrictive option, with some existing precedent SCMAs:
• The recreational take of pelagic finfish* is allowed.
• The commercial take of pelagic finfish* by hook-and-line, and swordfish by harpoon are allowed.
• Deep-Set-Buoy-Gear (DSBG) is allowed in the federal portions of the proposed MPAs. **
Option 2: Elevated protections in species selectivity (preferred option): • The recreational take of Highly Migratory Species (HMS)* is allowed.
• The commercial take of Highly Migratory Species (HMS)* by hook-and-line, and swordfish by harpoon is allowed.
• The possession of Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) is allowed.
• Deep-Set-Buoy-Gear (DSBG) is allowed in the federal portions of the proposed MPAs. **
Option 3: Option 1 with only allowance of “surface fishing methods:” ***
• The recreational take of pelagic finfish* is allowed via surface fishing methods.
• The commercial take of pelagic finfish* by hook-and-line via surface fishing methods, and swordfish by harpoon are allowed.
Option 4: Option 2 with only allowance of “surface fishing methods:”
• The recreational take of Highly Migratory Species (HMS)* is allowed via surface fishing methods.
• The commercial take of Highly Migratory Species (HMS)* by hook-and-line via surface fishing methods, and swordfish by harpoon are allowed.
• The possession of Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) is allowed.
Each of the above options may also include a reduced in size, more selective, limited-take or notake zone within the Gull Island and SBI zones. However, as discussed later, these areas are only needed if Options 1 or 3 are selected (See Attached: Full Analysis Document 1). *List of State HMS, CPS, and Pelagic finfish per Title 14 CA § 1.49, 1.39, and 632(3): -Highly migratory species means any of the following: albacore, bluefin, bigeye, and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus spp.); skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis); dorado (dolphinfish) (Coryphaena hippurus); striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax); thresher sharks (common, pelagic, and bigeye) (Alopias spp); shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus); blue shark (Prionace glauca); and Pacific swordfish (Xiphias gladius). -Coastal pelagic species means any of the following: northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus), jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), and market squid (Loligo opalescens). -Pelagic finfish, are a subset of finfish defined as: northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), barracudas (Sphyraena spp.), billfishes (family Istiophoridae), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus), salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), blue shark (Prionace glauca), salmon shark (Lamna ditropis), shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), thresher sharks (Alopias spp.), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), tunas (family Scombridae) including Pacific bonito (Sarda chiliensis), and yellowtail (Seriola lalandi).
**Deep-Set-Buoy-Gear (DSBG), if allowed, would only be allowed beyond the 3nm line, outside of state waters, as is currently fished. Barring any future changes or exempted fishing permits (EFPs).
***See Full Analysis Document attachment (Document 1) for detailed description.
Rational: The Problem: Initially established in 2003 and federally expanded in 2006, the Channel Islands MPA network containing The Footprint, Gull Island, and SBI Reserves was the first network of its kind in California history. This island network later expanded into the statewide MPA network during coastal implementation phases from 2007-2012. The problem created by these first MPAs was the unintentional protection of seasonal pelagic and highly migratory species that migrate into Southern California during the summer months.
The allowance of limited pelagic or highly migratory take in these areas falls in line with the adaptive management measures set forth in the Decadal Management Review (DMR) and reinforced by the Marine Resource Council’s (MRC) near-term recommendations. The proposed changes also fall in line with the MPA Master Plan and align with FGC comments on previous change request petitions.
While maintaining the original intentions for the creation of the MPAs, the proposed changes will have minimal impacts on the ecosystem due to the selective nature of the gear being recommended and highly mobile species it would allow for.
Summary of the reasons for change: This petition aims to prove this proposal is justified by showing the following*:
• Limited take of pelagic finfish or HMS does not significantly affect or interfere with the species and features the MPAs aim to protect
• The proposed changes provide better equality of MPA policy across the state
• The 20 years of data from these and other MPAs support the proposed changes
• The proposed changes are in line with MPA decadal management review (DMR) comprehensive recommendations and the near-term priority recommendations of the marine resource committee (MRC)
• The proposed changes follow precedent set by the FGC’s comments on previously submitted petitions, the current MPA overviews, the 2016 MPA master plan for the southern section, and the original 2002 MPA CEQA for the Channel Islands Network
• The proposed changes exclusively allow for sustainable fishing methods on no at risk populations/species • The proposed changes support sustainable commercial fisheries the state and NOAA have expressed desire to further expand
• The proposed changes are reasonably enforceable (per discussions with F&G officers) • The proposed changes have mass public support from the public, fishery groups, nonfishery groups, and conservation organizations If implemented the resulting changes may have the following effects:
• The Channel Islands MPA network would be updated to allow for a more equitable 60/40 no-take to limited take closure ratio, which would be in line with the state’s ratio
• Would provide new fishing opportunities to sustainable recreational and commercial fisheries while producing minimal impacts to the intended protected structures and species
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 31-65)
III. Petition 2023-16MPA Placed in Bin 2
Submitted By: Richard (Dick) Ogg- Bodega Bay Fisherman’s Marketing Association
Overview: Allow the commercial take of salmon by troll in the following State Marine Reserves (SMRs) by converting them to State Marine Conservation Areas (SMCAs):
1) Stewarts Point Marine Reserve
2) Bodega Head State Marine Reserve
Rational: The commercial salmon fishery has been identified as being at risk due to climate change. The Landings have declined significantly during the last decade. The recent drought precipitated the closure of the 2023 salmon season, with additional season closures likely. This resulted in a federal fishery disaster declaration. The existing Marine Protection Areas (MPAs) create problematic fishing practices by creating obstacles to efficient trolling around Bodega Head and Stewarts Point Reserves, forcing inefficient fishing and preventing access to otherwise productive trolling grounds. Allowing commercial salmon trolling in these two MPAs will help with efficiency and ultimately resiliency in the fishery.
This proposal is consistent with goals and objectives 1.1, 1.5, 2.4, and 5.1 identified in the 2016 Master Plan for Marine Protected Areas (MPA), along with the identified design considerations relative to climate change impacts and preservation of diverse commercial uses.
Our proposal is consistent with the Master Plan by maintaining protections under an SMR while allowing commercial salmon harvest by troll, thus mitigating some of the negative impacts experienced by the fishery when the MPA network was established. The Master Plan also states that the MPA network should consider several factors, including the potential impacts of climate change and the diversity of commercial fishing. The proposal is also consistent with the comprehensive recommendations and science guidelines of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Decadal Management Review, which acknowledged inadequate engagement with the fishing industry and the continuing need for adaptive management under a changing climate. CDFW’s JEDI Governance recommendation #6(c) clearly states the need to explore innovative approaches to engage the fishing industry in MPA research and management.
Our proposal was discussed with the local collaborative, and it was interested in more information on the issue at Stewarts Point Reserve but was not supportive of the proposal at Bodega Head Reserve.
The commercial salmon fishery has a long track record of working with CDFW on research and management issues and is ready to continue that partnership using the recommended changes to the MPA network listed in this petition as an important step in fulfilling the goals of the Marine Life Protection Act and mandates in the Fish and Game Code to support sustainable commercial fisheries.
