Evidence of Land Stewardship Impact on the Ocean

Dr. Mark Carr, the SAT lead scientist, published a study called Integrated coastal reserve planning: making the land–sea connection in 2005. Here are his conclusions:

In a nutshell:

• Reserve selection models optimize conservation on land or at sea, without considering the ecological interactions between the two
• Ignoring such interactions could result in reserves failing to achieve their conservation objectives
• Adapting a process-based conceptual model would facilitate integrated planning that transcends current methods
• As a first step toward integrated planning, land-conservation analyses should be extended to account for effects on marine biodiversity

http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/people/raimondi/publications/carr/Stoms%20et%20al%202005%20Frontiers.pdf

Clive Endress Statement to the BRTF

Monday, November 19. San Rafael.

BEFORE WE START, WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD HOLD YOUR QUESTIONS UNTIL ALL THREE OF US HAVE COMPLETED OUR BRIEF REMARKS.

MADAME CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS CLIVE ENDRESS. I AM A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, AND I AM PRIVILEGED TO BE HERE TODAY AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD, REPRESENTING THE HAVEN’S NECK PRESERVE. THE HAVENS NECK PRESERVE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN END OF SAUNDERS REEF RESTRICTION ZONE (SHOWN HERE ON THE MAP).

WE ARE A GROUP OF TWENTY NEIGHBORING FAMILIES WITH VARIED BACKGROUNDS, INCLUDING SCHOOL TEACHERS, LAWYERS, NURSES ARTISTS, ARCHITECTS, SOCIAL WORKERS AND MORE. WE CAME TOGETHER AS A GROUP TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE IT FROM BEING DEVELOPED AND PLUNDERED FOR ITS NATURAL RESOURCES.

FIRST, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I AND MEMBERS OF THE HAVENS NECK PRESERVE ARE NEW TO THIS PROCESS. WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY LESS THAN A YEAR, AGO AND WE ARE ALL COMMITTED TO BEING ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDS OF THIS VERY SPECIAL PLACE.

WE WANT TO COOPERATE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE TO PROTECT OUR FRAGILE COAST, BUT WE ARE ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR ROLE IN THIS INITIATIVE PROCESS.

BECAUSE WE ARE NEW, WE ARE HERE TODAY TO LISTEN TO ALL DISCUSSIONS AND SEE HOW BEST WE SHOULD PROCEED AS A GROUP, AND WHERE AND HOW WE BEST FIT IN. WE REALIZE WE ARE COMING IN AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR, BUT BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ALL STAKE HOLDER DISCUSSIONS.

NOW WE ARE FACED WITH THE FACT THAT MUCH OF WHAT MAKES HANENS NECK SO SPECIAL, MIGHT BE TAKEN AWAY, OR SEVERELY RESTRICTED IN TERMS OF ACCESS. WE ARE CONCERNED THAT BY TAKING CONTROL AWAY FROM OUR PRESERVE, IT WILL NO LONGER GET THE PROTECTION THAT HAS KEPT IT IN ITS PRESENT UNSPOILED CONDITION. WE BELIEVE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS ARE IN THE BEST POSITION TO PROTECT SUCH FRAGILE HABITATS AS IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE CONDITION OF THE RATCLIFF AND THE RICHARDSON RANCH PROPERTIES.

THE MARINE LIFE SURROUNDING HAVEN'S NECK IS ABUNDANT. THE POPULATIONS OF ABALONE AND ROCK FISH ARE A TESTAMENT TO THE PAST PROTECTION OF ITS PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNERS , THE LOGANS AND MILLARD SHEETS.

I WANT TO MAKE A FEW VERY IMPORTANT POINTS ABOUT OUR MEMBERSHIP. JUST AS IT WAS WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNERS, PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION WERE FOREMOST IN OUR MINDS. WE DEVELOPED A MISSION STATEMENT, AND A SET OF BYLAWS REFLECTING THAT GOAL.

OUR FIRST COOPERATIVE DECISION WAS THAT WE WOULD NEVER ALLOW BUILDING OR DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PIECE OF LAND.

SECOND OUR BY-LAWS INCLUDE , PRESERVATION OF VEGETATION, MANDATORY TRAIL RULES, REGULATIONS REGARDING DOGS, BEACHES, CAMPFIRES, BOATS, AND VERY IMPORTANTLY, RESTRICTIONS ON ABALONE TAKE. ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT REQUIRED BY DFG. THIS RESTRICTION ALLOWS FOR ONLY ONE HALF THE LEGAL LIMIT REQUIRED BY DFG /PER MEMBERSHIP. FURTHER, ALTHOUGH WE ENFORCE STRICT TRESPASSING RULES, WE HAVE PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH RELATED TO ALL PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES ON THE PROPERTY.

FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT AGAIN , WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT WE AND OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED As PRIMARY AND VALUABLE STAKE-HOLDERS IN THIS PROCESS .

