Quick Take
After nearly three years, the fight over proposed no-take marine protected areas along the Santa Cruz County coast is headed for a final decision. County Supervisors Justin Cummings and Manu Koenig argue that the proposals are too broad, lack scientific justification and would unnecessarily restrict local fishing access. State wildlife and Ocean Protection Council staff have recommended denying both petitions, finding insufficient scientific justification for the proposed closures. Now the decision rests with the California Fish and Game Commission — and local residents have one final chance Wednesday to make their voices heard via comments.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
A proposal to expand and create new, no-take marine protected areas (MPAs) in Santa Cruz County has been making its way through state government since November 2023, and a final decision is set to be made by the California Fish and Game Commission on Oct. 14.
The first petition proposed would expand the current MPA at Natural Bridges State
Marine Reserve by 13.7 square miles, which would extend it south to approximately Steamer Lane and 3 miles out to the state waters boundary.
The second petition proposed creating a new approximately 9.99-square-mile MPA near Pleasure Point. If passed, it would eliminate all fishing, including subsistence, recreational hook-and-line and spearfishing, as well as gathering foods like mussels and seaweed in the proposed areas both on and offshore.
The proposers, out-of-area groups Environment California and Azul, mean well – they want to protect California’s most resilient kelp beds at a time when many of California’s kelp forests are in trouble, which is admirable. But our county’s kelp beds are already among the healthiest in the state, and in most areas allow for diverse opportunities for low-intensity fishing.
One of the reasons for the creation of the MPA is related to the 2014-16 marine heat wave, which caused extensive damage to kelp forests, including here in Santa Cruz. However, according to the state’s own extensive science, existing MPAs on the Central Coast did not protect kelp forests from that event.
Moreover, inside and outside MPAs, kelp forest diversity and key species like sunflower stars and giant kelp declined in equal measure during that event.
Since that time, our kelp forests have recovered, even with local recreational fishing pressures, which suggests that recreational fishing is not negatively affecting kelp forests, and in fact that our current fishing pressures are compatible with the kelp forest ecosystem.
As the representatives of Santa Cruz County Districts 3 and 1, we brought this issue to the attention of the board of supervisors and received unanimous support to oppose these petitions unless the petitioners were willing to work with our offices and our local community and use relevant local science to justify the creation of these MPAs or to find common ground on something that would work for our community.
Unfortunately, the petitioners were not willing to work with us.
We held meetings with local scientists, who also agreed that the scope, scale and rationale for the proposed MPAs are inappropriate given that kelp forests are nearshore habitats and the petitioners are proposing to have the MPAs extend well offshore into areas where kelp forests do not occur.
Although the petitions were amended, the amendments are insufficient, and for Natural Bridges specifically, the amendments make the proposal worse.
For these reasons, we have continued to advocate throughout this process to our state elected officials, to the state’s Ocean Protection Council (OPC) and with letters to the Fish and Game Commission, to deny these proposals.
As part of this extensive process, the proposals were reviewed by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) staff along with Ocean Protection Council OPC staff. Based on CDFW review of the petitions and OPC’s oversight, staff agree that the petitions for Natural Bridges and Pleasure Point lack scientific justification for reducing public recreational fishing access in these areas and recommend denial of the petitions.
So, if we agree with the staff of the agencies, why write this op-ed?
The reality is that elected and appointed bodies don’t always agree with staff recommendations, and the petitioners will have people commenting in opposition to the staff recommendations. With fishing access at stake for a large portion of the coast and open waters of Monterey Bay here in Santa Cruz County, and conflicting recommendations between the petitioners and staff, it is critical that our community’s voice is heard by all members of the California Fish and Game Commission.
To protect kelp forests, we need to target the right threats in the right places.
Shutting down all fishing for miles along the Santa Cruz coast will force local anglers (those who can afford it) to drive, either by car or by boat, farther to go fishing rather than bike, walk or drive shorter distances.
In fact, the current no-take MPA proposals here would work against action on climate change, the main threat to California kelp forests. Targeted improvements to current regulations, and the specific creation or expansion of MPAs when appropriate, could be an important part of kelp forest recovery and health.
We need to do what works, in consultation with local ocean stewards, scientists, government, and communities and with the recognition that people are not always bad for the ocean.
If you agree that our kelp forests are healthy and we should maintain fishing access, please submit comments indicating this by Wednesday to the California Fish and Game Commission and call in to the meeting to support the staff recommendation to deny petitions 2023-33MPA_1 (Pleasure Point) and 2023-33MPA_6 (Natural Bridges) at the Oct. 14 meeting of the Fish and Game Commission.
Justin Cummings has a doctorate in ecology and evolutionary biology from UC Santa Cruz and is District 3 county supervisor.
Manu Koenig is District 1 county supervisor.