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). In accordance with the adaptive management elements of the Master Plan, decadal review, and DFW recommendations, we ask that this petition be collaboratively evaluated by all stakeholders through the rulemaking process of the FGC with respect to improving the resiliency of both the commercial urchin fishery and kelp forests to climate change.
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 66-70)
IV. Petition 2023-18MPA
Submitted By: Greg Helms Placed in Bin 2
Overview: This Petition requests 7 MPA network refinements representing consensus recommendations of the Santa Barbara Channel MPA Collaborative. The refinements address MLPA governance and management pillars aimed at enhanced compliance/enforceability, regulatory clarity, and MPA design guidelines.
Rational: The 7 MPA refinements are proposed to improve and refine MPAs and/or MPA management in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties based on Santa Barbara Channel MPA Collaborative Members’ on-the-ground/water experience as well as the findings of the MLPA Decadal Management Review. MPA outcomes are closely linked with their core management pillars including research and monitoring; education and outreach; policy and permitting; and enforcement and compliance. The 7 proposed refinements in this petition are described in the attached narrative, and appear under Santa Barbara/Ventura in the spreadsheet submitted by the Collaborative Network and linked here. Column D of the spreadsheet summarizes the concern/problem addressed and column G provides the justification for the proposed refinement.
1. Vandenberg SMR: Create a narrow alongshore SMCA allowing shore fishing for finfish by hook and line only.
Guiding rationale: Maintain contribution to MLPA goals 1-4, 6 while addressing equity concerns caused by consumptive activity allowed nearby within Vandenberg SMR.
Discussion: Vandenberg SMR is a core State Marine Reserve serving to anchor the MLPA Central Coast Study Region size, spacing and habitat representation goals; the SMR includes coastline along Vandenberg Space Force Base and at Surf Beach, the key coastal access point along an otherwise remote coastal area for residents in and around Lompoc, CA. Recreation at Surf Beach is constrained by seasonal snowy plover conservation regulations. An equity concern has arisen due to the SMR restrictions not being applied to Vandenberg Space Force personnel and dependents, in contrast to non-military residents at nearby Surf Beach who must comply. Petitioner believes this inequity can best be resolved by equally enforcing no-take regulations throughout this SMR, but that such enforcement may be infeasible. Therefore, it is recommended that hook and line only fishing from shore be allowed within a newly established SMCA, to consist of a 100-meter zone inshore of the existing SMR allowing hook and line fishing for finfish only along the coastal dimension of the existing MPA shape. The new SMR/SMCA regulations would apply and be enforced equitably across military and civilian populations.
2. Point Conception SMR: Provide continued support for Marine Monitor (M2) radar, ground-truthing, and agency coordination Guiding rationale: Governance - To improve compliance and/or enforceability; MLPA Goal 5
Discussion: Point Conception anchors the northern reaches of the South Coast Study Region MPA network, protecting remote coastal and offshore habitats. Its remoteness, as well as extensive coastal private land, pose access challenges for traditional enforcement by CDFW wardens. To address this, radar surveillance systems have been successfully employed to aid monitoring of the SMR. Collaborative members report M2 radar systems are providing crucial use data for the MPA but note high vessel activity that is a potential cause for concern. SBC collaborative recommends continued support for the M2 radar system to continue monitoring vessel activity within the SMR, and for ground-truthing and agency coordination to distinguish recreational (surf) visitation from potential MPA violations. California’s MPA network includes several remote MPAs for which traditional enforcement patrols may not be adequate to ensure compliance; the Point Conception SMR M2 radar system may serve as an important model for addressing these challenges.
3. Kashtayit SMCA: Refine regulatory language to: “Recreational take of finfish, invertebrates, and giant kelp is allowed.”
Guiding Rationale: Governance - Simplifies regulatory language and enhances public understanding.
Discussion: Kashtayit SMCA is a small SMCA aimed at cultural resource protection and education. Kashtayit SMCA is located along the highly visited Gaviota State Beach. Members of the SBC Collaborative (including enforcement partners) report visitors, along with those working to improve compliance, have difficulty interpreting the existing regulatory language for the SMCA due to its length and parenthetical exceptions. The recommended refinement would include and protect most species intended for protection with much greater clarity and public understanding. An additional recommendation is that State officials help collaborate locally for repairs to the Gaviota Pier to aid public access and safety in and around Kashtayit SMCA.
4. Campus Point No-Take SMCA: Use red, rather than purple, to identify this MPA on maps
Guiding rationale: Governance – enhances public understanding.
Discussion: On- and offshore hook and line fishing continue to be observed by SBC Collaborative participants, suggesting greater compliance with no-take regulations can be achieved. Our recommendation here is to depict this no-take SMCA in red, consistent with the other no-take MPAs and likely a clearer indication that the MPA is effectively a State Marine Reserve to the public.
5. San Miguel Island Special Closure: Consider removal of pre-existing special closure
Guiding rationale: Simplifies regulatory language; MPA design guidelines
The San Miguel Island Special Closure was originally designed to reduce disturbance to pinniped rookeries between Castle Rock and Judith point and was retained at the time of MLPA South Coast MPA design. The closure entails a seasonal exemption for sea urchin fishing and includes lengthy language pertaining to two separate regulations. With a NMFS marine mammal station equipped with M2 radar onsite and large, stable pinniped populations present in this zone, we encourage the State to consider whether the Special Closure remains a necessary sub-component of MPA design offshore western San Miguel Island.
6. Anacapa Island Special Closure – Revise to allow vessel access/landing at Frenchy’s cove
Guiding rationale: Governance – accounts for Regional Stakeholder Group (RSG) intent while addressing non-consumptive access concern. Discussion: In establishing an SMR/SMCA complex at Anacapa Island, the RSG retained two existing Special Closures designed to protect seabirds and brown pelicans, respectively. Aligning the boundaries of new MPA complex with those of the two special closures has interfered with the intended allowance for vessels to land safely at Frenchy’s Cove. It is recommended that this intent be more effectively secured by including an exemption in the Special Closure for traditional vessel access and landing.
7. Anacapa Island Special Closure: Reassess and consider removing the full-island special closure
Guiding rationale: Simplifies regulatory language; MPA design guidelines
Discussion: Anacapa Island, as discussed above, has a SMR/SMCA complex overlain over one full-island, depth-based seabird protection closure and another special closure designed to protect brown pelicans. The overlapping conservation zones are visually confusing and, in particular, the broader seabird closure is based on depth along a steep, cliffside seabed area that is difficult to comply with and enforce. Given the extensive MPA and closure complex established to protect marine life including seabirds, SBC Collaborative recommends reassessment of the full-island closure and consideration of its removal as appropriate.
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 71-77)
V. Petition 2023-19MPA Placed in Bin 2
Submitted By: Sam Cohen, Esq. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians
Overview: a proposed additional California-Chumash co-management SMCA that is referred to as “Chitqawi” – the northern most coastal Chumash village site of the territory traditionally inhabited by the diverse Chumash peoples. The proposed new regulations are as follows:
(B) Area restrictions defined in subsection 632(a)(1)(C) apply, with the following specified exceptions:
1. The recreational take of finfish [subsection 632(a)(2)], invertebrates except rock scallops and mussels by hand harvest is allowed.
