April 1, 2026
California Fish and Game Commission
P.O. Box 944209 Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
Submitted electronically to [email protected]
Subject: Comments on CDFW Staff Evaluation of Laguna Bluebelt Petition (2023-24) Dear President Sklar, Vice President Anderson, and Honorable Commissioners:
We appreciate the work of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to advance the petition process for the MPA Decadal Review. We respectfully submit the following comments on the recent CDFW staff evaluation of the Laguna Bluebelt Petition (2023-24).
We believe the evaluation misconstrued data and elements of our petition in ways that resulted in erroneous conclusions. Specifically:
1. Our contention that uniform no take fishing regulations citywide would aid enforcement referred to public perception, not enforcement personnel. Clearly, enforcement personnel including Lifeguards, Park Rangers and Wardens have exceptional knowledge of regulations and types of take allowed in specific areas. The public, however, does not, and a clear regulation that there is no fishing in Laguna Beach is intrinsically more understandable to the public than a mix of regulations in different areas of the city. Presently, since Lifeguards are focused on public safety, there is no comprehensive on-site City enforcement of fishing licenses, season, species and size limits.
Also, the staff analysis combines violation data from the No Take Laguna Beach SMCA where violations are extremely rare due to city enforcement along with violations from the Dana Point SMCA which only include tide pool take, and compares that to the Bolsa Chica No Take SMCA which is heavily fished, is not enforced by local agencies, and has Attachment 4
41 1. Appendix A
the highest MPA violations in the state. This is a comparison of apples and oranges and has no value in the context of this evaluation.
2. We believe that the evaluation conclusion that the proposed boundary change would not result in significant ecological benefits is inaccurate. The staff evaluation uses a broad statement regarding stable kelp canopy from 2010 to 2016, ten years ago, before the 2014-2016 marine heat wave, to determine that fishing and anchor chain drag is not a significant impact on kelp in the petition area. However, a recent February 2026 report by Reef Check1 of the petition area found that “the kelp forest ecosystems inside the Laguna Beach SMR have stable giant kelp densities and currently have higher giant kelp densities than the ecosystems surveyed at Thousand Steps Beach and Three Arches. The protected ecosystems also currently have lower urchin densities than the unprotected reefs.” This leads to a more likely rationale that overfishing and disturbance from traps and anchor chains following the heat wave have reduced kelp recovery in the petition area, and that a boundary change will result in significant ecological benefits.
3. We are concerned with the vague rationale used in the staff analysis regarding potential whale entanglements. The clear fact is that if there are no traps in the petition area whales can’t get entangled there. Vague statements about the potential future placement of traps and whales getting entangled somewhere else have no value in evaluating the petition area.
4. We disagree with the evaluation conclusion that the additional area would not improve the performance of the Laguna Beach Reserve/SMCA cluster. The February 2026 Reef Check survey shows that reefs in the Laguna Beach Reserve outperform reefs in the petition area of the Dana Point SMCA in kelp density and biodiversity. Adding protection to the reefs in the petition area will give these areas a chance to recover to their natural abundance, improving the overall performance of the cluster.
5. Lastly, we have concerns with the statements regarding recreational fishing in Laguna Beach. Due to existing private property restrictions on public access, shore fishing opportunities in the petition area are minimal. There is only one public beach, Thousand Steps, which would become inaccessible to fishing due to the petition. This beach is only 0.41 miles of coast, less than half of the proposed petition along the coast. Also, observational data of fishing activity at Thousand Steps Beach from the MPA Watch program showed that during eighty seven human use surveys over a ten year period from March 1 of 2016 to March 31 of 2026, only nine people were observed shore fishing, and only three private party fishing boats were observed. All other observed fishing was commercial. This exceptionally low level of shore and private boat fishing in the area shows that restricting shore fishing in the petition area will have 42 1. Appendix A
almost no impact on non commercial fishing. Furthermore, the statement that the petition would result in “no recreational fishing in Laguna Beach” is irrelevant. Many otherwise legal activities, including smoking and the use of balloons, are illegal citywide in Laguna Beach. These restrictions are based on community values, and the desire of Laguna Beach residents to restrict fishing citywide is no different. There are many better places close by to recreationally fish. We acknowledge that this petition will have an impact on commercial fishing activities, however the petition area is a fraction of a percent of the area available for commercial fishing in Southern California and only a slight 11% increase in full protection in the Laguna Beach area. Fisheries can and will adapt to this change if implemented. Statements from commercial and recreational fishers confirm they have adjusted their practices and the Laguna’s MPAs are a sustainable fishery.
For the individual evaluation questions we have the following comments:
Question 1
We disagree with the conclusion that the proposed expansion would not improve the design of the existing MPA cluster. The Science Advisory Team (SAT) made the conclusion that bigger MPAs perform better and set a minimum size for reserves. The current Laguna Beach Reserve and No Take SMCA only meet that minimum size requirement. Enlarging the No Take area inherently improves the performance of the MPA Cluster per the SAT guidelines. Furthermore, the existing no take boundary was not designed to preserve fishing in Laguna Beach. It was selected to meet the minimum requirement for persistent kelp canopy. Since that time kelp canopy has diminished, and the proposed extension provides the opportunity for expansion of kelp canopy by protecting reefs that are currently degraded by commercial fishing activities.
Question 2A
We disagree that the petition would not advance any adaptive management recommendations in the Decadal Management Review (DMR). There seems to be misinformation from the evaluators on the MPA Outreach activities in the area. Docent activities in the Dana Point SMCA are restricted to the City of Dana Point and do not occur in the Laguna Beach areas of this SMCA. Also, the Orange County MPA Collaborative only provides high level, countywide MPA outreach materials and has no presence in the Laguna Beach area of the Dana Point SMCA. The current situation where fishing is restricted in part of the city and open in another is inherently confusing to new visitors. A 43 1. Appendix A
clear message of “No Fishing in Laguna Beach” is more understandable to the public and is an effective adaptive management technique that advances DMR recommendation 15.
Questions 2B
We disagree with the evaluation statements for this question. As stated previously, a citywide regulation against fishing is more understandable to the public than a mix of regulations. A recent study by Reef Check1 shows that protected reefs in the Laguna Beach Reserve are more productive of kelp than the reefs outside the no take area. This will not only increase kelp but the overall performance of the Orange County MPA cluster. Also, whales cannot get entangled in lobster traps in the petition area if lobster traps don’t exist there. So, the petition does address multiple MPA management challenges in the Dana Point SMCA.
Question 3
We agree with the evaluation conclusions.
Question 4
We strongly disagree with the evaluation conclusions for this question. There is clearly a misunderstanding by DFW staff of the location of the wastewater outfall mentioned in the evaluation. The outfall is in the existing Laguna Beach No Take SMCA, not in the petition area, and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, not the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regulates water quality in the area. The outfall State Lands Conservancy lease, and Regional Water Quality Control Board regulatory requirements will not be affected by the petition.
Question 5
We disagree with several conclusions in the evaluation for this question. First of all, there was a significant data gap on kelp persistence during this evaluation. That gap has now been filled with the February 2026 Reef Check Report1 on kelp inside and outside of the petition area. This report renders the previous evaluation that used ten year old data obsolete.
Also, the staff evaluation misstated the reasoning for the existing No Take SMCA boundary.
The existing no take boundary was not designed to preserve fishing in Laguna Beach. It was selected to meet the minimum requirement for persistent kelp canopy.
Question 6
44 1. Appendix A
No Comment
Question 7
The staff analysis suggests that MPA boundary decisions based on information and political compromises ten years ago is now unchangeable. This is inconstant with the entire adaptive management process. Whether this option was considered in the past should have no bearing on whether it should be considered now, twelve years later, during an adaptive management review. Californias MPAs are required to undergo regular review and potential adaption due to changing conditions in the ocean and with community values. In this case the community always wanted the entire city to be protected. The Laguna Beach City Council passed a resolution, culminating in a 4-1 vote on June 16, 2009, to endorse a marine reserve for the entire coastline. The resulting boundary covering less than the full city was a political decision by the California Fish and Game Commission based on the data available at the time. California’s MPAs were never intended to be static and unchanging. That is why we have the Decadal Review Process.
Question 7B
We disagree with the evaluation conclusion for this question. Since implementation there have been significant habitat and species changes due to marine heat waves, climate change, over-fishing and other factors. Also, there is new information available via the February 2026 Reef Check1 study.
Question 8
We disagree with part of the evaluation conclusion for this question. The original intent of the current boundary was not to preserve fishing in Laguna Beach. It was to meet minimum No Take MPA size requirements and minimum persistent kelp extent. The persistent kelp extent is no longer met by the existing No Take MPAs due to habitat changes.
Question 9
We disagree with part of the evaluation conclusion for this question. The evaluation states that “the proposed change would increase the area protected in Laguna Beach No-take SMCA for kelp, beach, rocky intertidal, and hard and soft bottom (0-30 and 30-100 m depth) habitats, which may improve the design of this MPA”. But then it contradicts itself stating that this will not improve the network. That conclusion is illogical. The SAT recommendations say larger MPAs are preferred. Larger MPAs inherently help strengthen the entire MPA network. Expansion of the No Take Laguna Beach SMCA will clearly have positive benefits to the network based on the statement above. 45 1. Appendix A
Question 10
We have serious concerns about the evaluation of this question. The proposed southern boundary in the amended petition is on an even line of latitude and is as close as possible using Google Earth generated coordinates to the southern Laguna Beach city boundary. We are requesting additional DFW clarification on this evaluation and are open to a slight adjustment if necessary. The proposed southern boundary features a prominent bluff landmark for enforcement.
Question 10B
We disagree with the evaluation conclusion for this question based on our answer to question 10.
Question 11
We disagree with the evaluation conclusion for this question. As stated previously, a citywide regulation against fishing is more understandable to the public than a mix of regulations in different parts of the city. We are requesting clarification from DFW staff on the assertion that the proposed southern boundary extends into the City of Dana Point.
That was not the intent of the petitioner.
Question 12
We disagree with the evaluation conclusion for this question. In question 11 the evaluators state “…No-take regulations are generally easier to enforce and for the public to understand…”. Now in question twelve they say the opposite. As we have stated before a citywide regulation against fishing in Laguna Beach is more understandable to the public than a mix of regulations.
Question 13
We agree with this evaluation conclusion.
Question 15
We disagree with part of the evaluation for this question. Shore fishing in the petition is not a popular activity. Observational data of fishing activity at Thousand Steps Beach from the MPA Watch program showed that during eighty seven human use surveys over a ten year period from March 1 of 2016 to March 31 of 2026, only nine people were observed shore fishing, and only three private party fishing boats were observed. All other observed fishing 46 1. Appendix A
was commercial. This exceptionally low level of shore and private boat fishing in the area shows that restricting shore fishing in the petition area will have almost no impact on non commercial fishing.
Question 18
We agree with the evaluation conclusion for this question.
In conclusion we believe that the evaluation by Department of Fish and Wildlife staff contains numerous inaccuracies, assumptions and opinions, with little actual data to back them up. We disagree with most of the conclusions. We are looking forward to participating in the continuing California Fish and Game Commission process to provide updated and correct information to the Commissioners and public so a decision can be made to benefit both our ocean environment and the community as intended and legislated by the California Marine Life Protection Act Sincerely,
Mike Beanan
Laguna Bluebelt Coalition
Appendix A
47 Reef Check California Report:
Laguna Beach Coastal Kelp Forest Evaluation
Final Report To: Laguna Bluebelt Coalition
Jaclyn Mann
Reef Check Foundation
February 2026
48 Introduction
The Laguna Beach State Marine Reserve (SMR) and the Laguna Beach State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) were both established in January 2012 as a part of California’s Marine Protected Area (MPA) network (Figure 1). The Laguna Beach SMR protects more than six square miles of marine habitat and covers 4.4 miles of coastline. It extends from Abalone Point, Laguna Beach’s northernmost city limit, south to Goff Island. The Laguna Beach SMCA extends south from Goff Island to Table Rock and protects more than 3 square miles of marine habitat and covers 1.2 miles of coastline (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2022).
Though these two MPAs cover most of the shoreline of Laguna Beach, there is an additional mile of coastline that remains unprotected between the Laguna Beach SMCA and the Dana Point SMCA.
Figure 1. Map showing the current boundaries of the Laguna Beach SMR and Laguna Beach SMCA (NoTake). 49 This report was designed to compare the kelp forest ecosystems found outside of the Laguna Beach SMR and the Laguna Beach SMCA to kelp forest ecosystems inside those protected areas.
Specifically, we will be comparing the communities found at six sites; four sites located within the Laguna Beach SMR (Seal Rock, Shaws Cove, Divers Cove, Heisler Park) and two sites located in unprotected waters south of the Laguna Beach SMCA (Thousand Steps, Three Arches).
Reef Check Methods
To assess the kelp forest ecosystems, Reef Check divers completed biotic surveys at each of the six sites. All surveys were completed following the Reef Check California Monitoring Protocol (Freiwald et al. 2021). Each survey included six 30m by 2m swath transects on which divers conducted counts of fish, invertebrates, macroalgae, and made uniform point contact (UPC) observations. Data on substrate, relief, and cover (sessile organisms) were collected at every meter during each UPC survey. Transects were placed at each survey site in predetermined depth zones, three shallow and three deep. An additional 12 fish transects (30m by 2m and by 2m) were conducted during each survey. Along each transect, a set of 83 indicator species, comprising of 13 species of macroalgae, 35 taxa of invertebrates, and 35 taxa of fish, were looked for and counted. Reef Check indicator species have been selected because they are ecologically important and of relevance to management (Freiwald and Beahrs 2020).
Reef Check long-term monitoring data was also used to examine changes in the kelp forest communities of the four sites located within the Laguna Beach SMR since the establishment of the MPA in 2012.
