Monterey Home | meetings | resources | background | members

July 30, 2001 Meeting Notes

Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries Marine Reserves Workgroup

*** Reminder Ð next meeting is Monday, September 10, 10 AM to 2 PM (note time change), 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 July 9 meeting

There were no revisions requested to the notes of the July 9 meeting.

Revisit workgroup groundrules

The facilitator reviewed two events that had occurred in the time since the July 9 meeting and that resulted in conflict between members of the workgroup. The first involved the use by one workgroup member in advocacy materials to his constituency of comments made by other workgroup members during the July 9 meeting. The second involved the SanctuaryÕs submission of written comments to the Department of Fish and Game regarding the marine reserves siting criteria, followed by a letter from the Alliance to the SanctuaryÕs SAC expressing its Òprofound disappointment.Ó

Discussion of these two events, particularly the second, helped identify the following underlying issues:

á         possible differing expectations and interpretations of the SanctuaryÕs jurisdiction and authority, especially regarding fisheries management issues

á         whether the Sanctuary has a different status than other workgroup members (there is a common understanding among workgroup members that each represents a constituency and that they will be actively involved, outside the workgroup process, in both planning and advocacy efforts related to marine reserves)

á         whether there should be any limits or expectations placed on comments workgroup members make outside the workgroup meetings

á         the degree to which the content of the SanctuaryÕs letter to Fish and Game was problematic for the Alliance

á         the degree to which the schedule of the MLPA process creates time pressures that can impede efforts to develop common ground among different parties

á         unclear and/or different understandings of the workgroupÕs relationship to the SanctuaryÕs SAC

á         whether, and to what degree, workgroup members need to, or desire to, enhance trust among themselves

á         whether the workgroup will, or should, evolve toward a more fully representative body, and what that would mean from the membersÕ different perspectives.

The facilitator proposed that a subset of the workgroup meet with him before the next meeting to discuss these issues in more depth and develop a working agreement as a basis for continued cooperation. This was unanimously agreed to.

The facilitator also proposed a set of interim additions to the workgroupÕs basic groundrules, which, after some discussion and clarification, were accepted unanimously. These were:

á         group members have a responsibility to respond directly to statements made during workgroup meetings by other members if they disagree with, do not completely understand, or take offense at such statements. While the workgroup recognizes that members are often engaged in outside advocacy efforts, all members should refrain from using comments, information, or other material from workgroup meetings in such efforts if they are directed at Òrallying the troopsÓ to oppose another constituencyÕs position.

á         giving other workgroup members a Òheads up,Ó to the extent possible, before making public comments, releasing materials, or engaging in other significant advocacy efforts related to marine reserves. Brock Bernstein and Holly Price offered to act as contacts for distribution of such information to other workgroup members.

Socioeconomic study

Holly Price of the Sanctuary staff and Rick Starr of California Sea Grant provided a brief update on plans for the upcoming socioeconomic study, to be funded by NOAA. The studyÕs first task will be to identify and summarize other recent, ongoing, and planned socioeconomic studies of the central California coast. The studyÕs second task will be to identify important studies that should be completed as soon as possible, for example to support the Fish and Game siting process or other near-term management initiatives. The studyÕs third task will be to organize one or more workshops in the fall of 2001 to identify and prioritize studies that should be completed over the next four to five years.

The study will focus mostly on potential economic losses to sport and commercial fisheries in state waters from a range of management alternatives. There was some discussion about the need to keep fishermen involved throughout the study, perhaps through some sort of oversight committee. There was also broad agreement about the need to obtain more precise catch and economic data than that currently provided by Fish and Game block data.

Ê

Fish and Game reserve siting proposals Ð content

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 receive additional feedback from workgroup members and observers about the proposed sites.