2. Take pursuant to activities authorized under subsection 632(b)(97)(C) is allowed.
3. The following federally recognized tribe is exempt from the area and take regulations found in subsection 632(b)(97) of these regulations and shall comply with all other existing regulations and statutes: Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.
Rational: a proposed additional California-Chumash co-management SMCA that is referred to as “Chitqawi” – the northern most coastal Chumash village site of the territory traditionally inhabited by the diverse Chumash peoples. The proposed new regulations are as follows: (B) Area restrictions defined in subsection 632(a)(1)(C) apply, with the following specified exceptions: 1. The recreational take of finfish [subsection 632(a)(2)], invertebrates except rock scallops and mussels by hand harvest is allowed. 2. Take pursuant to activities authorized under subsection 632(b)(97)(C) is allowed. 3. The following federally recognized tribe is exempt from the area and take regulations found in subsection 632(b)(97) of these regulations and shall comply with all other existing regulations and statutes: Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.
The SYBCI are co-managers of four south coast SMCAs. The Tribe is recommending the adoption of a new MPA between Morro Bay and Cambria for the Central Coast Region.
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 78-114)
VI. Petition 2023-20MPA Placed in Bin 2
Submitted By: Sam Cohen, Esq. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians
Overview: To ensure 30% of California waters are fully protected by 2030 and to foster Tribal engagement and co-management of MPAs, this Petition submitted by the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (SYBCI) recommends that the Point Buchon SMCA be designated as a Chumash SMCA that will support Tribal engagement and co-management of the SMCA within the Central Coast Region network. Regulatory changes are also described in the attached Summary for this Petition. The SYBCI also supports the MPA Collaborative Network’s Regulatory Recommendation (Row 104, Column E) to adjust the boundary of the Point Buchon SMR to the north to better capture the offshore marine area of the Point and to clarify the boundary of the SMR. The attached Summary for this Petition describes these proposed actions further. The proposed new regulations are as follows:
(B) Area restrictions defined in subsection 632(a)(1)(C) apply, with the following specified exceptions:
1. The recreational take of finfish [subsection 632(a)(2)], invertebrates except rock scallops and mussels by hand harvest is allowed.
2. Take pursuant to activities authorized under subsection 632(b)(97)(C) is allowed.
3. The following federally recognized tribe is exempt from the area and take regulations found in subsection 632(b)(97) of these regulations and shall comply with all other existing regulations and statutes: Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.
Rational: 3. The following federally recognized tribe is exempt from the area and take regulations found in subsection 632(b)(97) of these regulations and shall comply with all other existing regulations and statutes: Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 115-151 )
VII. Petition 2023-21MPA Placed in Bin 2
Submitted By: Rosa Laucci, Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation
Overview: Remove allowance for surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) by dip net or Hawaiian type throw net; Change to No-Take SMCA with Tribal exemption for Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation, as stated in E2 of the MPA Collaborative Network’s Regulatory Recommendations (Appendix 2). Change northern boundary to align with recognized California/Oregon state line, as stated in E4 of the MPA Collaborative Network’s Regulatory Recommendations (Appendix 2).
Rational: Smelt is culturally important species to the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation and a “No Take” designation will be clearer to public, reducing violations. See Appendix 1 for further explanations. Original boundary used a mapping system that does not align with on-the-ground state line.
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 152-)
VIII. Petition 2023-22MPA Placed in Bin 1
Submitted By: Wendy Berube, Orange County Coastkeeper
Overview:
a. In both the Bolsa Chica Basin and Laguna Beach no-take SMCAs, change the purple to red on outreach maps. See rows 150 and 155 on the MPA Collaborative Network Regulatory Recommendations spreadsheet. All items listed in the spreadsheet have been extensively discussed at OCMPAC meetings. The groups reached a consensus at a dedicated regulatory recommendations meeting with broad community representation.
b. For Crystal Cove and Dana Point SMCAs, add “non-living, geological or cultural” to marine resource tidepool take prohibition for consistency with 632(a)1(C). See rows 153 and 156 on the MPA Collaborative Network Regulatory Recommendations spreadsheet.
c. For the Crystal Cove and Dana Point SMCAs, change the description of tidepools to “rocky intertidal zone” with a modified definition, “the rocky intertidal zone includes all hard substrate between the highest high tide and lowest low tide.” This definition is provided by Dr. Jayson Smith, professor of intertidal biology at Cal Poly Pomona. See rows 152 and 157 on the MPA Collaborative Network Regulatory Recommendations spreadsheet.
d. In all Orange County MPAs, with the exception of Upper Newport Bay, add an amendment that “Scientific research, monitoring, restoration, and education is allowed pursuant to any required federal, state or local permits, or as otherwise authorized by the department.” Upper Newport Bay already has a similar amendment, which is why it is being excluded from this request: CCR Title 14 Section 632(132)(D): “(D) Maintenance dredging, habitat restoration, research and education programs, maintenance of artificial structures, and operation and maintenance of existing facilities inside the conservation area is allowed pursuant to any required federal, state and local permits, or activities pursuant to Section 630, or as otherwise authorized by the department.”
Rational:
a. A no-take SMCA has the same rules for the public as do the SMRs. It is easier for the public to understand the regulations when there are fewer designations. Right now, there is confusion over what the purple area means on the maps that we use for outreach. It would simplify the rules if all no-take areas were red. It is anticipated that other MPA Collaborative members will be submitting similar petitions across the South Coast region. This change supports Decadal Review Prioritized Recommendation #15.
b. This clarifies that the tidepool protection also includes rocks and shells. Our enforcement partners have reported many people taking rocks and shells from the MPA. These are important abiotic ecosystem resources and should be explicitly protected.
c. Tidepools are specific to pools but the intertidal habitats that need protection can be free of pools in some cases. “Area encompassing the rocky pools” is unclear to the public that all rocky intertidal habitat is included here.
d. It has been widely recognized in OCMPAC meetings as well as in the Decadal Review process that it is extremely difficult to obtain permits to do research, monitoring, and restoration within our MPAs. These practices have been permitted in other coastal MPAs, such as nearby San Elijo Lagoon, where restoration efforts successfully restored the lagoon and coastal dune living shoreline. With climatic uncertainty and sea level rise, it is imperative that we are able to respond quickly to any changes with current and accurate scientific data. In Orange County, all of the rocky intertidal and reef habitats are protected by the MPAs, so there is absolutely no other option for scientific study of this habitat. When we do identify problems and solutions through research, we need to be able to implement those solutions quickly. In many cases, the appropriate response is restoration. To ensure the ecological integrity of the Orange County MPAs, we must permit scientific research, monitoring, and restoration. This knowledge will broaden our understanding of OC MPAs under climatic stress. This change supports Decadal Review Prioritized Recommendations # 11, 17, 25, and 6.
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 177-197)
IX. Petition Petition 2023-23MPA Placed in Bin 2
Submitted By: Keith Rootsaert
Overview:
Kelp Restoration
Multiple methods in 3 SMCAs and 1 SMR.
Kelp Protection by Redesignation
Edward F. Ricketts State Marine Conservation Area to Edward F. Ricketts State Marine Reserve.
Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area to Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Reserve.
Carmel Bay State Marine Conservation Area to Carmel Bay State Marine Reserve.
Kelp Protection by Designation
The Tanker’s Reef enforcement area as Tanker’s Reef State Marine Reserve.
Permission to deploy buoys
Prevent anchor damage to rocky reef denizens,
Navigation aid for kelp restoration activities.
Regulatory Pathway for
Sunken ship and other artificial reef structures
SCP Framework Changes
Management of Kelp Restoration
Public Outreach
Adopt a Reef for Kelp Restoration
Rational: This Giant Giant Kelp Restoration petition advances MLPA goals 1-6 and has strong community support of volunteers and grassroots funding. The MPA Collaborative network lists many of these issues on rows 77, 78, 83, & 88, and was supported by all present at the Monterey MPA Collaborative Meeting at Asilomar, August 16, 2023.
This petition is in alignment with the prioritized recommendations from the California Marine Protected Area Decadal Management Review, near-term Priorities (ongoing- 2 years), Cornerstone Governance, Regulatory and Review Framework, Recommendation 04. Apply what is learned from the first Decadal Management Review to support proposed changes to the MPA Network and Management Program. Also: Management Program, Policy and Permitting 18: Utilize OPC’s Restoration and Mitigation Policy to develop a framework to evaluate and approve appropriate restoration and mitigation actions within MPAs and MMAs
Kelp Restoration
Due to widespread urchin barrens following the 2014-2016 marine heat wave and kelp biomass decline in central and northern California, kelp restoration is a proven remedy by scuba divers culling urchins to suppress grazing pressure. Early results at Tanker’s Reef in Monterey have shown that divers culling urchins results in natural kelp recruitment and survival.
This petition will allow certified Kelp Restoration Specialty Divers, recreational and commercial fishermen, to participate in a Regenerative Fishery which suppresses grazing pressure from urchins and promotes giant kelp survival in three State Marine Conservation Areas: Edward F. Ricketts, Pacific Grove Marine Gardens, and Carmel Bay State Marine Conservation Areas and in “Whaler’s Cove”, a portion of the Point Lobos State Marine Reserve.
The methods will involve multiple techniques to suppress grazing pressure on kelp and to enhance kelp recruitment and survivorship and are explained in further detail in Blueprint for Kelp Restoration in Monterey. Suppression: Hand culling of urchins. Commercial harvest of urchins for urchin ranching and food sales. Baiting & trapping urchins. Utilizing natural defenses of acid weed. Removing invasive marine algae.
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 198-206)
X. Petition 2023-24MPA Placed in Bin 2
Submitted By: Mike Beanan, Laguna Bluebelt Coalition
Overview: a. Extend the Laguna Beach SMCA no-take regulation down to the southern border of the city of Laguna Beach. This area is currently covered by the Dana Point SMCA, which only protects tide pool resources, not the offshore kelp beds.
Rational:
a. Laguna Beach has recently taken over enforcement of the South Laguna beaches all the way down to the city border. Right now there is confusion due to the different regulations within one city. This regulation change will make enforcement easier and more consistent because it will create continuity within the city, where the same rules apply to all beaches. All Laguna Beach lifeguards have received MPO training and enforce no-take rules for the rest of the city beaches. This will result in an increase in outreach and enforcement effectiveness, which supports priority recommendation number 15. High fishing and lobstering pressure are taking a toll on the remaining kelp beds in South Laguna due to overharvesting and substrate degradation due to anchor drag. The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 established new requirements for fishery management councils to identify and describe Essential Fish Habitat and to protect, conserve, and enhance these EFH for the benefit of fisheries. A 2002 update to these EFH regulations allowed fishery management councils to designate Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs). HAPCs are considered high priority areas for conservation, management, or research because they are important to ecosystem function, sensitive to human activities, stressed by development, or are rare. The rocky reef and kelp beds in this particular area of South Laguna are slightly different than those in the rest of the city because of the steep drop of the cliffs into the ocean. This creates a unique microhabitat where waters are mixed due to wave refraction off of the cliffs.
There are kelp forests offshore in these areas that are desperately needed as habitat. One of the original design considerations for designating MPAs was to “Include within MPAs suitable rocky habitat containing abundant kelp and/or foliose algae” (CMLPA Master Plan for MPAs, Appendix F). When the MPA boundaries were finalized in 2012, the kelp was at its highest extent of coverage since 1967 (see supplemental graph), so the total area of kelp forest was overestimated. The kelp beds off South Laguna have been nearly decimated by overharvesting and anchor drag and need to be protected. This, in combination with the potential for additional kelp decline due to warm water events makes it imperative that we protect as much as possible. The Marine Mammal Protection Act also requires action to be taken here. The south end of the no-take SMCA is visible from shore as a line of lobster trap buoys extending out from the cliffs. One MPA watch volunteer reported 223 buoys off of Table Rock beach on 11/8/2023. This represents a virtual “wall” of dangerous trap lines that interrupt whale migration paths. Whales have been seen frequently traveling very close to shore along this stretch of coastline (see supplemental photo of Thousand Steps beach). In 2019, Donna Kalez of Dana Wharf Whale Watching was referenced in a magazine article saying that in the preceding few weeks her captains had logged more than 40 sightings of gray whale cow-calf pairs in the shallow coves of Laguna Beach (Men’s Journal). The lobster buoy lines create a dangerous obstacle for migrating whales, which are protected under the MMPA.
Residents in South Laguna support the extension of the no-take SMCA as evidenced by the attached letters of support from the Three Arch Bay Community Services District, Orange County Coastkeeper, Laguna Canyon Conservancy, Laguna Bluebelt Coalition, and the South Laguna Civic Association. They feel that it is not equitable to have only the north and central beaches protected. Please see the attached letters of support.
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 207-410)
XI. Petition 2023-25MPA Placed in Bin 1
Submitted By: Burton Miller, Catalina MPA Collaborative Co-Chair
Overview: The following proposed changes are regarding MPAs on Catalina Island:
a. Blue Cavern Onshore SMCA. The proposal is to change the current SMCA (No-Take) purple color coding to match the SMR red color coding for simplicity and reduced confusion for public outreach and education regarding no-take zones. The proposed change received full consensus at the Catalina MPA Collaborative meeting on June 30, 2023 (provided that all current maintenance and access activities remain allowed) and can be found on the MPA Collaborative Vetted Regulation Recommendations document here in Row 139.
b. Casino Point SMCA (1): The proposal is to remove the allowance for feeding fish. The proposed change received full consensus at the Catalina MPA Collaborative meeting on June 30, 2023 and can be found on the MPA Collaborative Vetted Regulation Recommendations document here in Row 143.
c. Casino Point SMCA (2): The proposal is to change the current SMCA (No-Take) purple color coding to match the SMR red color coding for simplicity and reduced confusion for public outreach and education regarding no-take zones. The proposed change received full consensus at the Catalina MPA Collaborative meeting on June 30, 2023 and can be found on the MPA Collaborative Vetted Regulation Recommendations document here in Row 144
d. Long Point SMR: The proposal is to change the type of boundary from a latitude and longitude line to being a certain, specified distance from shore. To maintain overall size, the northeast corner could be trimmed and fitted to the western edge of the offshore boundary to create a standard distance from shore (in a similar fashion to the Arrow Point to Lion Head SMCA). The proposed change received full consensus at the Catalina MPA Collaborative meeting on June 30, 2023 and can be found on the MPA Collaborative Vetted Regulation Recommendations document here in Row 141.
e. Lover’s Cove SMCA: The proposed change is regarding the Lover’s Cove SMCA. The proposal is to remove the allowance for feeding fish. The proposed change received full consensus at the Catalina MPA Collaborative meeting on June 30, 2023 and can be found on the MPA Collaborative Vetted Regulation Recommendations document here in Row 142.