WE LOOK FORWARD TO PARTICIPATING AND CONTRIBUTING IN THE MEETINGS AHEAD.

AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

Statement by Walter Ratcliff to BRTF

Monday November 19. San Rafael.

Madame Chair, members of the Blue Ribbon Task Force. My name is Walter Ratcliff. I’m manager of Sail Rock Highlands LLC north of Anchor Bay. I’m representing the 15 members of the LLC today.

Sail Rock Ranch is a 1000 acre preserve. It was purchased 80 years ago by my grandfather, who was an early conservationist. Sail Rock encompasses 3 watersheds from the ocean to the ridge and a mile of coast.

As the coast has become more populous, we have thriving populations of mollusks, red and black abalone, crab, sea slugs, starfish, rockfish, various pinnipeds, octopi, and exotic creatures which are rare elsewhere.

It would be a mistake to presume that good luck, geology and state regulations were the dominant factors in these results. It’s because we rigorously enforce existing no trespassing laws and carefully steward this property. On minus tides, members of the family are out before dawn on the highway and on the rocks.

At the risk of stating the obvious, public access is no friend of species diversity. This is the gorilla in the closet.

• Access is a very old battle on the North Coast that some seem to want to continue to wage in this new forum. This is why not having landowner stewards at the table really concerns us.
  
• I’ve heard it said that it is a no-brainer to site reserves adjacent to private land. This may make some people feel good. After all, they’ve been denied access for decades. And it looks great on paper. But it does nothing to extend protection of marine life. That’s because these areas are already preserves.
• So why does “no go” and no extraction concern us so much? First, “no go” prevents us from being stewards without breaking the law ourselves. Second, labeling these areas “reserves” does nothing to increase marine life protection, but it does paint a bull’s-eye on areas of great biodiversity, touts unenforceable goals, and undermines ongoing stewardship. And here’s why…
  
• We hear compliance with MLPA on central coast is 93%. This is about what we experience now on our property. It’s the 7% we’ve always been concerned about. It’s the hundreds of abalone shells we find on the property, left behind by poachers; it’s the CalTrans crew we busted diving when they left their empty truck on Highway 1; it’s the damage done by sheer numbers of people, each one doing what they think they are permitted to do under the law, but collectively doing damage.
  
• Fish & Game can’t stop this. It is wishful thinking to believe they can WITHOUT partnership with land stewards.
• So what is our advice to the Blue Ribbon Task Force? First, let us continue to be stewards of these large plots of California coast. Don’t tie our hands. We have a generations-old relationship with this land and an ownership stake. Second, don’t make our efforts more dangerous and difficult by designating the areas where the highest biodiversity is located. Third, this is an historic opportunity to REALLY add to the protected areas, not just on paper but with areas that have been damaged already.

Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns.

Arch Richardson Statement to BRTF

Monday, November 19. San Rafael.

Good Morning, I’m Arch Richardson from Stewarts Point

My heritage goes back 120+ years, 4 of 6 generations, been involved in the Gen. Merch. Business for 50 years, both in Stewarts Point and Anchor Bay. I was a Commercial Fisherman, a Reserve Dep. Sheriff for 10 years (1976-86), First Pres. of The Sea Ranch VFD, worked with the Dept. of F&G both State and Federal for many years. Have been involved in way to many rescues and body recoveries from our waters.

As a property owner on the Sonoma Coast stewardship is a word which was taught to us as a child, a family tradition. The marine usage of the Richardson lands as well as the Ratcliff and Havens Neck LLC has very little impact on the eco system we are all trying to save and maintain. What all of these ranches harvest from the Pacific in a year would not fill the back of a pickup truck. Pickups are easily filled in other areas in a single minus tide day…Ft. Ross, Salt Point State Park, The Sea Ranch and Stornetta Bros. lands at Point Arena.

Although our lands have no public access from land they are highly used via boat traffic from other areas and are sought after, safe and full of recourses. Who dares walk though a field of Bulls.

“Abalone” is the most sought after resource in our part of the coast, Fort Ross to Point Arena and on to Fort Bragg. (When they do the North coast they will find that Fort Bragg lives and survives on the Abalone revenue) Over 90 % of the abalone take comes from this area. The offshore fishery has very little effect on this coastal area. The loss of this area would produce a great burden on the economics of this part of the coast from the Abalone aspect alone. The protection of the Abalone could also be improved with additional rules, regulations and laws…I have ideas for that too.

I don’t envy your job as members of the BRTF & SAT, but also comment you for your time and efforts. I do feel that I could be of assistance to you in completeing this process due to many years and involvement on the coast. I would be willing to donate my time as a Q&A man if you desire. We all care about the Coastal Waters and its resources and can get through this together with positive results for all the resources both Marine and Terrestrial.

There are a few of us that will be attending the dinner tonight if you have further questions. Sorry that none of us will be here tomorrow as we all have important issues pending and jobs.

