Protect the Process: Science, Transparency and Trust Must Guide California’s MPA Decisions
Photo: Marco Mazza
The All Waters Protection & Access Coalition is urging the California Fish and Game Commission to pause before advancing major Marine Protected Area changes where state agencies reach conflicting conclusions.
Letter by Mike Raabe (All Waters Board of Directors)
Dear Commissioners:
The All Waters Protection & Access Coalition supports science-based adaptive management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network. Adaptive management must work in both directions. Where evidence demonstrates that additional protection is necessary, the State should act. Where restrictions are not likely to produce meaningful conservation benefit, they should be reconsidered. Where the evidence remains uncertain, the State should resolve those uncertainties before making substantial regulatory changes that may be difficult, expensive and time-consuming to modify in the future.
California’s MPA Network is often referred to as a global gold standard. If that is true, the process used to substantially change it should also represent a gold standard for scientific rigor, transparency and public trust. We are concerned that the process now before the Commission is in jeopardy of departing from that standard.
Following the 2023 Decadal Management Review, the Commission received 20 petitions containing more than 80 proposed changes to the MPA Network. Over the next two years, CDFW, Commission staff and OPC developed a detailed Bin 2 evaluation framework with substantial input from a diverse collection of stakeholders. The final framework was approved by the Commission on August 14, 2025,¹ and contained eighteen questions addressing MLPA goals, the DMR, science, network design, climate resilience, enforcement, socioeconomic impacts, equitable access, tribal interests, JEDI principles and coastal fishing communities.
According to the framework guidelines, CDFW then performed detailed petition-by-petition evaluations, based on MLPA goals and mandates, DMR results, climate resilience, and other adaptive-management considerations.2 The Department’s evaluations were published on March 20, 2026. On the same day, OPC announced that it would provide their own petition-specific recommendations under a separate policy lens.³ OPC’s March 20 letter states that their plan to submit specific recommendations was done at the request of OPC Chair and Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot.⁴ This was the first time the public heard of this plan, and the OPC recommendations were not submitted until over four months later, on July 31, 2026.
We do not question OPC’s authority to offer guidance to the Commission on matters of policy, nor do we suggest that CDFW’s technical evaluation is the only information the Commission may consider. We do question why, after OPC participated in development of the Commission-approved framework, a separate petition-specific review applying different criteria was first publicly introduced on the same day that CDFW’s initial evaluations were released.
OPC acknowledges the distinction in their recommendations. They describe CDFW’s work as a comprehensive evaluation conducted under a separate set of questions and criteria established by the Commission, while OPC’s recommendations are based on whether proposed actions “hold promise” to strengthen the network and are rooted in a precautionary approach.⁵ Those are not necessarily incompatible philosophies, but they are different evidentiary standards, and in several important cases they produce different regulatory recommendations from the same underlying record.
The Commission’s decisions here will do more than determine the fate of the petitions currently before it. They will establish a precedent for how California adaptively manages its MPA Network in the future. Our primary concern is maintaining the integrity, transparency and predictability of the framework developed by CDFW, the Commission and the OPC over two years of careful and intentional discussion.
Stakeholders who spent years participating in this process deserve to understand when the additional OPC recommendation layer was established, why their separate criteria were not incorporated into the Commission-approved framework, how much weight those recommendations will be given, and how the Commission intends to resolve conflicts between the two analyses.
OPC’s recommendations apply a precautionary policy lens under the 30x30 framework, but a future administration could have entirely different policy priorities. A process should therefore be judged not simply by whether we agree with its outcome today, but by whether we would consider the same process fair and legitimate if a future administration used it to reach the opposite outcome. Otherwise, the State risks creating an adaptive-management process in which stakeholders participate under one clearly defined framework while an additional set of criteria may subsequently influence the regulatory outcome. That would undermine predictability, stakeholder confidence and ultimately public trust in the MPA program itself.