Rational:
a. Blue Cavern Onshore SMCA. MPA Collaborative members witness the use of fishing and use of hoop nets close to shore at Big Fisherman Cove, as well as poaching at Yellowtail Point and Bird Rock. The change in color-coding would create consistency with the red no-take zone labels already in place for the SMR and assist with simplified public outreach and education. As stated above, the color change has consensus from the Catalina MPA Collaborative provided that all current maintenance and access activities remain allowed.
b. Casino Point SMCA (1): The recreational feeding of fish in the SMCA goes against the intent of the MLPA. Fish become acclimated to the availability of food in this particular habitat which affects their behavior. Fish are prone to becoming more aggressive which presents a public safety issue as fish can bite. As stated above and as outlined in the MPA Collaborative Regulation Recommendations document, the recommendation achieved consensus from the Catalina MPA Collaborative.
c. Casino Point SMCA (2): The change in color-coding would create consistency with the red no-take zone labels already in place for the SMR and will assist with simplified public outreach and education. As stated above, the color change has consensus from the Catalina MPA Collaborative.
d. Long Point SMR: Trolling through the MPA occurs and it is a misconception of the fishing community that the MPA only occurs close to shore. The outreach to trollers would be simplified and clarified if the boundary was a specified distance that would not require advanced navigation techniques such as referencing latitude and longitude. As stated above, the change achieved consensus from the Catalina MPA Collaborative.
e. Lover’s Cove SMCA: The recreational feeding of fish in the SMCA goes against the intent of the MLPA. Fish become acclimated to the availability of food in this particular habitat which affects their behavior. Fish are prone to becoming more aggressive which presents a public safety issue as fish can bite. As stated above and as outlined in the MPA Collaborative Regulation Recommendations document, the recommendation achieved consensus from the Catalina MPA Collaborative.
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 411-414)
XII. Petition 2023-26MPA Placed in Bin 1
Submitted By: Lisa Gilfillan
Overview: WILDCOAST is an international non-profit that conserves coastal and marine ecosystems and addresses climate change through natural solutions. We often work in partnership with the MPA Collaborative Network and serve as co-chairs for the San Diego MPA Collaborative group. We will reference the Collaborative Network’s Vetted Regulation Recommendations for this petition. Given the complete consensus received within the San Diego MPA Collaborative, we are proposing four changes (one boundary change, and three other changes) across four MPAs. The proposed changes are as follows:
Line/Row #162- affecting Swami’s SMCA : Our Reg recommendation= Shifting the entire shape South (from the lifeguard tower to State/Solana Beach line to cover tidepool on South side)
Line/Row #160, #164, & #170- affecting Batiquitos Lagoon No-Take SMCA , San Elijo Lagoon No-Take SMCA , & Famosa Slough No-Take SMCA : Our Reg recommendation= changing the purple to red for outreach purposes only, if boundaries remain the same
The above proposed recommendations are based on WILDCOAST’s extensive MPA work in San Diego County and also through our collaboration with the MPA Collaborative Network (as a long-standing co-chair for San Diego County). These proposed recommendations came about after a robust discussion with local San Diego stakeholders on June 26, 2023, at the last San Diego MPA Collaborative meeting.
Line/Row #162- Swami’s SMCA: There is a compliance concern here regarding harmful tidepooling, especially at Seaside reef. Enforcement for take of lobster is difficult at the southern boundary since it splits two jurisdictions and the reef (hard to know where they are actually taking from and who is responsible for enforcing what). This proposed change keeps the same size MPA but covers the impacted tidepool area on the Southern boundary. Additionally, the Lifeguard tower would serve as a clear boundary at the North end.
Line/Row #160, #164, & #170- affecting Batiquitos Lagoon No-Take SMCA, San Elijo Lagoon No-Take SMCA, & Famosa Slough No-Take SMCA: The compliance concerns in these locations are all the same- there is confusion amongst the general public around the purple No-Take SMCA designation versus a red SMR. It is therefore easier for the public to understand the regulations when there are fewer designations. It would simplify the rules if all No-Take areas were red for education and outreach purposes. It is anticipated that other MPA Collaborative members will be submitting similar petitions across the South Coast region. Additionally, this change supports Decadal Review Prioritized Recommendation #15.
Rational: NOT SHOWN on APPLICATION
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 415-417)
XIII. Petition Petition 2023-27MPA Placed in Bin 2
Submitted By: Azsha Hudson
Overview: :This petition seeks to reclassify the Anacapa State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) as a State Marine Reserve (SMR) or at a minimum reclassify the portion of the SMCA from shore to at least 30 meters depth to better protect eelgrass habitat.
Rational:
Numerous state and federal policies underscore the importance of eelgrass as an important yet vulnerable species that provides nursery habitat for fish, reduces coastal erosion, acts as a carbon sink, and increases species diversity by providing three-dimensional structure on sandy bottomed habitats.
Based on a scientific study conducted at the Anacapa SMCA from 2016 to 2019, and a growing body of literature on eelgrass recruitment and ecology, there is compelling evidence that seasonally occurring lobster trapping and anchoring in the SMCA is destroying eelgrass beds that are otherwise thriving in the adjacent Anacapa SMR.
• At Anacapa Island the main threat to eelgrass, as found by the study conducted by Jessica Altstatt, are hard bottomed objects.
Dive surveys found the transplanted eelgrass meadows at Frenchy’s Cove within Anacapa SMCA to be damaged and greatly reduced. Concurrent interviews with mariners and National Park rangers revealed that Frenchy’s Cove was being fished heavily by spiny lobster fishermen during the two months (November and December) that the brown pelican Special Closure was open.
Boaters that come to the Channel Islands prefer areas that overlap with eelgrass habitat, leaving the eelgrass susceptible to damage from anchoring.
The limited subset of pelagic fishing methods allowed at the Anacapa SMCA also creates challenges for enforcement by requiring officers to board vessels and confirm compliance on an individual basis. This petition requests Fish and Game Commission (FGC) approval to support the goals of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), align with state and federal policies focused on eelgrass resilience and health, and protect important eelgrass and associated marine life at Anacapa Island.