What Good Are Private Lands

Arch Richardson:

• Economics is based on Abalone to all business and towns
• Private lands have not impacted off shore commercial or recreational fishing
• Private lands have protected and managed the take within the marine ecosystem
• Private lands have taken the enforcement pressure off law enforcement agencies and patrol there investment and or heritage
• Private lands have fewer rescues and garbage, in contrast with parks
• Private lands should not be in the same equation as or with economics
• State Marine Reserves in front of private lands hurt the sports angler who enters by boat to what currently exist as de facto reserves
• Private lands have something to look at on the beaches: shells, sea life in general
• Private lands have paid their taxes over the years to the State of California. State and County Parks DO NOT
• Private landowners learn first-hand, not out of book
• Private landowners and their guests do not pick up seal pups
• I personally use big hooks to prevent “by catch”
• Private landowners do not fish commercially but mostly for food
  

Science and Causation

To expand on one of Dr. Underwood's points, it appears that the Regional Profiles have “baked in” an implicit causation between oceanography and local habitat diversity. This causal chain has been troublesome for RSG participants because it neglects stewardship as an exogenous factor. That is, the habitat diversity described in the Regional Profiles may have come from outside the model being used by the SAT and is unexplained by that model. As you argue with great merit, the primary causative explanation for species diversity in these areas is stewardship. Having lived in this region for 50 years and having the benefit of 4 generations of knowledge, there is much anecdotal support for this viewpoint.

Everyone at the BRTF meeting November 19 remarked with some assurance how much “concordance” there was between proposals. Indeed, the overlapping SMR and SMCA choices were striking. No one seems to have questioned that this concordance is an artifact of the data provided.

The conclusions and guidance being provided by the SAT deserve more scrutiny.

Dr. Underwood on Enforcement

We spoke with our local Warden Kevin Joe, during a meeting we had with him on 9-7-07, and he told us that he singularly was patrolling the area between the Navarro River and the Gualala River. During our meeting, he expressed gratitude to our HNP LLC for protecting Havens Neck, as we do, and admitted that he could not do as good a job as we are currently doing, given the expanse of territory for which he is responsible.

I think this is one of the major weakness in the proposed manner in which the MLPA is to be implemented: Take away the motivation for the protection of pristine area that is afforded by the respective landowners and replace that with DFG protection; which although would be good intentioned, would in practice provide less protection than there is now. This, as you can imagine, would probably lead to many of our pristine areas being pillaged, as has happened with the Stornetta lands.

There seems to be a large disconnect with reality and sound scientific reasoning in ignoring the fact that our lands are pristine because of responsible owner oversight and that when this is lost, bio-diversity also suffers, as in cases like the Stornetta lands and what seems to be envisioned for properties such as ours. Instead, they seem to be stuck on pre-conceptions and stereotypes at the expense of facts. Hopefully some common sense enters into the process soon.

This reminds me of the old adage: "the way to hell is paved with good intentions." Hopefully by our collective actions, we can insert affected landowners into the process, to keep their protection of their respective properties, by not removing one of the primary reasons that the respective properties were purchased at the outset. I believe that in this manner, we can continue to significantly complement the DFG's ability to protect the many pristine areas that still remain on our coast. If this does not happen, I fear for the fate of the lands, flora, and fauna that appears to flourish with our protection and that of past such owners.

How Realistic Is MLPA Enforcement?

It is my understanding that at the present time we have the following F&G wardens on the coast. We have an enforcement problem already!

1. There is a resident warden in Elk who patrols from the Navarro River South to the Gualala River and East to Boonville.
2. There is a resident warden on the South Coast that patrols the North half of Marin County North to the Russian River.
3. There is NO RESIDENT WARDEN in the area from the Russian River North to the Gualala River.
4. There is NO RESIDENT WARDEN on the Hwy 101 corridor inland from this area.
5. We were told in the Gualala Meeting by the F&G Officer who is attending the meetings that another 7-9 positions would be asked for to enforce the MLPA plans. His comments was that by asking for 7-9, they would hopefully get 3.
6. If there are 40 in the F&G Academy now, how many will make it? How many will transfer to another agency or a job with a higher salary? How many will get a coastal position? If they can find affordable housing in this area.

Arch Richardson, Stewarts Point, CA

MLPA in the News

New State Law Geared to Protect More Undersea Habitat
Los Angeles Times http://www.californiafish.org/AB993-10_13_99.htm

Saving Fish with Parks in Pacific
Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1004/p1s4-sten.html

California Scientists Shape Policy in Proposed Plan for California Marine Reserves
Santa Cruz Currents Online http://currents.ucsc.edu/06-07/11-27/carr.asp

More Restrictions for Marine Reserves?
Santa Rosa Press Democrat http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20070924/NEWS/709240303/1033/NEWS01

AB993 Marine Life Protection Act
Sponsor: Kevin Shelley
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_993_bill_19991010_chaptered.html


SB 1319 California Ocean Protection Act
Sponsor: Sala Burton http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/sen/sb_1301-1350/sb_1319_bill_20040923_chaptered.html

Are You Affected?

