Monterey Home | meetings | resources | background | members

*** Reminder — next meeting is Monday, July 9, 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.

Review of notes of April 30 meeting

The following specific suggestions were made:

• Correct the name of Stakeholder Advisory Council in Problem/mission Statement.
• clarify the workgroup’s policy on observers’ attendance at and participation in meetings. Meetings will not be widely publicized but will be open to anyone who wants to attend. However, participation in discussion will be limited to workgroup members, their designated alternates, and invited specialists. The workgroup will consider adding a public comment period to some meetings to solicit input from observers.
• have the meeting notes provide more information on the discussion leading up to decisions.

These changes are included in the updated version of the April 30 notes (attached).

Fish and Game process

Reviewed the schedule for the state’s designation of reserves:

The group discussed whether the data and analyses underlying the Fish and Game draft would be made available to the public. Despite requests from several quarters, Fish and Game is apparently unable to do so at present. Some group members described reports they had heard that the draft is based in part on proxy data, that there are large data gaps, and that much of the data used was "in scientists’ heads" and not the results of formal analyses or reports.

The workgroup agreed by consensus to write the Department of Fish and Game emphasizing the importance of making the underlying data available so that interested parties have as valid a basis as possible for commenting on the draft. It was agreed that Kaitlin Gaffney would draft the letter and that it would be reviewed and also signed by Kathy Fosmark, Kaitlin Gaffney, and Chris Harrold. There was also a discussion that the Alliance on its own will also consider sending another letter to the Department of Fish and Game suggesting that the MLPA process be slowed.

Workgroup membership

The workgroup revisited the issue of the group’s membership. While some members (particularly the conservation representatives) expressed a desire to broaden participation to more directly engage other interests, other members stated that the workgroup’s original goal was to help fishers and fishing communities develop a more effective voice in the ongoing discussions about marine reserves and to reach out to other interests to find common ground. The workgroup’s original goal was therefore not to try to be a duplicate of the Marine Reserves Working Group (MRWG) in the recent Channel Islands Sanctuary process. The group discussed the pros and cons of this goal and noted that there are strong forces involved in the larger debate over marine reserves, raising the possibility of clashes between different groups in the near future. All members agreed it would be best to try to negotiate and resolve such differences and that it would be unfortunate and unproductive to bring large and unresolved conflicts before the SAC.

After this discussion, the group agreed that:

• the fishing community is not yet organized enough and up to speed enough on the issues to participate effectively in a broader discussion of reserves
• it would be beneficial to use a variety of mechanisms (e.g., invited specialists, joint meetings with Conservation and Research SAC Subcommittee representatives, workshops on specific issues, public comment sessions) to broaden participation in the near future
• until that time, they are willing to keep moving forward with the existing workgroup structure and process.

Progress on action items

Lessons from other similar efforts

Brock Bernstein and Holly Price reviewed lessons gathered from a brief examination of the Channel Islands Sanctuary’s MRWG process and the recently published NRC report on marine reserves. These reviews were not comprehensive, but they did point toward several lessons that seemed relevant to the workgroup’s efforts:

• encourage scientists, fishermen, conservationists, and others to work together on important issues by keeping the scientists directly involved and integrated with the workgroup rather than setting up an independent science panel
• ensure the right mix of scientific expertise is called upon as specific issues arise
• give the scientists very well defined requests for information, evaluation, or analysis to ensure they focus directly on issues important for both reserve design and implementation
• detailed socioeconomic data is extremely valuable in estimating the actual costs and benefits of different reserve designs and implementation strategies
• prior agreements about equity, for example, what the limits on economic losses should be and how they should be shared, are very useful in promoting agreement
• develop socioeconomic and ecological analyses in parallel; don’t let one get out in front of the other, and make sure they are integrated in the evaluation of different reserve designs
• while it is important to work toward consensus, it is also crucial not to let individual interests have veto power over the outcome. To prevent this, groundrules that define participants’ responsibility to present constructive options when they disagree with a proposal on the table should be agreed to and enforced consistently
• provide for "shuttle diplomacy" between meetings by a facilitator or other neutral party; this is a necessary supplement to discussions at workgroup meetings
• an ability to examine "what-if" scenarios with a GIS system that contains both ecological and socioeconomic data is very useful in enabling participants to quickly estimate the costs and benefits of different proposals

Summarize existing regulations

The Sanctuary will be hiring a summer intern to summarize existing fisheries regulations. The summary will describe existing regulations, management plans, and policies for 11 key stocks, including major changes in regulations over the last ten years and the length of time regulations have been in place (some regulations that have been enacted recently will not have had time to demonstrate effectiveness). It will assess strengths and weaknesses and effectiveness based on readily available scientific studies, and qualitative opinions from both fishing community and agency/enforcement perspectives. The summary will also review what is known about regulatory effectiveness in other regions. One of the intern’s first tasks will be to develop a list of specific criteria of effectiveness, in both qualitative and quantitative terms. This information will be useful in helping to integrate any proposed reserves with the existing fishery management process and will provide a basis for a later evaluation of the regulations’ effectiveness.