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 418-493)
XIV. Petition 2023-28MPA Placed in Bin 2
Submitted By: LisaSuatoni, NationalResourcesDefenseCounci
Overview:
We propose the designation of a new State Marine Reserve in the waters around PointSal, Central California to 1)protect this rich and productive ecosystem and biodiversity found within, 2) protect an important larval retention zone and enhance the connectivity dynamics within the region, and 3) enhance the climate resilience of the broader state MPA network.
The proposed area aligns with state MPA design and feasibility guidelines provided by CDFW, and is bounded by the mean high tideline, the 3nm state waters boundary, and straight lines connecting the following points in the order listed:
● 34.880667518Nlat.120.726433061Wlong.(SWcorner)
● 34.929894739Nlat.120.727488272Wlong(NWcorner)
● 34.930008197Nlat.120.666597401Wlong.(NEcorner)
● 34.880979714Nlat.120.639473286Wlong.(SEcorner)
We propose regulations aligned with current State Marine Reserves: “It isunlawful to injure, damage, take, or possess any living, geological, or cultural marine resource.”
Rational:
Located in Santa Barbara County, Point Sal is an ecologically rich and relatively remote promontory along the coastline that supports a diverse marine ecosystem and provides critical habitat for seabirds and marine mammals alike. The nutrient-rich waters found at this site allow for a diversity of ocean life to thrive here, with kelp beds, rich tidepools, and productive waters that support humpback whales, gray whales, a variety of sea lions and seals, sea otters, and a biologically important feeding area for endangered blue whales nearby. Offshore, Lion Rock is a significant roosting site for seabirds like the Brown pelican and Brandt’s cormorant, and also acts as a relatively undisturbed haul out for sea lions, seals, and other pinnipeds, underlining the area’s conservation value for these animals as the California coastline becomes increasingly developed. In addition, the leeward waters of Point Sal act as a larval retention zone, which are known to be highly beneficial areas for recruitment of fish and invertebrate larvae in wind-driven upwelling zones while promoting the biodiversity of the surrounding ecosystem. Historically, Point Sal also holds cultural significance for the Chumash people, with evidence of their occupation as recently as 250 years ago and as far back as 4,800 years ago; Chumash artifacts are visible throughout Point Sal, and analyses of burial sites from the area demonstrate the rich cultural ties to the traditional stewards of this land. Protecting the waters of Point Sal aligns strongly with the goals set by the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), especially with regards to the protection of natural biodiversity found in relatively undisturbed marine ecosystems. Given the remote nature of Point Sal, its relative lack of human disturbance, and increasing threats to the California MPAs found nearby, there is an urgent need to protect the ecological merits and maximize the biological benefits that Point Sal provides to the marine species that inhabit the area and to the broader Central California region. As development of the state’s coastline and seascape progresses, protecting these untouched areas will add to the resilience of the MPA network by providing refugia for marine life from encroaching threats. Furthermore, designating an MPA in the proposed area will improve recreational, educational, and study opportunities at Point Sal and support equitable access to coastal resources moving forward into the future.
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 419-514)
XV. Petition 2023-29MPA Placed in Bin 2
Submitted By: LisaSuatoni
Overview: The attached document describes a proposal for an additional California-Chumash comanagement SMCA in the south coast region to be named Mishopshno, following the ancestral Chumash village located in the area. The proposed MPA would prohibit the injury, damage, take, or possession of all living, geological, or cultural marine resources; and allow for enhanced access to the shoreline and marine resources for traditional, ceremonial, cultural, and subsistence purposes for the federally recognized tribe of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, who will work to extend access to other non-federally recognized Chumash people. The proposed area aligns with state MPA design and feasibility guidelines provided by CDFW, and is bounded by the mean high tideline, the 3nm statewaters boundary, and straight lines connecting the following points in the order listed:
34.365392908Nlat.119.6000000Wlong.(SWcorner)
34.419698650Nlat.119.6000000Wlong.(NWcorner)
34.393513965Nlat.119.525777354Wlong.(NEcorner)
34.336952256Nlat.119.525777354Wlong.(SEcorner)
Rational: The intent of the SMCA is to 1) help meet the science guidelines for spacing between protected habitats, promoting connectivity in the network and representation of habitat types, 2) protect habitat attractive to marine wildlife, such as juvenile white sharks, and 3) allow enhanced access to the shoreline and marine resources for traditional, ceremonial, cultural, and subsistence purposes for the federally recognized tribe of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, who will work to extend access to other non-federally recognized Chumash people. See attached documentation for further details.
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 515-530)
XVI. Petition 2023-30MPA Placed in Bin 1
Submitted By: Robert Jamgochian
Overview: In Big River SMCA make the proposed changes in regulations: CCR, T14, Section 29.80(c). Gear Restrictions for Recreational Take of Saltwater Crustaceans part(b)(1). Change gear restrictions to allow only Type A hoop nets that are collapsible and eliminate the hoop net Type B option - rigid frame - from general provisions.
(6) Trap Limits: (A) Reduce the number of set traps to 5 from ten.
CCR, T14 Section 29.85 - crabs. (2) Open Season (b) Dungeness crabs (Cancer magister): Part (3) Limit: Reduce from 10 crab per person to 5 per person
Rational:
1.Big River Estuary SMCA serves as important nursery for many recreationally and commercially harvested fishery species. Dungeness crab are the largest macro invertebrate in Big River Estuary and play an important role in the health of the ecosystem. Theyare keystone species providing food for seals, otters, Blue Herons, and numerous fish. Their larvae are planktonic and provide food for numerous filter feeders that live in the muddy sandy bottoms of Big River Estuary. Crabs nutrient cycle, reclaim and help purify the water helping to maintain the overall vitality of the estuary.
2. A decline in the crab population effects the entire estuary ecosystem.
3. There have been no biometric studies done to assess the population dynamics of Dungeness crabs in Big River Estuary. It is prudent to reduce the take now before numbers are unsustainable - rather than let the outdated 10 bag limit/10 traps per person continue
4. The size of the MPA Estuary is quite small - 2-6 meters deep only 30 meters wide which makes it very easy to take crab
5. The number of people crabbing has increased exponentially in the last 5 years putting unsustainable toll on the crab population.
6. Warden enforcement is minimal
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 531-550)
XVII. Petition 2023-31MPA Placed in Bin 1
Submitted By: Ashley Eagle-Gibbs,Environmental Action Committee of West Marin (EAC)
Overview: EAC requests the Commissionsubsume Drakes Estero State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) into Estero de Limantour State Marine Reserve (SMR) to create a single SMR for Estero de Limantour and Drakes Estero.
Applying an SMR designation to the area currently known as Drakes Estero SMCA is consistent with the original goals of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) including goals 1, 2, 3, and 4 related to preserving natural diversity, sustaining marine life populations, protecting marine habitats for their intrinsic value, and improving recreational and educational opportunities while minimizing human disturbance. This change would also make state regulation consistent with federal regulation of Drakes Estero, and it is supported by regional partners including consensus at the August 24, 2023 Golden Gate Collaborative meeting. 1This would remove the allowance for recreational clamming.
