*** Reminder — next meeting is Monday, July 30, 11 AM to 3 PM, at the Sanctuary office, 299 Foam Street, Monterey. Contact Brock Bernstein, 805-646-8369, brockb@west.net, or Holly Price, 831-647-4247, holly.price@noaa.gov, with any questions. ***

Please see the list of attendees at the end of the notes.

There were no revisions requested to the notes of the June 4 meeting.

Dr. Ralph Larson from San Francisco State University, and a member of the Fish and Game marine reserves panel that developed the proposed network of reserves, attended the meeting to review and explain the proposals, answer questions, and listen to input from the workgroup about the proposed sites.

During Ralph’s description of the overall planning and implementation process, the workgroup raised several issues, which Ralph addressed, including:

• The deadline, if any, for submitting written comments for consideration in developing the next version of the siting proposals. Ralph said there is no firm deadline for receiving comments but that they should probably be in by mid-August.
  
  
• Whether or not the timeline for the decision-making process will be extended. Ralph said this is a legislative question, since the existing timeline was established by the MLPA statute. The sponsors of the original bill, including conservation groups, are talking now about possibly extending the date for submitting the final draft plan to July 2002 from its current date of January 2002.
  
  
• Impacts of the siting proposals should be considered in a geographic context that extends beyond the boundaries of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary because fishing is conducted by mobile, coastwide fleets that are not restricted to the boundaries of the Sanctuary. For example, squid and salmon fishermen from points north travel south to fish off central California, and fishermen based in central California travel both north and south to fish. Socioeconomic impacts of reserves will thus depend on what happens in this larger geographic context.
  
  
• Whether there any intentions to impose any restrictions on use in addition to those considered for sport and commercial fishing. This concern arose from language in the statute that provides the authority to restrict many kinds of uses, such as boating, anchoring, diving, and so on. Ralph said that there have been no such discussions, with the exception perhaps of restricting access to one or two highly sensitive intertidal habitats. Otherwise, there are no plans to restrict public access or use in any way other than the stated restrictions on fishing.
  
  
• Whether it would be possible to balance new restrictions on fishing with an easing of trawl restrictions on state waters in other areas where trawling impacts are low. Ralph said that such tradeoffs had not been considered.
  
  
• The fact that there are existing processes for managing fisheries and fishing activity and that fishing should be managed through those processes, not through marine reserves. Ralph replied that the reserves siting process was primarily focused on managing human impacts on marine ecosystems and that fishing pressure is the main source of such impacts in many places. The reserves are intended to reduce human impacts in specific locations but are not the primary means of managing fisheries overall.
  
  
• Regarding fisheries management, Ralph noted that fisheries issues are just one part of the overall reserve network design. Overfishing was not a major concern of the MLPA science panel, which was mostly interested in identifying a network of representative sites and considered reserves as a possible contribution to stock rebuilding, but not the final answer to such problems. Some group members noted that it is important to clarify this because reserves are being touted by some proponents for their benefit to fisheries (for example, by speeding stock rebuilding). Ralph agreed and said that reserves can help to understand fishing impacts and may help to some extent in stock recovery. Other group members supported the point that the science panel’s main intent was to focus on biodiversity and representative habitats, with only some spillover into fisheries issues.
  
  
• Whether there are other avenues for science input to the siting process. Ralph replied that anyone can provide input, either in writing or in person at one of the public comment meetings. The MLPA science panel will summarize public input for the Fish and Game commission. Ralph agreed that the public comments, or a summary, should somehow be made available to the public.
  
  
• Whether scientific take within proposed reserves had been considered as a source of impact. Ralph answered that the science panel recommended that any scientific take within a reserve would have to be related to research on the reserve itself. One group member suggested that it would be important to make distinctions among collecting related to research, education, and supplying scientific supply houses. At present, all such activities are covered under a single category of scientific collecting permit.
  
  
• Whether there are guidelines in the MLPA about how to determine or deal with socioeconomic impacts of reserves. Ralph noted that there are no such guidelines in the MLPA and that the federal guidelines on this point are not applicable. There has been no systematic or quantitative research on potential socioeconomic impacts, although this is one item in the set of "Practicality" criteria in the MLPA process.
• What provisions have been made for managing reserves once they are sited. Ralph answered that this issue has not yet been fleshed out.
  
  
• Whether the science panel considered terrestrial sources of impact. Ralph replied that they had talked about this but that there are jurisdictional issues related to whether and how Fish and Game can address pollution problems.
  
  
• One group member encouraged Fish and Game to put reserve coordinates on electronic charts to make it easier to find them and noted that enforcement will be a major issue.
  
  
• Whether the science panel had considered seasonal closures. Ralph said they had not because they considered such closures to be a fishery management tool.
  
  
• Whether the science panel had considered time limits to fishing closures within reserves. Ralph replied that they had not, that it would be beneficial to review reserve performance every few years, but that they should be established in perpetuity to achieve maximum benefits.
  
