Aliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries
P O Box 1309, Carmel Valley, CA 93924 (831) 659-2838

August 2, 2001

Paul Reilly
California Department of Fish and Game
20 Lower Ragsdale Road, Suite 100
Monterey, CA 93940

Dear Paul:

We are writing to present comments from the Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries (“Alliance”) on the draft MPA sites as proposed per the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). The Alliance is a consortium of representatives from Pillar Point Harbor, Santa Cruz Harbor, Moss Landing, Monterey Harbor, and Morro Bay Harbor. Each harbor has representatives from the commercial fishing industry, further divided by the various gear types, recreational fishing, marine businesses, and its port management. Therefore, our group strongly represents most types of fishing interests, for a broad region of Central California.

First, we must go on record as saying that we feel that the Marine Life Protection Act in its present form is inherently flawed, and in our opinion doomed to failure through public resistance. Although we understand that the Department of Fish and Game is charged with implementing the law, we must go on record in saying that the social and economic considerations for removing large pieces of the ocean from public usage has not been subject to rigorous and thorough public debate and acceptance as something of this importance would require. Further, we note that the body of science on marine protected areas has reached only limited conclusions regarding their results. Particularly of importance are the concerns that surround their use in fishery management schemes. It is one thing for society to debate and agree that it wants to set aside a portion of the ocean as a wilderness area strictly for its social and esthetic value. It is another thing altogether to evaluate and utilize marine protected areas as part of overall fishery management strategy.

We believe that the Marine Life Protection Act is doomed to failure unless a significantly greater amount of time is granted for the public review process, including direct and detailed impute from recreational and commercial fishing industries, and a thorough understanding of the socio-economic implications of the law. It is, therefore, our first recommendation that a minimum one-year extension be granted for the public review process before any report is issued to the Fish and Game commission. This one-year extension will hopefully allow for time for proper socio-economic evaluation of the proposals, an evaluation of each site from the perspective of a sustainable fishery, an analysis of the legal implications of the law regarding its consistency with the State Constitution, the Doctrine of Public Trust, and the Coastal Act. Since there are two Federal MPA reviews that are also occurring, slowing the State’s process will also allow con-ordination with these processes.

It is extremely difficult for the Alliance to at this time comment specifically on the proposed MPA sites, yet we know this is the information you desire. As an overall initial reaction we must say that the MPA’s suggested for the area within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary boundary are more numerous and larger than we imagined would come from your process. If adopted, the suggested closures would likely devastate certain fisheries. It seems that it is the most productive fishing grounds, both for commercial and recreational purposes, which have been targeted. Because of this we urgently caution you that these sites must be considered as part of an overall fishery management scheme. To say that they stand alone in the name of habitat protection is simply not sufficient. For example, if you protect one large productive area you will move the fishing effort to outside that area, thereby tremendously magnifying the impact on that area. In other words, you may protect one area at the expense of the other. MPA sites also need to be evaluated from the viewpoint of their inter-relation with other existing fishery management regulations, particularly the new Federal rules restricting ground fish catches.

Continued