Rational: From a review of the historical documents, in 2008, the Integrated Preferred Alternative presented by the Blue Ribbon Task Force stated “if at any time it becomes feasible to create an SMR at Drakes Estero, this proposal recommends doing so.” 2 Today, it is feasible and appropriate to create an SMR in the area currently designated as Drakes Estero SMCA.
The Estero is one of the last fully intact wetlands in the state of California and is a biologically rich estuary that consists of extensive eelgrass beds, tidal flats, wetlands, sand bars, and open water that supports a variety of fish, invertebrates, shorebirds, waders, waterfowl, and mammals including harbor seals and river otters.
Drakes Estero SMCA was established at a time when a commercial aquaculture operation was in business. Historic aquaculture operations have damaged some of the eelgrass habitat in Drakes Estero, and it is also known that human activity has already destroyed 90 percent eelgrass habitat statewide. The commercial operator closed in 2012, and the offshore and onshore infrastructure has been removed. The existence of commercial aquaculture at the time of the designation left a legacy of two separate Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) with differing designations within one body of water, leading to inconsistency.
The biologically rich habitat of Drakes Estero is very sensitive to disturbance and is ecologically contiguous with the neighboring Estero de Limantour SMR. The arbitrary boundary separation between Drakes Estero SMCA and Estero de Limantour SMR causes confusion and harms the SMR. This is because 14 CCR § 632(b)(47)(B) currently allows for the recreational take of clams in Drakes Estero SMCA. EAC’s Marin MPA Watch monitoring data (a program in partnership with the Point Reyes National Seashore and the California Academy of Sciences) shows that people leaving the boat launch on kayaks or canoes at Drakes Estero with buckets is not uncommon. It is unknown where they are headed, but it is also difficult for clammers to determine the boundary line between Drakes Estero SMCA and Estero de Limantour SMR, because they are located in the same body of water. This leads to individuals who wish to take clams in Drakes Estero SMCA to sometimes take clams in Estero de Limantour SMR. This is despite 14 CCR § 632(b)(46)(A) prohibiting any take in the Estero de Limantour SMR.
Further, the entirety of Drakes Estero was designated as Marine Wilderness in 2012 following the closure of the commercial operation in its waters. The Marine Wilderness Area stretches across Drakes Estero SMCA and into Estero de Limantour SMR. Wilderness areas are expected to receive the highest levels of protection from human activity. 3 Following the Marine Wilderness designation, the Point Reyes National Seashore completed an expensive restoration project ($4 million) in the waters of Drakes Estero to remove the aquaculture infrastructure, thereby allowing eelgrass to recover.
The National Park Service is in support of merging Drakes Estero SMCA and Estero de Limantour into a unified State Marine Reserve because the entire area contains a federally designated wilderness area (see November 14, 2022 letter, attachment 2).
During the Golden Gate MPA Collaborative meeting on August 24, 2023 , consensus between meeting participants in support of this proposal was also achieved. 5
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 551-592)
XVIII. Petition 2023-32MPA Placed in Bin 2
Submitted By: Ashley Eagle-Gibbs,Environmental Action Committee of West Marin (EAC)
Overview: EAC requests the Commissionchange the status of Duxbury Reef from a State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) to a State Marine Reserve (SMR) because of documented difficulty of interpretation and enforcement of current regulations and the resulting large incidence of take. In addition, declines have been observed in marine life abundance and biodiversity. EAC also requests the Commission extend the southern boundary further south and the northern boundary to Double Point Special Closure to increase habitat protections to fullycover the entirety of the contiguous reef habitat.
Applying an SMR designation to the area currently known as Duxbury Reef SMCA and expanding that new SMR north and south so as to encompass the entirety of the Duxbury Reef habitat is consistent with the original goals of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) including goals 1, 2, 3, and 4 related to preserving natural diversity, sustaining marine life populations, protecting marine habitats for their intrinsic value, and improving recreational and educationalopportunities while minimizing human disturbance. 1 It is also supported by regional partners including the Greater Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries.
Rational: Duxbury Reef is the largest shale reef in California, and one of the largest in North America. The extensive tidepool network hosts a rich diversity and abundance of marine species, many of which are sheltered in numerous holes and crevices made possible because of the relatively soft shale that composes it. Invertebrates, algae, fish, and visiting land, shore, and seabirds thrive and feed there, and are interconnected with highly productive rocky and kelp habitats just offshore. Unfortunately, the entire habitat of Duxbury Reef is not actually within the current boundaries of the Duxbury Reef SMCA. In 2008, there was a proposal to create the Double Point SMCA which would include more of the Duxbury Reef habitat north of the current Duxbury Reef SMCA. Double Point SMCA was never created, leaving that critical habitat outside of any Marine Protected Area (MPA). Today, ongoing observations of take and current federal designations of the areas around the Duxbury Reef habitat demonstrate that protections provided by the MPLA for the entirety of the Duxbury Reef habitat must be reconsidered. In that goal, EAC would like to make three requests regarding Duxbury Reef SMCA. Three parts of this request include:
1. Change SMCA to SMR : Current regulation 14 CCR § 632(b)(50)(B) allows for the recreational take of finfish from shore and abalone when allowed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (currently the abalone fishery is closed until 2026).
A) Current regulations cause confusion and result in more take than the regulations allow. In other words, the allowance of some take at Duxbury Reef is confusing to many visitors and results in a high count of take violations. People are confused about why you can take finfish and abalone, but not other invertebrates or algae. Most people also do not read the existing signs. Confusion is generated especially when visitors see people fishing from shore by hook and line or with the poke pole and bucket used to fish monkeyface eel ( Cebidichthys violaceus ) in the tidepools. In addition, Duxbury Docents 2 have observed fisher people collecting mussels from the reef to use as bait for fishing. According to feedback provided during the August 24, 2023 Golden Gate Collaborative meeting, damage to the reef also results when people have been observed using crowbars and tire jacks to take purple sea urchins ( Strongylocentrotus purpuratus ), which have nestled in holes they have carved in the rock.
B) Increased visitation and violations: Marin MPA Watch data shows significantly greater visitation and potential violations relative to other monitored MPA sites in Marin County, including take and potential poaching incidents. The rate of visitation and potential poaching increased significantly since 2017. Visitation declined somewhat after the COVID pandemic emergency but remains elevated and potential poaching incidents remain high.
C) Loss of diversity and biomass: Professionals, local community members, and visitors have commented that they have noticed a loss in diversity and number of organisms at Duxbury Reef in the past 10 years, especially the area that is most heavily visited. Partly this is due to an increase in visitation, but the harvest of organisms is a contributor to loss that adds undue stress on a vulnerable reef community.
To protect this highly vulnerable and biologically rich intertidal community, also designated as an Area of Special Biological Significance, it is of vital importance that the designation for Duxbury Reef should change to State Marine Reserve, where all take is prohibited. This will reduce confusion, make educating visitors easier and compliance easier for visitors, and will better protect marine life. Damage to the marine populations is compounded by increasing threats due to climate change and the loss of habitat from sea level rise, which together are creating changed ocean conditions since the MPA was first designated.