This is a summary of the current proposed marine reserves (SMRs) and conservation areas (SMCAs) that are adjacent to privately held land. Additional sites are adjacent to state parks and PG&E land. Proposals were drafted by stakeholder group sub-teams and external groups.

All proposals: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/nccrsg-options.asp

Proposals that are adjacent to public land:

Proposal 0

Who Proposed It: Existing reserves

Siting: Adjacent to public property

Click for Map http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccrsg-options/zero_maps_071026.pdf

Proposals that are adjacent to private land

Proposal EA

Who Proposed It: Emerald Team

Siting: Adjacent to property from:

• Sea Ranch Lodge to Salt Point State Park (SMR out ½ mile, SMCA beyond)
• Russian River estuary at Jenner (SMR)
• Estero de Americano (SMR)
• Estero de San Antonio (SMR)
• Walker Creek Delta to Lawson on Tomales Bay (SMR)
• South end of Tomales Bay to Millerton Point (SMR)
• Pillar Point to Point San Pedro (SMR to ½ mile out, SMCA beyond)

Click for Map http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccrsg-options/ea_maps_071025.pdf

Proposal EB

Who Proposed It: Emerald Team

Siting: Adjacent to property from:

• Iverson Cove to Schooner Gulch (SMCA)
• Haven's Neck (South side) to Iverson Cove (SMR)
• Fish Rock special closure (SMR)
• Sea Ranch (Black Pt) to Salt Point State Park (SMR)
• Russian River estuary at Jenner (SMR)
• Estero de Americano (SMR)
• Estero de San Antonio (SMR)
• Walker Creek Delta to Lawson on Tomales Bay (SMCA)
• South end of Tomales Bay to Millerton Point (SMR)
• Point San Pedro to Montara State Beach (SMCA)
• Montara State Beach to Pillar Point (SMR)
• Bean Hollow State Beach to Pescadero State Beach (SMR)

Click for Map http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccrsg-options/ta_maps_071025.pdf

Proposal JA

Who Proposed It: Jade Team

Siting: Adjacent to property from:

• Schooner Gulch to Haven's Neck (SMCA)
• Sea Ranch (Black Pt) to Salt Point State Park (SMR)
• Russian River estuary at Jenner (SMR)
• South end of Tomales Bay to Millerton Point (SMR)
• Pillar Point to Point San Pedro (SMR to ½ mile out, SMCA beyond)

Click for Map http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccrsg-options/ja_maps_071022.pdf

Proposal JB

Who Proposed It: Jade Team

Siting: Adjacent to property from:

• Sea Ranch (Sculpture Point) to Stewarts Point (SMR to ½ mile, SMCA beyond)
• Russian River estuary at Jenner (SMR)
• South end of Tomales Bay to Millerton Point (SMR)
• Point San Pedro to north of Montara State Beach (SMCA)
• North of Montara State Beach to Pillar Point (SMR)

Click for Map http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccrsg-options/jb_maps_071022.pdf

Proposal TA

Who Proposed It: Turqoise Team

Siting: Adjacent to property from:

• Fish Rock special closure
• Del Mar Landing special closure
• Sea Ranch (Sculpture Point) to Stewarts Point (SMR to ¼ mile, SMCA beyond)

Click for Map http //www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccrsg-options/ta_maps_071025.pdf

Proposal TB

Who Proposed It: Turqoise Team

Siting: Adjacent to property from:

• Sea Ranch (Black Point) to Salt Point State Park(SMR)

Click for Map http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccrsg-options/tb_maps_071025.pdf

Proposal External A

Who Proposed It: Fishermans Marketing Association of Bodega Bay

Siting: Adjacent to property from:

• Sea Ranch (Black Point) to Salt Point State Park(SMR and SMCA)

Click for Map http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccrsg-options/exta_maps_071022.pdf

Proposal External B

Who Proposed It: Several fishing groups led by Coastside Fishing Club

Siting: Adjacent to property from:

• Sea Ranch (Sculpture Point) to Stewart’s Point Creek (SMR)

Click for Map http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccrsg-options/extb_maps_071022.pdf

Proposal External C

Who Proposed It: Several environmental groups including the NRDC

Siting: Adjacent to property from:

• Pt Arena to Anchor Bay(SMCA that allows urchin fishing)
• Sea Ranch to Gerstle Cove (SMR)

Click for Map http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccrsg-options/extc_maps_071023.pdf

Proposal External D

Who Proposed It: Oceana

Siting: Adjacent to property from:

• Fish Rocks (SMR)
• Gualala Point Island (SMR)
  
• Sea Ranch (Black Point) to Salt Point State Park (SMR)

Click for Map http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccrsg-options/extd_maps_071023.pdf

Proposals Can Still Be Submitted

First drafts of maps locating the proposed SMRs and SMCAs were due October 4. Second drafts are due December 3. They will be reviewed at the North Central Coast Stakeholder Group meeting in Pacifica on December 11-12.

Peer Review of MLPA Science

The California Fisheries Coalition is a group of 26 recreational and commercial fishing associations, seafood processors, abalone growers and kelp harvesters.

CFC commissioned two studies that question the scientific basis of MLPA. Clearly this group has an agenda that would benefit by biologists taking issue with MLPA studies. However, their questions are worth noting.

Review of EcoTrust study of socioeconomic impact of MLPA on the Central Coast fisheries: http://www.cafisheriescoalition.org/docs/Ecotrust_Peer_%20Review.pdf

Review of MLPA Science Advisory Team recommendations for North Central Coast: http://www.cafisheriescoalition.org/docs/Final_HPW_Review.pdf

CVs of the authors: http://www.cafisheriescoalition.org/cirricula_vitae.htm

MLPA Fact Sheet

What MLPA Does and Doesn’t Do

MLPA is designed to set aside state marine and intratidal zones to protect the marine habitat and biological diversity in the state's ocean waters threatened by coastal development, water pollution, and other human activities.

MLPA creates a network of protected sanctuaries from which—in theory—restored species will rebuild depleted fisheries. Protected areas are in three classes:

SMRs (State Marine Reserves). These areas are off-limits to any extractive activity, such as fishing. There are two flavors of SMR: No take and No go. In addition, there is a special consideration classification for bird nesting and seal nurseries, also no-go.

SMCAs (State Marine Conservation Areas) restrict human activities, for example which species and how many can be taken. There are 3 flavors of SMCA that allow varying levels of extractive activity.

SMPs (State Marine Parks) exclude any commercial fishing or harvesting of animals, plants, algae, or other resources.

MLPA does not change state quotas or limits on commercial or recreational fishing outside protected areas. MLPA does not restrict land use, water use, development, industrial activities, agriculture, or harvesting in watersheds that feed protected areas.

How MLPA Affects North Coast Property Owners

• SMCAs and SMPs: Taking of certain species, most probably rockfish and abalone, will be restricted.
• SMRs are designated “no-take” zones. Below the mean high tide line, this means:

- No fishing
- No taking of any marine animals, plants or algae
- No collecting
- No dead animals removal
- No driftwood or rock removal

• An additional level of protection in SMRs is "no-go." No go is considered another "tool in the protection toolkit" by MLPA staff. In no-go areas, trespassing laws for people you catch in tidal areas cannot be enforced without breaking the law yourself.
• Although DFG has committed to adding a few more enforcement officers, DFG is currently unable to fill open job requisitions.
• Protected areas are defined by latitude and longitude and landmark. You may need a Global Positioning System to determine whether you are in violation.
• Decisions about signage, public education, and enforcement mechanisms have not been part of the planning process. The BRTF is "unconcerned" about these issues.
• MLPA introduces another layer of administration for protected areas to ensure that they are managed statewide as a network.
• In the Central Coast, protected areas have been located adjacent to public or semi-public land (i.e., PG&E). In the North Central Coast study area, for the first time, MLPA “stakeholders” propose protected areas adjacent to private land.
• MLPA’s mission to “improve recreational, educational and study opportunities” will encourage the public to believe they are entitled to access across private land.

Why Have You Not Heard About MLPA Until Recently?

• · MLPA was enacted into California law in 1999. The statute called for implementation by January 1, 2003.
• · MLPA was not funded. In 2004, Swartzenegger put the planning process on indefinite hold due to budget constraints and staff cuts.
• · In 2004, Secretary of Resources Mike Chrisman found private grants for MLPA planning. $7.5MM in funding was secured from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and consolidated under the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation (RLFF). The state of California has contributed ~$1,500,000.
• · Salaries of the Blue Ribbon Panel, four MLPA staff, and several Department of Fish and Game staff are paid by RLFF. The planning process has been almost exclusively funded by RLFF.
• · Between 2004 and 2007, the MLPA focused on Pigeon Point to Point Conception—the Central Coast. They convened the Blue Ribbon Panel, approved the Master Plan and designated protected areas.
• · On August 17, 2006, the Fish and Game Commission approved SMCA and SMR maps for the Central Coast.
• · In April 2007, the Blue Ribbon Task Force appointed members of the North Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group.
• · North Coast region public workshops were held in March 2007 in Gualala, April 2007 in Sausalito and May 2007 in San Francisco. Other public workshops have been held in Half Moon Bay, San Rafael, and Bodega Bay.
• · “Stakeholder group” meetings were held on October 16-17 in Gualala.