While OPC identifies adaptive management of the MPA Network and the MPA petition process as part of California’s broader coastal 30x30 strategy, they also stated that the numerical 30x30 target is not itself driving individual MPA petition decisions.⁶ Those statements are not necessarily inconsistent. A strong MPA Network can contribute to California’s broader biodiversity objectives while individual petition decisions remain governed by the MLPA, California’s MPA Master Plans, relevant science and the adaptive-management process established by the Commission.
Our question is not simply whether 30x30 “caused” any particular recommendation. The more important question is where the boundary lies between California’s 30x30 policy framework and the standards governing adaptive management of the existing MPA Network. If the 30x30 initiative is directly influencing petition-specific recommendations, the Commission should clearly explain how they relate to the standards contained in the MLPA, California’s MPA Master Plans and the Commission-approved petition evaluation framework. 30x30 can provide broader policy context, but it should not substitute for the scientific and management justification required for an individual regulatory action.
Below we compare the outcomes of several CDFW and OPC evaluations:
At Anacapa Island, CDFW found insufficient evidence that bottom-contact fishing or boating during the limited annual fishing window is the primary driver of eelgrass loss or lack of recovery at Frenchy’s Cove. CDFW also noted that stable eelgrass meadows persist elsewhere around Anacapa Island and the Channel Islands where fishing and boating activities occur and identified other potential site-specific drivers, including temperature, currents, substrate and the 2014-2016 marine heatwave. CDFW concluded that the proposed restrictions were unlikely to provide measurable, biologically meaningful benefits and recommended continued research and monitoring instead.²
OPC acknowledges data gaps regarding both eelgrass distribution and the causes of its persistence and loss, yet recommends prohibiting lobster traps in water shallower than 50 feet based on evidence that fishing gear can damage eelgrass.⁵
The disagreement is not whether fishing gear can damage eelgrass or whether eelgrass deserves protection. It is whether broader evidence of potential gear impacts is sufficient to justify substantial site-specific regulation where CDFW’s review found that the proposed local causal relationship has not been demonstrated and identified other plausible drivers of the observed decline.
CDFW says the evidence has not crossed that threshold. OPC’s precautionary standard supports action despite the acknowledged uncertainty.
At Mishopshno, CDFW supports Chumash co-stewardship, but concludes that creating a new MPA is not necessary to achieve it. The Department identifies alternative conservation and stewardship pathways and questions the ecological benefit relative to fishing impacts. OPC recommends creating the new MPA.⁵
Again, the issue is not the importance of tribal stewardship. It is whether an important objective establishes the necessity of a substantial regulatory mechanism when less restrictive alternatives exist, per the guidelines of the original MLPA framework.
The difference is even clearer with kelp resilience. CDFW recommended denying all seven actions in Petition 2023-33MPA. CDFW acknowledged that MPAs can support marine populations resilient to disturbance, but found that the extent to which those benefits translate into improved resistance or adaptation to climate-driven impacts on kelp remains uncertain and that the magnitude of any benefit is likely highly variable across space and time. Based on all of the relevant literature, CDFW concluded that more research is needed and that, if warming ocean temperatures are the primary driver of kelp decline, expanding MPA boundaries alone is unlikely to provide significant benefits.² CDFW went further, concluding that given these uncertainties, pursuing a substantial boundary expansion without a stronger scientific basis and coordinated management strategy would be premature.²
OPC nevertheless concludes that, “from a precautionary standpoint,” protecting additional persistent kelp is worth exploring and recommends expanding the Point Dume and Point Conception MPAs.⁵
This leaves the Commission with a fundamental question: when both the scientific and societal (i.e. JEDI) benefits are acknowledged to be uncertain and CDFW does not find demonstrated conservation need, is precautionary potential sufficient to justify substantial regulatory expansion? The Commission should answer that question explicitly before directing rulemaking.
All Waters is not arguing that every petition increasing protection should be denied. At Pyramid Point, CDFW identified a specific resource concern involving true smelt and supported eliminating recreational take while maintaining tribal take. Although these actions reduce recreational access, All Waters supports the recommendation because the management action is tied to an identifiable conservation concern.
We believe this is an example of adaptive management working. First identify whether a problem exists and a change is needed. Then determine the action that will best address the problem, consider the consequences, and tailor the regulation accordingly.