2. Expand the boundaries : The current boundaries of Duxbury Reef SMCA defined by 14 CCR § 632(b)(50)(A) do not cover the entirety of the Duxbury Reef habitat.
A) Expand MPA south : Duxbury Reef habitat extends south of the MPA boundary into an intertidal area that is not currently protected by the MPA. People access this area at very low tide, or by boat. Fisher people can fish near the intertidal reef and collectors can walk back through the protected part of the reef with their buckets of collected marine life, causing an enforcement challenge. There is also a regular, daily harbor seal haul out on this southern section of the reef. It has been reported that boaters (fishers, collectors, and recreational) have been observed in this area flushing harbor seals into the water from their haul-out resting site. This southern extension area is contiguous and ecologically connected with the Duxbury Reef MPA habitat. Many rocky intertidal species move about on the reef at high tide, especially young larval stages that repopulate areas on different parts of the reef. Equal protection of the entire reef habitat is of vital importance to the ecological health of Duxbury Reef.
B) Expand MPA north : The reef ecosystem also extends north of the current MPA boundary and includes rocky intertidal areas and some bluff-faced sandy beach areas north to Double Point Cove. Double Point Cove is designated as an Area of Special Biological Significance and is a harbor seal haul-out and pupping site. It is also adjacent to the Stormy Stack Special Closure on the north end of the cove, which prohibits access within 300 feet around the rock island. According to individual reports, boaters, including some fishing, have been observed close to the bird colony on Stormy Stack, and flushing the harbor seals at their haul outs at the south rock and in the Double Point Cove. This area is currently unprotected by the MPA network, yet is ecologically sensitive and continuous with sensitive reef and beach habitat that is currently protected. Incorporating this northern section ensures that this unique reef habitat is fully protected in its entirety from take and disturbance to marine mammals, seabirds, intertidal, and subtidal species. In the past, there was a proposal to create an MPA between the current Double Point Special Closure and the current Duxbury Reef SMCA. The MPA would have satisfied goals 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the MLPA. An MPA in this area would specifically protect diverse areas in close proximity to each other, protect critical habitat that species of economic value rely upon, ensure minimal human disturbance occurs in sensitive habitats, and utilize scientific guidelines in the California MLPA Master Plan for Marine Protected Areas .
As the largest intertidal shale reef in North America, with abundant and diverse marine life, Duxbury Reef deserves the additional attention of the Commission and increased protection against ongoing take and poaching activity. This type of rocky intertidal habitat is rare. This is especially critical in consideration of the combined impacts of dramatically increased visitation, ocean acidification, and sea level rise which will increasingly impact the biodiversity of the reef.
This proposal was discussed at the Golden Gate MPA Collaborative meeting on August 24, 2023 4 , although a consensus was not reached. Key use concerns raised included those discussed above, as well as support from the Superintendent of the Greater Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries, which is included in Attachment 3.
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 593-709)
XIX. Petition 2023-33MPA Placed in Bin 2
Submitted By: :LauraDeehan,EnvironmentCalifornia
Overview: This joint petition from Environment California and Azul requests minor or modest expansions for 6 state MPAs and the designation of one new State Marine Park in order to enhance protections for California’s kelp forests–acriticalecosystem and habitat type that provides myriad benefits for both human and marine communities, and which has experienced significant declines in the last decade due to natural and human-related causes. Inparticular, the regulation changes put forth in this petition seek to enhance protections for resilient, stable, and persistent kelp forest patches as identified by recent analyses and peer-reviewed research. Proposed boundary and regulation changes include (seeTable1):
i. CabrilloSMR-expandwestwardandnorthwardby15.2sqmi
ii. PointDumeSMCA-expandwestwardby4.6sqmi
iii. SouthPointSMR-expandwestwardby26.3sqmi
iv. Gull IslandSMR-expandnorthwardby1.8sqmi
v. PointConceptionSMR-expandeastwardby14.6sqmi
vi. NaturalBridgesSMR-expandsouthwardby13.7sqmi
vii. PleasurePoint,SantaCruz-designate3.2sqmiasanewStateMarineReserve
Rational: The state of California has experienced significant losses of its kelp forest cover since the designation of the MPA network. While we could not know which areas would persist in the face of extreme threats at the time the MPA network was originally established, new data and research has since helped to identify kelp beds that have persisted and are most resilient in the face of climatic and other disturbances. Enhancing protections for the state’s most resilient, stable, and persistent kelp forest patches now will allow us to preserve what we have left, and increase our chances of restoration in the future. Removing, to the extent possible, direct human impacts on these resilient kelp forests that are potential climatic refuges will not only help these areas persist, but will also enhance the state’s restoration efforts for other kelp forests in decline. By focusing resources on the immediate protection of already identified important areas with outsized conservation benefits, the state can advance the goals of the Marine Life Protection Act, advance the new 30x30 target, and take a cost-effective approach to kelp restoration by protecting the natural regeneration potential of kelp forest ecosystems statewide. See Petition Narrative attached for comprehensive rationale and methods behind site selection.
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 710-930)
XX. Petition 2023-34MPA Placed in Bin 2
Submitted By: LauraDeehan,Environment California Research and Policy Center
Overview: Summarize the proposed changes to regulations: In order to advance the goals of the California Marine Life Protection Act and better protect our ocean and coastal resources into the future, this joint petition submitted by Environment California RPC and Azul seeks to increase the level of protection and help to improve enforceability for three state MPAs. We request that the CA Fish&Game Commission:
1) upgrade Point Buchon State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) to a no-take State Marine Reserve (SMR) to streamline and enhance enforcement and compliance and increase protection in the face of future stressors, and 2) modify the regulations of Farnsworth Onshore SMCA and Farnsworth Offshore SMCA to allow only recreational spearfishing within their boundaries, in order to better protect this highly sensitive, rare, and valuable ecosystem. There may be additional state MPAs in need of similar action, and we encourage the state to do its own analysis to identify existing MPAs in need of enhanced biodiversity conservation, streamlined enforcement, and increased ease of compliance.
Rational: According to law enforcement updates and the California Compliance Forums convened by the MPACollaborative Network, compliance with Point Buchon SMCA/SMR and Farnsworth Onshore/Offshore SMCA regulations is very low. The Compliance Forums found that compliance is particularly compromised in areas with confusing regulations, boundaries, or jurisdictions, and these MPA clusters are prime examples. The offshore/onshore boundary divisions of these MPA clusters, along with the extremely complicated regulations for both Farnsworth SMCAs, make it difficult for stakeholders to understand the two most important compliance-related questions: where is the MPA, and what does it allow? In addition, since the California MPA network’s creation, extensive peer-reviewed research has underscored the differences in outcomes between strongly and lightly protected marine areas. With coastal and marine ecosystems facing growing threats related to climate change, increased human use, new ocean uses, and infrastructure projects such as offshore wind and aquaculture, significant improvements to the existing MPA network are warranted to better protect our ocean and coastal resources into the future. The regulation changes proposed herein seek to improve conservation outcomes for California SMCAs with compliance issues and low levels of protection. See attached Petition Narrative for full rationale and site-specific information.
More Details: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=219990&inline? (pg 931-1133)
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse