Commercial abalone farmers
Kelp harvesters were mauling the surface of the kelp beds to feed their abalone, leaving no canopy on the surface until it grew back. Then, they repeated the process. Environmentalists and the diving community expressed concerns to the MBNMS about the annual harvesting of 660 tons of kelp and asked for a kelp harvesting impact study. The abalone farmers, in retaliation, demanded a study of SCUBA diver disturbance of the kelp forest. The Sanctuary decided to fund two studies, Kelp Harvesting and Diver Disturbance in Kelp Forests. The Kelp Harvesting study was limited to reviewing arial photographs. These previously taken photographs were analyzed and provided no information on the impact of kelp harvesting to invertebrates or fish populations. Therefore, the Sanctuary determined that kelp harvesting is not detrimental to kelp beds, invertebrates and the fish population, and there was no need for the regulation of this activity.
Diver Disturbance in Kelp Forests Report
MBNMS hired Tim Schaeffer and Michael Foster of Coastal Solutions Group for $2,000 to report on diver disturbance. The report criticized diving activities within the Sanctuary. There, divers hired by the authors of the diver disturbance report surreptitiously followed 42 divers. The report stated that divers, on the average, contact the bottom 43 times, touch four marine animals and detach two alga blades within a 30-minute dive. This activity was reported as being detrimental to the kelp forest. The report recommended that dive instructors should conduct dive training in designated areas. Training materials should be developed on kelp forest diving and submitted to the SCUBA training agencies and required as part of their training curriculum. Signs should be posted at all diving entry and exit points with diving guidelines and restrictions. Guidelines should be developed for "improvements in management" of diving activities, such as limiting the numbers of divers in certain areas, specifying entry and exit points and establishing underwater trails.
The report was severely criticized on a number of accounts, including
not assessing long-term ecological impacts and failure to measure the effects
of blade removal. The report did not compare diver disturbance to other
phenomena such as winter storms, El Niño, boat traffic and other
oceanographic events. Also, issues of conflict of interest arose in regards
to the consulting firm and the abalone farmers. It was claimed that the
consulting firm, Coastal Solutions Group, previously did "for hire" consultation
for the Commercial Abalone Farming Industry, which tended to bias their
report.
Responding to diver out cries, the Superintendent of MBNMS stated there
are no intentions to levy user fees or to set limitations on diver access
to the Sanctuary. He referred the report to a committee of the Sanctuary
Advisory Council for review. Though, using a more moderate tone, the committee
basically embraced the recommendations from the consultant and suggested
the establishment of a Program for Diver Outreach to solicit the support
from the diving community in the "development of resource protection strategies."
Diver Outreach Program
MBNMS created the Diver Outreach Program to "educate" the diving community. Two program workshops were held with representation from YMCA SCUBA, NAUI, PADI, SSI, MBA, marine research institutions, dive clubs and related businesses. At these first meetings, MBNMS staff presented the participants with recommendations very similar to those adopted by the Sanctuary Advisory Council and as reported in the diver disturbance report. Other items discussed were how divers can protect Sanctuary resources, the creation of a dive partnership program Internet site, the creation of a mobile diver information booth and the creation of a video to explain the Sanctuary habitat and "management guidelines".
These "niceties" sugarcoat and disguise the adoption of signs and new diver "guidelines". No discussion was held on the 660 tons of kelp forest chopped annually by kelp harvesters. The Diver Outreach Program was recently renamed the Diver Partnership Program to make it sound more like a partnership between the Sanctuary and the diving community, thereby sanctioning the forthcoming "management guidelines".
Two users of the Sanctuary treated differently
Even if divers were to detach two blades of algae, the blades fall to
the floor of the kelp forest where it is consumed by marine life, such
as abalone and sea urchins, and thus, the impact to the Sanctuary is minuscule.
Compare this to the 660 tons of kelp chopped, removed and consumed by kelp
harvesters. Turban Snails and Top Snails are abundant on Giant Kelp in
the Monterey region. The report claims these snails were "frequently swept
away from Giant Kelp blades by divers fins." But, the Diver Disturbance
in Kelp Forest Report says nothing about these snails, crabs and other
marine life, which are displaced, removed and subsequently killed as the
kelp is harvested for commercial profit. In July 1999, another commercial
abalone farm was granted a permit to start up, and it is predicted that
this particular farm will triple the total farming within the Sanctuary,
thus tripling the consumption of the 660 tons of kelp harvesting. Recreational
SCUBA diving and training in these dive sites has a 40-year history without
any measurable ecological impact. In fact, the report sites previous studies
that suggest recreational diving impacts are minimal. The MBNMS Superintendent
said in a letter to the Sanctuary Advisory Council "the report states that
determining the ecological effects of these disturbances would be difficult
because of the natural spatial and temporal variability of these systems".
In other words, the kelp beds break down and wash ashore every winter,
and the Sanctuary really does not know and has not assessed the relative
impact of divers, compared to other human and natural effects in kelp beds.
The kelp forest harvesters were allowed to simply form a cooperative group
for self regulation and education. Yet, the Sanctuary is drafting guidelines
that will impose restrictions on the very community that advocated for
the creation of the Sanctuary. If new "management guidelines" are to be
adopted, they should be fairly and equally applied to all users of our
natural resource. The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary is treating
divers unfairly and differently than other users of the Sanctuary.