According
to the National Marine Fisheries Service,
“Executive Order 13158 defines ‘MPA’ as, ‘Any
area of the marine environment that has been reserved by Federal, State,
territorial, tribal or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection
for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.’”
NMFS goes on to note that
“Without further clarification, the key
terms of ‘area,’ ‘marine environment,” ‘reserved,’ ‘lasting,’ and ‘protection’
found in the MPA definition are subject to a range of interpretations and lead
to an uncertain scope…Without clear definitions for these five key terms, identifying
the sites that should be considered MPAs…would be unclear and efforts to fully
implement the Order would be fragmented, diffused, and ultimately unsuccessful.”
With respect to the “protection” provided
by an MPA, NMFS says that such area
“Must have existing laws or regulations
that are designed and applied to afford the site with increased protection for
part or all of the natural and submerged cultural resources therein for the
purpose of maintaining or enhancing the lasting conservation of these resources,
beyond any protections that apply outside the site.”
Of course, those definitions
apply to MPAs created in federal waters, although the concerns about defining what
an MPA is and how an MPA should function wherever such an area might be
located.
“California’s marine protected areas
(MPAs) were established on a piecemeal basis rather than according to a coherent
plan and sound scientific guidelines.
Many of these MPAs lack clearly defined purposes, effective management
measures and enforcement. As a result,
the array of MPAs creates the illusion of protection while falling far short of
its potential to protect and conserve living marine life and habitat.”
“Fish and other sea life are a sustainable
resource, and fishing is an important community asset. MPAs and sound fishery management are
complimentary components of a comprehensive effort to sustain marine habitats
and fisheries.”
And
“For all of the above reasons, it is
necessary to modify the existing collection of MPAs to ensure that they are
designed and managed according to clear, conservation-based goals and
guidelines that take full advantage of the multiple benefits that can be derived
from the establishment of marine life reserves.”
That seemingly reasonable
language, when read closely, explains why I tend to be skeptical about MPAs, particularly when one realizes that the Act defines “marine
life reserves” as
“a marine protected area in which all extractive
activities, including the taking of marine species, and, at the discretion of
the [Fish and Game] commission and within the authority of the commission,
other areas that upset the natural ecological functions of the area, are
prohibited. While, to the extent
feasible, the area shall be open to the public for managed enjoyment and study,
the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and
unpolluted state.”
My skepticism arises from the
fact that, while the Act might include a legislative finding that California’s
network of MPAs needed to be reorganized
“To ensure that California’s MPAs have clearly
defined objectives, effective management measures, and adequate
enforcement, and are based on sound scientific guidelines,
[emphasis added]”
the Act nonetheless calls for the
establishment of “marine life reserves” which prohibit all fishing, even if such fishing targets a species that is in no need of additional protection and causes no harm to living marine resources or to the relevant
habitat, despite the legislative finding that “fish and other sea life are
a sustainable resource, and fishing is an important community asset.”
Too often, whether in California
or elsewhere, MPA advocates seek to arbitrarily shut down all fishing
activities, including such activities that cause no measurable harm to marine
resources or marine ecosystems.
Recently,
a commercial fisherman in California challenged such arbitrary closures off the
southern California coast, filing a
petition with the California Fish and Game Commission requesting that it open
three areas, designated the Footprint, Gulf Island, and Santa Barbara Island
marine life reserves, to low-impact fishing activities.
The fisherman,
Blake Hermann, is engaged in the harpoon fishery for swordfish, and is seeking
to modify the three MPAs to allow the harvest of various pelagic fish species
within their boundaries. His preferred management
action would allow the recreational harvest of highly migratory species, commercial
hook and line fishing for highly migratory species, commercial harpooning of
swordfish, and the possession of, but not fishing for, coastal pelagic species (defined
by the State of California to include certain species of anchovy, sardines,
mackerel, and squid) within the entirety of the three named MPAs, along with the use
of deep-set buoy gear within the MPA’s federal portions.
However, Mr. Hermann would settle
for modifications that allowed for the commercial and recreational harvest of highly
migratory species caught by “surface fishing methods” (a term that specifically
includes trolling, casting bait and lures, and drifting baits near the surface,
but specifically excludes deep-dropping), commercial harpooning of swordfish,
and the possession, but not fishing for, coastal pelagic species.