Who Is Behind MLPA?

“Stakeholders”: North Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (RSG) was named in April 2007. Membership is now closed. Most proposals for protected areas come from NCCRSG. Of the 23 primary members, 6 represent commercial fishing interests, 5 are recreational fishermen and divers, 4 are environmental organizations, 2 are tour operators, and 6 represent public agencies. No coastal property owners are represented. Coastal property owners were deemed to be single-interest participants.

The Deciders: The Blue Ribbon Task Force decides which NCCRSG proposals to approve. Their decision goes to the Fish and Game Commission for approval. The Fish and Game Commission sets policy that the Department of Fish and Game enforces.

Follow the $$: Resources Legacy Fund Foundation (RLFF) is funding the planning and “public involvement” process, including all staff work. RLFF is a major funder of many environmental organizations and land trusts. RLFF gets its money from the Packard Foundation, the Moore Foundation, and the Marisla Foundation.

“Implementation” in the MLPA lexicon includes only identifying protected areas. Actual implementation of MLPA will fall on the Department of Fish and Game, which is funded by tax dollars.

What Is the Current Status of MLPA?

Completed Work

Regional profile http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/nccprofile.asp
Proposed protected area alternatives http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/nccrsg-options.asp

Schedule

November 19-20, 2007 Next Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting

November 28, 2007

Special stakeholder meeting in San Rafael

December 11-12, 2007 Next stakeholder meeting in Pacifica

January 23-24, 2008 BRTF hearing on proposed North Coast maps

February 6-7, 2008 Stakeholder Group reviews preferred alternative maps

March 26-27, 2008 BRTF votes on preferred alternative maps

December 31, 2008 Conclusion of the North Coast planning process

What Can You Do?

• Share your concerns with the Blue Ribbon Task Force at their next meeting Monday-Tuesday, November 19-20, 2007 Four Points by Sheraton, 1010 Northgate Drive, San Rafael, CA
• Attend the special stakeholder meeting November 28 in San Rafael to speak out.
  
• Attend the MLPA organizing meeting in Gualala Thursday December 6, 2007 sponsored by North Coast residents.
• Attend the North Central Coast Regional Stakeholders meeting Tuesday-Wednesday, December 11-12, 2007 Best Western Lighthouse Hotel, 105 Rockaway Beach Avenue, Pacifica, CA 94044
• Email your input to MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov.
• Write the decision-makers

Mike Chrisman
Secretary of Resources
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814

John McCamman
Interim Director of the Department of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

John Carlson, Jr.
Executive Director
California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814

Ken Wiseman
Executive Director
Marine Life Protection Act
c/o California Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814

Susan Golding
Chair, Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force
The Golding Group, Inc.
7770 Regents Road No. 113
San Diego, California 92122-1967

John Ugoretz
Policy Advisor
MLPA Initiative
c/o California Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814

Where Can I Learn More?

North Coast MLPA Home Page: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/index.asp

Proposed maps of North Coast protected areas: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/nccrsg-options.asp

MLPA Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/faqs.asp

MLPA summary: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/background.asp

MLPA Master Plan: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/masterplan041307.pdf

Gualala MLPA public workshop materials: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/workshops0307.asp#materials

List of stakeholders: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda3b_061907.pdf

Schedule of upcoming meetings: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings.asp#upcoming

Public Involvement Plan: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/strategy0307clean.pdf

Maps of Central Coast MPAs: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccsr_map1.pdf

List of related laws and public entities: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_082207a1.pdf

Coastside Fishing Club lawsuit against MLPA: http://www.diver.net/bbs/posts001/59769.shtml

Underlying California law: http://law.justia.com/california/codes/prc/36700-36900.html

MLPA: Does It Support Coastal Stewardship?

Over the past few weeks, I have had many conversations with state and local officials regarding the MLPA proposal, in particular as to how it affects private land-owners. I was told by a representative from Assemblywoman Patty Berg's office that they could "not get involved", and that private land-owners rights were not a political issue.

I am not a private land-owner in the affected area, but part of a family that is. For 6 generations my family has taken care of the land that was passed down from generation to generation. I personally have many fond memories of our ranch growing up as a child, and I always hoped that someday, if I have kids, that they could enjoy the bounty our ranch has to offer. At this point in time, it doesn't look like they will. In fact any private land-owner in the affected areas will not be able to enjoy their personal property, something that they have bought and paid for; as they once did.

Our family has taken excellent care of our land over the years, to ensure that future generations would be able to enjoy everything that it has to offer. Making a property a public land or preserve does not ensure that it will be taken care of by the state. My maternal grandparents property; the Stornetta Ranch, was raped and pilaged of Abalone the minute that it was declared public property. It is way past due to make this area a preserve, thanks to the actions of the "ever so concerned" Abalone Divers. The Stornetta family, like the Richardson family, took impeccable care of their ranch to preserve the marine life; and look at what all of you did to it. It is extremely appalling to me what the general public did almost overnight to that ranch.