There were some questions about whether there was any intent to restrict anchoring in the future and whether there were any assurances that could be made that such restrictions would not be imposed. Ralph replied that it was the unambiguous intent of the panel not to restrict anchoring at any point. This was followed by questions about how enforcement provisions will deal with situations where fishing vessels anchor inside a reserve with fish caught elsewhere. Ralph replied that this still needs to be figured out and that if a reserve canÕt be adequately enforced then it probably shouldnÕt be a reserve.

One visitor asked why the crab grounds around the Farallon Islands were taken away and noted that this threw a monkey wrench into a gentlemenÕs agreement with halibut trawlers about ad hoc partitioning of fishing areas. Ralph replied that the panel is open to input and that there were some details the panel was not aware of before the proposed sites went out for public comment. He stated that the rationale behind closing the crab grounds was a desire to protect species resident in broad habitat categories. However, the panel did not feel that crabs were an important part of the overall plan and there is some flexibility here. He also noted that the panel tried to minimize impact on crabbers in other areas. Both he and Mary Yoklavich intend to add rock and dungeness crabs to the list of exemptions from fishing restrictions.

Another visitor stated that salmon fishermen will never agree to restrict salmon fishing in half of Soquel Canyon and questioned why a reserve was placed in this location. Holly Price responded that the MLPA requires protecting the full range of habitats and that this is the only offshore site proposed.

One workgroup member stated that A–o Nuevo is a very important squid area and that he had real trouble with any restriction of fishing on pelagic species.

Several participants asked how the number and location of sites was determined. Ralph replied that the panel began with existed protected areas and then identified oceanographic conditions, coastal and submarine geography, and other information to select representative sites in different habitat types. He also stressed that he and Mary Yoklovich will be using better data to revisit the estimates of fishing grounds set aside. One workgroup member noted that the percent of fishable grounds set aside is much larger than the percent of the total area set aside and that it seems the proposed sites include most of the productive fishing grounds. Ralph replied that the panel had no intention of removing productive fishing grounds but that their main intent was to protect representative pieces of different habitat types.

Another group member asked Ralph how the panel would like to receive input. Ralph answered that they would like to just sit down with the affected people and work it out. If they canÕt agree, then maybe they could identify some alternatives and their pros and cons. Other members stressed that the process needs to be deliberative, should include collaborative studies of impacts on fishing, and must provide time to involve affected parties and consider impacts and alternatives. For example, most of the albacore fishermen will not return until October or November and the swordfishermen until January.

Update on tasks from last meeting

Kaitilin Gaffney provided a copy of a letter to Fish and Game from a number of conservation groups supporting the four-month extension to MLPA deadlines proposed in AB 1673 and requesting at least a one month postponement of the September MLPA public workshops. The Alliance provided a copy of a similar letter to Assemblyman Dean Florez requesting that the four-month extension in AB 1673 be extended to one full year. Both letters stressed the importance of providing ample opportunities for full involvement by affected stakeholders.

The Alliance did not send a letter to its members encouraging them to participate in the Fish and Game public comment process because the meetings occurred too quickly to get such a letter mailed in time.

Next steps and next meeting

After discussion, the workgroup unanimously agreed on the benefit of regional focus groups of selected fishermen, organized by gear type, to provide additional input to the Fish and Game panel. Ralph Larson stated that both he and Mary Yoklovich are interested in participating in such a series of meetings and suggested talking to Patty Wolf of Fish and Game regarding whether staff time could be reallocated to support this. The group also agreed that such focus groups should not be open public meetings but instead smaller working sessions involving a smaller group of knowledgeable fishermen and centered around in-depth discussions of the pros and cons of alternative sites. The product of these meetings would then be material for consideration by the workgroup and might provide the basis, along with other relevant information, for a workgroup recommendation to Fish and Game.

As noted above, prior to the next meeting, the facilitator will meet with the Sanctuary and a subset of other workgroup members to discuss and attempt to resolve differences in perceptions and expectations about the role of the Sanctuary in the workgroup.

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.

Attendees

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