It's a logical request, at least
with respect to swordfish and other highly migratory species.
The
three MPAs in question are small; in the aggregate spanning only 39.75 square
miles of ocean. However, they do include
a wide range of depths, reaching from the shoreline into water more than 2,000
feet deep. Access to deep
water makes the area attractive to swordfish, which often feed at substantial depths. Their proximity to coastal islands’ shores
also makes them attractive to Mr. Hermann, who says that when the wind blows,
he can shelter in the lee of such islands when looking for swordfish, which
can be difficult if not impossible to spot in a choppy sea.
According
to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Eastern Pacific swordfish are not
overfished. Even if they were, it’s
difficult to argue that closing less than 40 square miles of ocean would make a
meaningful contribution to conserving the swordfish resource, given NMFS’
advice that
“Scientists know little about the
migration of Pacific swordfish, but tagging data suggest swordfish move
eastward from the central Pacific, north of Hawaii, toward the U.S. West Coast.”
In
addition, the California Ocean Protection Council notes that
“Bycatch in the harpoon fishery is close
to zero.”
It’s impossible to successfully
argue that closing less than 40 square miles of ocean to swordfishing is going
to have any impact on the swordfish resource, or that the swordfish harpoon
fishery, with its “close to zero” bycatch, is going to do harm to any species
residing within the three named MPAs.
It’s not that the three MPA’s
aren’t otherwise beneficial. As Mr.
Hermann stated in his petition,
“The Footprint was originally established with
the primary intention to protect the unique rocky reefs and rebuild the
rockfish populations. The [impact
statement required by the California Environmental Quality Act] discussed the
depleted groundfish stocks at the time and mentioned how they would benefit the
most from the MPA’s implementation. The
Gulf Island and SBI reserves also discuss deep water reefs and rockfish, but
focus more on endangered bird nesting grounds, abalone populations, and the
more diverse, nearshore species along the islands they border. The broad implications of the MPAs in the CEQA
was the intention that local populations of
fish, birds, and mammals inside the MPAs would, ‘respond to protection within
the reserve through with increased density, individual size, and reproductive
potential.’
“This logic is something we see echoed
today in the modern MPA overviews of the three MPAs and the goals of the MPA Master
Plan. In the MPA overviews under, ‘Why
was this location chosen for a state marine reserve?’ we still sea reasons such
as the protection of canyons, rocky reefs, pinnacles, kelp forests, and rocky
nearshore habitats for local non-pelagic species including copper rockfish,
sheepshead, cowcod, and bocaccio.
However, there is zero mention of any
pelagic or HMS in these overviews… [citations
omitted]”
But the issue illustrates why I’m skeptical
about the use of MPAs.
They can be very valuable tools
when tailored to address a particular need, whether that need is protecting
unique areas of live bottom, hard bottom habitat, or populations of
non-migratory fish. But the key phrase
is “address a particular need.”
Too often, MPAs are viewed as a panacea, and their proponents’ often seek to shut down all access to living marine resources, including those populations that don’t need such radical protections, and regardless of whether a particular fishing method causes any environmental harm.
Such advocates are
fond of creating arbitrary goals. They’ll cry, “Let’s protect 30 percent of the ocean!” without ever demonstrating, with statistically
valid data and peer-reviewed science, why 30 percent, and not 20 or 25 percent—or
45 or 50 percent—is the appropriate figure, just as they
will call for much of that 30 percent to be composed of no-take marine reserves,
without explaining how or why closing one relatively small piece of sea will
provide meaningful protection for species like swordfish that can and do traverse
thousands of miles over the course of a year. They will call for such closures without
explaining why strict,
science-based fishery management won’t, in most instances, provide needed
protections without placing publicly-owned fisheries resources off-limits to the public.
Their failure to make a credible
case for no-take MPAs also creates an unfortunate rift between the fishing
community, many members of which support effective, science-based fisheries
management, and the larger marine conservation community who, by advocating for
marine reserves, become a threat to
continued fishing activities and so create a new legion of fishermen who are hostile to conservation efforts.
What is really needed, by the
fish and the fishermen, is what Mr. Hermann seems to be asking for: Not an end
to MPAs, but a new beginning, where MPAs are created to address a particular problem,
and do not arbitrarily shut down activities that offer no threat to either
marine resources or marine ecosystems.
That sort of more sensible MPA would benefit everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment