This proposes the allowance of commercial urchin take inside of a group of SMCAs that already have allowable limited-take restrictions, with the exception of one no-take SMCA. At a time where there are mass interests in helping kelp forests regrow, allowing sea urchin take in areas already partially open to other fisheries is a minimally invasive step we can take. By being allowed to harvest and remove sea urchins that are currently protected in these areas, we allow the kelp the chance to grow back. While fishing effort does not hurt kelp forests, and we cannot locally control global factors affecting kelp growth such as water temperature or swell meaningfully, we can still promote regrowth of kelp by being allowed to at least remove one of kelp’s largest predators, the sea urchin.

This proposes allowing limited take of pelagic or highly migratory species at three joint State-Federal MPAs at the Channel Islands, and proposes several possible options for limited-take of pelagic finfish or highly migratory species (HMS). Additionally, it includes possible nearshore-offshore MPA options to mitigate bycatch in the more biodiverse nearshore areas and maintain high MPA LOPs for maintained network connectivity. Supported directly by the MPA master plan, maintains high protections and MPA connectivity while giving reasonable access already allowed in the rest of the network

This requests the allowance of the commercial take of salmon by troll in two SMRs in the northern bioregion, Bodega Head and Stewarts Point, making them SMCAs. The petition argues similarly to petition 15 on the long standing basis that pelagic fisheries should have reasonable access in MPAs where pelagic fishing may occur and minimally affect the MPA’s environment and intended protections.

*We encourage the Commission to accept this petition with the amendment to include a similar recreational allowance of salmon by troll in these MPAs.

This makes several requests across the Santa Barbara Channel to 6 MPAs in total, some of which were non-regulatory requests. This would better provide better MPA regulation clarity through color corrections, and to make fine tune changes to better the overall MPA network. This would also create the Vandenburg SMCA and would allow shoretake of finfish. This shoretake allowance would clear up any enforcement confusion by the public for the SMR and give some access back to the public in general.

This requests the creation of a tribal co-managed SMCA at Morro Bay that only allows for the recreational take of finfish and invertebrates except rock scallops and mussels by hand harvest, also including a tribal take exemption within the SMCA. We believe tribal co-management to be a great step forward in managing California’s waters and should be present in all MPAs; however, creating a new MPA that restricts exclusively commercial groups and most recreational fishing access from such an essential area should not be warranted.

This requests changes to the MPA cluster, nearshore and offshore MPAs, at Point Buchon allows the hand harvest of finfish and invertebrates except rock scallops and mussels, allows the maintenance of artificial structures under the correct permits, and provide a tribal take exemption for federally recognized tribes. However, it is unclear if these requested allowances to the offshore SMCA and point Buchon are replacing or adding onto existing recreational and commercial allowance for the take of albacore and salmon in the offshore SMCA. This example in the offshore region is a clear example of how tribal components can be added to the existing network, not requiring creation of more MPAs to involve tribes.

This requests the Pyramid Point SMCA in the northern bioregion be modified to remove its existing recreational allowances for take of surf smelt and give additional tribal exemption to the Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation on top of its existing tribal exemption. This also requests the border of the MPA be moved south to the true CA-OR state boundary line, slightly shrinking the MPA. While this petition does remove some recreational access to take surf smelt, that access was already relatively limited and small scale. The change to the border to shrink the SMCA to align to the actual state border clears up any possible confusion or issues the overlap currently causes.

This requests multiple changes to 3 existing SMCAs, the Carmel Bay SMCA, Pacific Grove SMCA, and the Edward F. Ricketts SMCA, requesting all three SMCAs become closed to take of finfish during “active kelp restoration permits” and to create a new SMR at Tankers Reef, the area of this SMR was reduced during amendments. This petition has reasonable goals, but goes about this in the incorrect way. Acceptance would come at the additional loss of recreational fishing access to these SMCAs which has no significant impact on kelp restoration compared to environmental factors (e.g., water quality, water temperature, swell) when a “kelp restoration permit is active.” Additionally, existing restoration efforts at Tankers Reef would immediately stop if an SMR is designated there for the lack of allowable take inside of an SMR, even the reduced in size SMR.

This petition’s core argument claims enforcement concerns of the MPAs by lifeguards, when in fact, the primary enforcement of the MPAs is warden officers. Wardens are the only individuals that may issue citations for MPA compliance and are most notably, not bound by city limits. The idea of moving this border to allow for better enforcement will only create more of an enforcement problem due to where the proposed border lies versus the existing one. The existing border of the Laguna SMCA and Dana Point SMCA is a rocky point, a physical barrier between two areas. This allows the border to be clear as it is marked by an obvious, physical landmark, this is a guiding objective of the MLPA, making borders clear using physical landmarks. The proposed new border would sit along the mean high tide line of the rocky shoreline of an adjacent beach. Simply put, removal of a physical barrier landmark to an invisible line on a public beach would only create more of an enforcement compliance problem, not reduce it. 

This petition calls for additional protections at the Anacapa Island SMCA, the difference being that 2023-27’s focus is on eelgrass, not kelp. While a trap sitting on the bottom does have a larger footprint than a pelagic hook and line configuration which is also allowed in the SMCA, traps fished in the area are not significantly impacting eelgrass beds due to there already being a 20 foot depth closure for traps around Anacapa in its Special Closure. This depth limit alone covers most of the eelgrass beds in the area making the request redundant. Additionally, lobster traps are fished throughout Southern California and other eelgrass beds are doing well as is. This area is not unique in that regard and should be seen in the same lens as the rest of the coast.

This requests the establishment of a new MPA around Point Sal. This MPA would significantly impact local fisheries, recreational and commercial, despite the petitioner’s claim that the effects would be minimal. Proposed areas is of significant economic importance to the local area, in some fisheries over 50% of the local landings come from the proposed area. Allowed shoretake removes any connectivity benefits the petition claims it wants to accomplish.   

This requests a new MPA be created at Carpinteria and would be a tribally allowed SMCA that would be closed to non-federally recognized tribal fishing (general recreational and commercial fishing). The petition’s three primary arguments for the new SMCA are to meet habitat connectivity/MPA spacing requirements, to protect habitat surrounding juvenile white shark grounds, and to allow for tribal access. Allowed shoretake removes any connectivity benefits the petition claims it wants to accomplish, the claim of whitesharks is irrelevant due to the FGC already ruling on this in the same area in 2020 with another MPA petition, and the so-called gap in the network the petition claims is over the maximum MPA spacing is false when you actually measure it on a map.

This requests expanding the Duxbury Reef SMCA north, south and converting the SMCA into an SMR. The petition cites apparent drops in biodiversity in the areas, confusion on take regulations, and, as a result, high incidence of accidental poaching. The claims that there was a local drop in biodiversity are all based on local surveys on no actual data displaying a measurable drop in the biodiversity in the area. While shorebased allowances do drop an MPAs LOP to moderate low, shorebased fishing should not interfere with most of the SMCA that extends 1000 feet from shore simply because shore based anglers do not have the casting range to cover even distances up to 100 feet from shore. This leaves a majority of the SMCA essentially fully protected as abalone take is currently completely closed and was extended earlier in 2025.

While there are various pathways for kelp restoration, the establishment of new or larger MPAs should not be one of them as tt is widely accepted that the growth and abundance of kelp are dependent on water quality and temperature. Even under ideal growing conditions, a large swell can damage kelp forests, ripping the largest stalks off the seafloor. Fishing activities have little to no impact on kelp health as seen by thriving kelp populations throughout history pre-dating even the MLPA when fishing access was less restrictive. Fishing restrictions are not what it will take for the forests to regrow. The creation or expansion of MPAs resulting from this petition will have a negligible effect on the recovery of kelp forests, but a permanent and lasting effect on those that have a livelihood on the water or those that want to simply fish and enjoy a day on the water. In some instances, such expansions may hinder restoration efforts by obstructing human interventions aimed at encouraging kelp growth, such as seeding areas or urchin barren removal efforts. 

This requests the redesignation of one offshore SMCA to a no-take SMR, merging it with the nearshore SMR at Point Buchon to make one no-take SMR. The petition also requests combining the nearshore and offshore SMCAs at Farnsworth into a single SMCA that would permit only pelagic finfish spearfishing, removing various pelagic fishing allowances existing there. The primary justification for these changes is enforcement concerns and while it is indeed harder to enforce limited take areas compared to no-take areas, enforcement has effectively managed the existing MPA network without significant issues. The concept of allowing pelagic finfish targeting offshore—where interactions with the MPA’s intended protections are minimal—has been recognized since the first and second MPA Master Plans where it explicitly states the lesser effect pelagic fish have on themselves and the MPA ecosystem, and to allow for areas that have pelagic take respectively. Additionally, if enforcement was truly the only concern, commercial harpoon at Farnsworth is just as enforceable, if not easier then recreational spear methods, and should be left in as an allowance in the SMCA.