Giant Kelp Trends
In Southern California, giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) forms kelp forest canopies. Since the establishment of the Laguna Beach SMR and SMCA in 2012, all four monitored sites have shown a slight positive trend in giant kelp density (Figure 2). Looking specifically at data collected in 2025 and 2026, the four sites inside the Laguna SMR have notably higher giant kelp densities than those at Thousand Steps Beach and Three Arches, which are located outside the MPA (Figure 3).
50 Figure 2. Giant kelp densities over time at four long-term monitoring sites in Laguna Beach, California.
Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
Figure 3. Mean giant kelp density at six sites in Laguna Beach, California, based on the most recent survey data (2025 and 2026). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. 51 Sea Urchin Trends
Reef Check monitors four species of urchin in California: purple urchins (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus), red urchins (Mesocentrotus franciscanus), starry urchins (Arbacia stellata), and crowned urchins (Centrostephanus coronatus). Purple, red, and crowned urchins are commonly observed in southern California. Starry urchin, though, are rare in California. Starry urchin have only been recorded during Reef Check surveys in southern California at sites off Anacapa and Santa Cruz Islands. Over 19 years of monitoring, starry urchin have never been recorded at Reef Check sites located in the Laguna Beach SMR.
Since the establishment of the Laguna Beach SMR and SMCA in 2012, all four long term monitoring sites have seen a decline in both purple and red urchin densities (Figure 4). If we look specifically at urchin density data collected in 2025 and 2026, the four sites inside the Laguna Beach SMR have notably smaller densities of both purple and red urchins than the two sites located outside of the MPA (Figure 5). Small amounts of crowned urchins were recorded at Seal Rock, Shaws Cove, Divers Cove, and Three Arches. Interestingly, starry urchins were recorded for the first time at a Laguna Beach site at Three Arches in 2026 (Figure 5).
Figure 4. Purple and red urchin densities over time at four long-term monitoring sites in Laguna Beach, California. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. 52 Figure 5. Mean urchin density at six sites in Laguna Beach, California, based on the most recent survey data (2025 and 2026). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
Reef Habitat Characterization
Uniform Point Contact (UPC) surveys were used to collect substrate data at each site. Substrate was recorded based on the size of the substrate at each point, ranging from sand (rock<0.5cm) to reef (rock>1m). The four sites located within the Laguna Beach SMR and Three Arches were mainly composed of large substrate, with all 5 sites characterized by over 50% rocky reef.
Thousand Steps Beach was characterized by more medium-sized substrate, with 50% cobble (rock< 15 cm) and only 30% rocky reef (Figure 6).
53 Figure 6. Mean percent substrate composition at six sites in Laguna Beach, California, based on the most recent survey data (2025 and 2026).
Conclusions
Overall, this report finds that the kelp forest ecosystems inside the Laguna Beach SMR have stable giant kelp densities and currently have higher giant kelp densities than the ecosystems surveyed at Thousand Steps Beach and Three Arches. The protected ecosystems also currently have lower urchin densities than the unprotected reefs. The higher urchin populations outside of the Laguna Beach SMR and SMCA may have led to increased grazing pressure on the algae communities of these ecosystems. If there is not enough drift algae to support urchin grazing, urchins are known to actively search for food and may graze on attached giant kelp holdfasts, resulting in a decline in giant kelp density (Harrold and Reed 1985). The fishing pressure on urchin predators, such as California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) and California sheephead (Bodianus pulcher), at sites outside the MPAs may allow larger populations of urchins to thrive on those reefs. Continuing to monitor these six sites will allow us to better understand the impacts of MPAs on the dynamics of these kelp forest ecosystems. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Seal Rock
Shaws Cove
Divers Cove
Heisler Park
Thousand Steps
Three Arches
% Substrate Composition
Sand (<0.5cm) Cobble (0.5cm - 15cm) Boulder (>15cm - 1m) Reef (>1m) Other 54 References
Freiwald, J., and A. Beahrs. 2020. Reef Check California: SCUBA-diving citizen scientist monitor rock reef ecosystems. Page 313 in C. A. Lepczyk, O. D. Boyle, and T. L. V. Vargo, editors. Handbook of citizen science in ecology and conservation. University of California Press, Oakland, California.
Freiwald, J., S. M. McMillan, and D. Abbott. 2021. Reef Check California Instruction Manual: A Guide to Monitoring California’s Kelp Forests, 10th Edition. Reef Check Foundation, Marina del Rey, CA, USA.
Harrold, C., and Reed, D. C. (1985). Food availability, sea urchin grazing, and kelp forest community structure. Ecology, 66(4), 1160-1169.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2022, September). Laguna Beach State Marine Reserve/State Marine Conservation Area (No-Take). California Natural Resources Agency. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/MPAs/Laguna-Beach#623964928 55