  
• Whether funding mechanisms had been considered and whether these might include user fees on fishers. Ralph said the panel had not explicitly considered funding mechanisms but that the network required adequate funding to be successful. There had been no discussion of imposing any sort of user fees.
  
  
• Whether the panel had considered congestion impacts as fishermen displaced from reserve concentrate their efforts in the areas remaining open to fishing. Ralph said the panel had considered such impacts only qualitatively and not in any great detail.
  
  
• Whether the science panel had calculated the percentage of good fishing area, as opposed to the percentage of all coastal area, that was being removed from fishing. Ralph replied that they had not made that calculation but had relied on admittedly crude Fish and Game block data to identify fishing areas.

Workgroup members then provided specific, detailed comments on the siting proposals, in terms of their impacts on both sport and commercial fishing activities.

Bill Williamson noted that the Soquel Canyon Conservation Area would remove a prime sport fishing are on the west side of the canyon that is utilized by Monterey, Santa Cruz, and Moss Landing boats. He also said that the Point Lobos Conservation Area would eliminate sport fishing that now takes place outside the Point Lobos Reserve boundary as well as the chile rockfish grounds outside the 100 fathom area. He suggested that moving the Conservation Area further south would get more support from the sport fishing community and still provide the benefits sought by the science panel. He also said that the Point Sur Conservation Area would remove a fishing area that is important to smaller boats in rough weather because it is in the lee of Point Sur and suggested that a Conservation Area at Little Sur to the north would be better. In general, the proposals need to ensure that they leave enough lee areas where people can fish in bad weather. He also noted that Point Sur is an important fishing area and that the restrictions would merely push fishing farther offshore. He suggested that an alternative location might also be what the fishermen call Tin Shack (because of an old shore installation at that site), which used to be a good fishing area and has since declined. Leaving it alone for a while might benefit it.

Bill also said that, in addition to the western side of Soquel Canyon, the Santa Cruz sport fishermen fish a lot off Año Nuevo in the summer. So, the proposed reserves would take away both deep and shallow areas they now use and would leave only Natural Bridges as a good sportfishing area, causing lots of congestion there. Ralph replied that the science panel had assumed there was good fishing remaining between the reserve sites but Bill said that this is not always the case.

Roxanne Jordan was concerned about a potential restriction on crab fishing at Año Nuevo and Ralph replied that there was no intention to restrict crab fishing. Roxanne also noted that some spots in Soquel Canyon are useful for crabbers and that there is some longlining for rockfish in the SE corner of the proposed Conservation Area. She also said that any eventual siting/enforcement regime should make realistic provisions for gear drift due to weather. In addition, Roxanne noted that the Portuguese Ledge Conservation Area is near sources of pollution from Monterey and Seaside and that perhaps this makes it inappropriate as a Conservation Area. She expressed some concern that the Conservation Area at Point Sur might eventually be connected with an offshore reserve in federal waters once the Pacific Fishery Management Council prepares its reserves plan. This would remove a significant area from fishing. Roxanne also said that the Piedras Blancas and Cambria sites would lead to a concentration in nearby areas.

Frank Martins said that there is a significant squid fishing area just below the point at Año Nuevo and another at Pfeiffer Big Sur. Ralph clarified that there are no longer plans to impose any restrictions on squid fishing in the Pacific Grove site. Ralph emphasized that the science panel still needs more input on squid and their interaction with bottom communities. They realize that squid are pelagic and also interact strongly with bottom communities during some parts of their life cycle. The panel was therefore not sure whether to treat them the same as other pelagic fisheries.

Chris Harrold asked whether it would be better to transpose the Hopkins reserve and the Pacific Grove Conservation Area. He noted that the Hopkins area is heavily used by divers who cause impacts to the bottom and suggested that it might be better to move the reserve to the adjacent area at Point Pinos that has less human activity. That way the reserve could better fulfill the function of a reserve, while putting the less restrictive conservation area off Cannery Row. Ralph responded that the panel had considered that but had decided against it because extending the reserve around Point Pinos would have restricted fishing activity more than they wanted to.

There was a discussion of whether and to what extent the Fish and Game siting process would include restrictions on kelp harvesting within sites, especially those in Monterey Bay. Holly Price noted that both Fish and Game and the Sanctuary office had just completed a multiyear multistakeholder process on the kelp management plan, and that from a process standpoint, it would be inappropriate for the MLPA process to override this intense effort as a side result of establishing fishery no-take areas.

After discussion, the workgroup unanimously agreed to write a letter to fishermen encouraging them to participate in the MLPA process.

After discussion, the workgroup unanimously agreed to write a letter to the Department of Fish and Game stressing the importance of conducting thorough socioeconomic impact studies as an integral part of the siting process.

The workgroup agreed that the next meeting would focus on issues related to coordinating and planning socioeconomic studies.

The next meeting will be on Monday, July 30, from 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM, at the Sanctuary office at 299 Foam Street, Monterey.

The following attended the meeting. Alliance workgroup members identified with an asterisk (*).