Too often, proposals for MPA expansion begin with a solution – more protection – then emphasize the evidence supporting that solution without adequately addressing substantial evidence suggesting that the proposed action may not solve the identified problem or that the problem itself has not been sufficiently demonstrated. An adaptive-management process should begin with the problem, not the preferred regulatory outcome.
These concerns are not limited to fishing organizations. Dr. Mark Carr, who has been deeply involved in designing, implementing, and monitoring California’s Marine Protected Area network, has described California as the “global gold standard for MPA networks” while questioning the need for additional MPAs before the existing system and its consequences are better understood.⁷
Whatever process the Commission legitimizes today will become part of the precedent for tomorrow. A transparent process should be durable enough to remain fair regardless of who occupies the Governor’s Office, who chairs OPC, what interests submit the next round of petitions, or whether the policy priorities of a future administration align with ours.
Before directing rulemaking on petitions where CDFW and OPC reach materially different conclusions, All Waters respectfully asks the Commission to:
Identify the evidentiary standard governing significant MPA regulatory changes, including whether precautionary potential alone can justify substantial expansion where demonstrated conservation need remains unresolved, with particular emphasis given to guiding language in the MLPA, the MLMA and California’s MPA Master Plans.
Clarify the relationship between CDFW’s Commission-approved evaluation framework and OPC’s subsequent policy recommendations, including when the separate OPC petition-specific review was established and how conflicting conclusions should be weighed.
Clarify the precedent being established for future adaptive-management reviews. If independent policy recommendations using separate criteria will become a formal part of future MPA review, that role and those criteria should be established before technical evaluations are completed, not first introduced as a separate petition-specific pathway when those evaluations are released.
Require meaningful site-specific evidence connecting the identified conservation problem to the proposed regulatory response, particularly where substantial loss of access will result.
Where material scientific uncertainty remains, prioritize targeted research, monitoring or adaptive alternatives before making substantial regulatory changes that may be difficult and costly to reverse.
Consider less restrictive alternatives where they can achieve the identified ecological, cultural or stewardship objective.
Meaningfully consider socioeconomic, community and access consequences as part of determining whether a particular management action is justified.
Clarify the role of 30x30 in individual petition decisions, including the relationship between 30x30 conservation frameworks and the standards governing adaptive management under the MLPA and California’s MPA Master Plans.
We are grateful for the Commissioners’ dedicated service and earnest commitment to public engagement.
Respectfully,All Waters Protection & Access Coalition
References
1. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Final Evaluation Framework for 2023 Marine Protected Area Bin 2 Petitions, developed with support from California Fish and Game Commission and Ocean Protection Council staff; approved August 14, 2025.
2. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2023 MPA Petition Evaluations and Recommendations and associated petition-specific evaluation and companion materials (March and July 2026). The CDFW document repository identifies the March 20 evaluations, July 31 Tribally-led evaluations, companion documents and final framework.
3. California Ocean Protection Council, March 20, 2026 announcement concerning CDFW’s release of MPA petition evaluations and OPC’s forthcoming policy recommendations.
4. California Ocean Protection Council, March 20, 2026 letter regarding the 2023 MPA petitions, including the request from OPC Chair and Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot and OPC’s discussion of the geographic scope of the petitions.
5. California Ocean Protection Council, Recommendations on Marine Protected Area Petitions (July 31, 2026), including OPC’s evaluation approach and petition-specific recommendations.
6. California Ocean Protection Council, California 30x30 coastal-waters materials, including the Pathways to 30x30 California framework, coastal conservation strategy materials, and California-adapted MPA Guide materials.
7. Dr. Mark Carr, public comments and testimony concerning California’s MPA Network, adaptive management, scientific evaluation and stakeholder participation.
8. Marine Life Protection Act, Fish and Game Code §§ 2850 et seq.; Marine Life Management Act, Fish and Game Code §§ 7050 et seq.; California Fish and Game Commission, Master Plan for Marine Protected Areas (2008 and 2016).
Downloadable PDF Version
Comments