For the people who this does not affect, I ask you to think strongly about how you would feel if your property, regardless of the local, was subject to be controlled by a state regulation or law. It's not about the abalone right now. It's about private land-owners and their rights. There will always be a place to dive, and a place to fish...we may just have to drive a little farther down the road. There is an abundance of property that is controlled by the State of California up and down our coast. Many of it is already inaccessable by divers due to the steep terrain and it would make perfect sense for the State of California to implement those parcels into their MLPA Plan.

I hope that the MLPA Advisory Committee, and the local residents can come to an agreement where there is the least amount of negative impact to everyone that will be affected. It is not in anyone's best interest's to start name calling or back stabbing, but sometimes that is what has to be done to get a point across. The bottom line is that there will always be a place to dive and a place to fish, we might just have to drive a little farther down the road, and walk a little farther to get to the beach or blufftop.

For those of you who don't care what happens at this point in time to my family's property, or any other private landowner in the area affected, I hope that when the time comes for the state to impose a regulation on your land...that you don't even think about asking us for your help.

Kelly S. Richardson

Stewarts Point, CA

Who Is Protecting the Coast

To Whom It May Concern,

My friend, Arch Richardson, has recently sent me information concerning the possible closure of the Richardson Ranch for the proposed MPA. Having reviewed the material and read some of the arguments in favor of such a closure at the Richardson Ranch I felt compelled to comment on what I feel would be a gross miscarriage of the intent of this plan.

The first thing that occurs to me is that the nature of this private property and the limited access that has been in place for generations (this fact alone may be a rub for those in favor of closing this area because of their inability to gain access to it for their quest of the trophy ten inch abalone) has provided, for the surrounding waters, unmolested spawning for abalone, fish and other invertebrates for decades...isn't this what the MPA is supposed to accomplish?

The fact that the Richardson Ranch was open to local Native Americans for the gathering of seaweed and other bounties of the ocean in a time of close mindedness and out right discrimination shows what true stewards of the land these families have been over the years.

Having seen first hand the beauty of this area, from an underwater perspective, I can tell you that there is no place like it on the North Coast. The decimation of abalone populations that I have witnessed since first diving this area in 1979 makes me wonder why the powers that be wouldn't close down areas like of Salt Point, Still Water Cove, or the countless other spots that so desperately (and obviously) need the respite.

Why penalize the private property owners of this area by enacting an MPA when in fact we should all see them as protecting an area that would have otherwise been overrun and depleted years ago. I guess I just don't understand why you wouldn't enhance what seems to be an existing MPA (there is a negligible impact on the marine life in this area because so few people, over the years, have had access to it) and create zones outside of these areas in places that clearly need the help of a MPA. That's just my two cents worth.

Sincerely,

Tommy Harris

38 Massasoit Street

San Francisco, CA 94110

MLPA maps should not include private property

Dear MLPA Folk,

We are alarmed at the prospect of creating SMCA's and SMR's along private property, and omitting areas that have long had public access. We have owned property on The Sea Ranch for the past 27 years and are intimately familiar with the degradation of the marine resources there over the past 20 years. This is a perfect example of an area that should be protected: Land that has long had, and will continue to have, public access. Such areas need to be protected before they are totally depleted.

The inherent conservation practices on private lands make it redundant to include them in preservation efforts, and would be a form of unnecessary condemnation. It doesn't make any sense to protect areas that are, and will continue to be, rich in marine resources, and not protect the areas that will continue to be over-used.

Henry and Kathy Thornhill

MLPA and Stewardship: Talking Points

Having reviewed the “packages” of conservation areas and marine reserves on the North Coast published on your MLPA website, I would like to voice concern over the seeming lack of attention to important principles embodied by some of these proposals.

SMCAs, and in particular SMRs, should NOT be sited adjacent to private land for the following reasons:

1. Enforcement. Some proposals show SMCAs or SMRs adjoining Richardson Ranch and Sail Rock Ranch property. These properties are steep bluffs and hidden intratidal zones. They will be very labor intensive to patrol, especially by those unfamiliar with the land. Additional enforcement staff will never enable adequate oversight of private lands. Siting next to public or semi-public land makes enforcement more realistic—given enough staff. This principle is realistic and enforceable laws strengthen public respect for law.
2. Public Education. A patchwork of protected areas is shown by some maps. Enforcement will be hindered by lack of understanding by fishers and other users. Even with a significant and ongoing investment in public education, the public will not know where each protected area starts and stops. It will be equally difficult for DFG staff to enforce. Cat and mouse games with GPS devices will ensue. Make it simple: Blanket protection can be implemented better.
3. Landowner Involvement. There are no coastal landowners--who are affected by some of these packages--serving in any capacity on MLPA. Fishermen and kayak companies have a voice, but not the landowners affected by these proposals. Last I heard landowners were solely responsible for taxes on adjoining property. This was not critical in MLPA Phase 1, perhaps due to the comparative wealth of public lands. The principle is taxation with representation.
4. Stewardship. No trespassing laws have been the primary means of protecting intratidal zones adjacent to private land. These laws are only effective when they are enforced by landowners. Where private lands have been opened and no trespassing laws not enforced, the intratidal zone has suffered greatly. Coastal landowners have felt a stake in the protection of ecosystem values. However, by both excluding them from the MLPA process and locking them out of the intratidal zone, as SMR ‘no go’ status appears to do, these folks will increasingly look at protection as a state function. Ironically, the state is in no position to do as good a job as these stewards have done. This is a shame, because one of the primary reasons for biodiversity on the North Coast is the protection that individual landowners have provided. This principle is wise use of human and natural resources.
5. Local knowledge. Why are there so many errors in naming coastal features on MLPA maps? Two dynamics are at work: a) a belief that higher values must be pressed on uninformed locals and b) that if an itinerant person (fisher, kayaker, biologist, administrator) discovered it, it must be theirs. Luckily, places come with history and local knowledge. It would be a happy state of affairs if the MLPA process actually honored local knowledge.
6. Property rights. On the North Coast, for the first time, MLPA attempts to set a precedent of locating SMCAs and SMRs adjacent to privately-held land. Has staff investigated the legality of doing so adjacent to some private land but not other private land? Why should members of Anchor Bay Campground or Sea Ranch have their properties excluded simply because they make the biggest show? One is left with the impression that a quid pro quo of public access is at the root of these special dispensations. This principle is equal protection under the law.

Again, I urge you NOT to site SMCAs and SMRs adjacent to privately-held land.

Walter Ratcliff
Sail Rock Highlands LLC

Landowners Are Excluded From MLPA Process

October 28, 2007

John McCamman
Interim Director, California Department of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Susan Golding
Chair, Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force
The Golding Group, Inc.
7770 Regents Road No. 113
San Diego, California, USA
92122-1967

Dear Mr. McCamman and Ms. Golding,

This letter concerns the lack of local steward-landowners in the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process for the North Coast Region.

The MLPA Master Plan (rev. April 13, 2007) states that MLPA is a public-private partnership. The authors use the words ‘partnership’ and ‘stakeholders’ over 100 times in relation to the success of the act, design, monitoring, and enforcement. Clearly the authors believe that partnerships and stakeholder involvement are key success factors.

It is essential to involve all potential stakeholders at the outset to develop plans for MPAs that enlist the support of the community and serve local conservation needs. (page 24)

Sadly, if the two Gualala meetings are an indication, the people who have had the most impact on North Coast conservation historically—the private steward-landowners—have been excluded from the stakeholder group. Families with coastal land, who have partnered with California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) wardens for decades to protect marine life, are lumped together with “the public.” They do not have a seat at the table. As a result, local knowledge, local eyes and ears for monitoring intratidal areas, and natural partners for enforcement are ignored. It’s a waste. And it will lead to failure.

I’ve lived on the coast for more than 50 years. Commercial abalone gangs and itinerant divers have illegally taken hundreds of abalone, leaving piles of shells behind on our land. We have found people gathering other species for personal and commercial use. On the property my family has owned for over 80 years, we began to enforce no trespassing laws rigorously. On minus tides, members of the family are out before dawn on the highway and on the rocks. The result is thriving populations of pinnipeds, mollusks, red and black abalone, crab, sea slugs, starfish, rockfish, octopi, and exotic creatures which are rare elsewhere. It would be a mistake to presume chance and state regulations were the dominant factors in these results. DFG on its own does not have the resources to maintain this type of biodiversity. Ironically, the family now manages a marine reserve. Under the MLPA, our hands may be tied in maintaining these natural values.

What makes the Blue Ribbon Task Force believe that “coastal tourism businesses and users of marine resources, such as fishers, divers, kayakers, researchers, underwater photographers, and boaters” will act as stewards? Many of these interests do not have a long-term relationship with or personal stake in this North Coast land. Yet these are the “stakeholders” who dominated the process we observed in Gualala. And this is how the Master Plan defines stakeholder.

I’ve learned through many years as a consultant that great designs often fail in implementation. Without local steward-landowners at the table, the MLPA simply paints a bull’s-eye on areas of great biodiversity, touts unenforceable principles, and undermines ongoing stewardship.

You have the ability to change this dynamic in the MLPA process. I and members of the Ratcliff family urge you to appoint several steward-landowner interests to the North Coast MLPA stakeholder groups as soon as possible. We urge you to meet with us to discuss the consequences of the current direction and steps to remedy the situation.

With great concern,

Walter W. Ratcliff
Manager, Sail Rock Highlands LLC
31500 State Highway 1
Gualala, CA 95445