Gather information about available maps

Sanctuary staff summarized maps that are currently available on the Sanctuary’s GIS system, as well as maps available from other sources. These include maps of areas closed to different types of fishing gear in both state and federal waters, bottom type, bathymetry, and fishery catch data, among others (see attached list). Workgroup members made several suggestions about additional data types that should be acquired to support their ability to comment on and/or propose reserve designs, including physical oceanography, oil spill planning maps, and data from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.

The workgroup also discussed whether they should try to identify biogeographic provinces or use the zones or subregions used by Fish and Game in their reserves design process. No decisions about this issue were made.

Provide input to socioeconomic study

Holly Price described an upcoming NOAA study of the socioeconomics of the central California Sanctuaries. The workgroup then listed a variety of other socioeconomic studies that have recently been completed, are ongoing, or may begin in the near future and that can provide data or useful methods for this study. These include:

• a NOAA study of environmental stewardship
• a study of the economics of local fishing at Moss Landing
• the ACOC study of Moss Landing
• Ted Rust’s (San Francisco State University) study of the economic value of ports along the central California coast
• a study by Chris DeWeis at UC Davis of the salmon fishery
• economic data from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
• the Channel Islands MRWG socioeconomic study.

The Workgroup then discussed possible approaches to a socioeconomic study of the Sanctuary. There was general agreement that the Sanctuary’s size and diversity make it impossible to develop detailed information on a 1 x 1 mile grid as done in the Channel Islands. It would be more feasible to use a 10 x 10 mile grid, with more detailed data on the 1 x 1 mile scale in smaller areas where there is a lot of activity and/or a lot of concern. It would be useful to do some preliminary scoping to identify what specific information is available, what other issues may need to be included, and where hotspots of activity and/or concern are that might require more detailed information.

Update status of local fish stocks

Rick Starr of Sea Grant presented an update of his project to update the publication on the status of local stocks. He presented data and graphs on stocks and the workgroup made a variety of comments on how the information could be improved. In particular, the workgroup suggested that graphs of trends in landings include notations about significant external changes in markets, regulations, and other factors that may have affected fishing effort and catch. Rick agreed that it would be important to work closely with fishermen to develop the best data and to better understand trends in landings.

Evaluate research on local reserves

Rick Starr of Sea Grant also presented a description of his project to summarize available information about the effects of the four marine reserves in the Sanctuary. He will contact local scientists working in these reserves in order to gather data on abundance, size, and other variables that can help to quantify whether and how the reserves are working. The workgroup unanimously supported the value of these analyses.

Workgroup goals

The workgroup briefly discussed what kinds of recommendations they could make to the Sanctuary, Fish and Game, and the Pacific Fishery Management Council. The mission/problem statement is not precise about this and the facilitator stated that "recommendation" could be interpreted in a wide variety of ways, from general statements about guiding principles to specific and detailed recommendations about alternative reserve designs in the Sanctuary. The workgroup noted that outside events and their timeframe, such as the upcoming release of the Fish and Game draft reserve design, will strongly influence the kinds of recommendations the workgroup can develop. The facilitator suggested that the workgroup keep its options open and, in the short term, focus on developing comments on the Fish and Game proposal. At the same time, work can continue on gathering the scientific and socioeconomic information needed for any more detailed reserve evaluations. There was general agreement with this suggestion, but no formal decision.

The workgroup also discussed the range of objectives that reserves can be targeted at, including ecosystem biodiversity/conservation, sustainable fisheries, socioeconomic viability, natural and cultural heritage, education, and research. The workgroup agreed to focus primarily on the first three but to give some attention to the others.

Next steps and next meeting

The next meeting will be on Monday, July 9, from 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM, at the Sanctuary office at 299 Foam Street, Monterey.

The next meeting will focus primarily on developing comments on and responses to the Fish and Game proposals on reserves. There will also be a brief update on the ongoing collection of background information, and a brief discussion of recommendations on the socioeconomic study.

Attendees

The following attended the meeting: