MLPA on the North Coast

How Effective Are Marine Protected Areas?

2011-05-25T13:33:00.000-07:00

Evidence about Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is mixed (see good summaries here and here and here). MLPA assumes that reserves of a certain size and spacing will cause regeneration of all California intertidal and marine areas. According to a study published in Environmental Management (2008) 41:599–612) human visitation is more significant than harvesting in intertidal habitats. Unfortunately, MLPA does nothing to prevent the intensity of human activity.

"At sites subjected to higher levels of human visitation, mussel populations were significantly lower than low-use sites. Comparisons of mussel populations inside and outside of regulatory MRs [marine reserves] revealed no consistent pattern suggesting that California no-take regulatory reserves may have limited effectiveness in protecting mussel communities. In areas where many people visit intertidal habitats for purposes other than collecting, many organisms will be affected by trampling, turning of rocks, and handling. In these cases, effective protection of rocky intertidal communities requires an approach that goes beyond the singular focus on collecting to reduce the full suite of impacts."

See Jayson R. Smith, Peggy Fong, Richard F. Ambrose: "The Impacts of Human Visitation on Mussel Bed Communities Along the California Coast: Are Regulatory Marine Reserves Effective in Protecting These Communities?"

California Fisheries Health

2009-11-20T11:32:00.000-08:00

In the Science Magazine article Rebuilding Global Fisheries (July 2009), Boris Worm, Ray Hilborn et al conclude:

California and New Zealand have the least over-exploited fisheries in the world.
Existing fisheries management tools (e.g., catch limits) are sufficient to rebuild these fisheries without MPAs.
Closure via marine protected areas will result in increased abundance of species with low mobility, rather than the larval dispersal panacea touted by MLPA.

Here's a video synopsis of the study.

Ray Hilborn: “Much of the motivation for the MLPA was concern about the state of the groundfish stocks – there is clear evidence that these can be rebuilt without MPAs resulting from the MLPA that have only recently begun to be implemented.” ... “The benefits of the MPAs established under the MLPA will be primarily to have some areas of high abundance of species with limited mobility.”

This is not the first time that Dr. Hilborn has criticized the MLPA process. In 2006, Hilborn and others reviewed the MLPA model for size and spacing of MPAs and found: “It appears to us that those prescriptions were pulled out of the air, based on intuitive reasoning.”

Click the graphic for the dataset from the study:

What is most interesting about this study is that it brings together for the first time two scientific perspectives:

"In large part, the Worm-Hilborn clash reflects the different worldviews of the two disciplines. Fisheries scientists see marine ecosystems as a resource to be used, whereas marine ecologists usually envision pristine, unfished habitats as the ideal.

"The two fields also tend to rely on different types of data. In their 2006 Science paper, Worm and his co-authors were trying to look at the global impacts of marine biodiversity loss. For that, they had to rely on the most comprehensive kind of data available: the tonnages that countries report are caught. Fisheries scientists, by contrast, tend to look at individual stocks of fish and typically use sparser data gathered by scientific means; they consider catch reports unreliable."

Détente in the Fisheries War, 10 April 2009 Volume 324 Science Magazine

MLPAI Steamroller Rolls Over Southern California

2009-11-20T10:13:00.000-08:00

Reality hits hard

Paul Lebowitz for Western Outdoor News Monday, November 16, 2009

Paul Lebowitz was among the South Region stakeholders. This is a final MLPA Log for WON now that the fate of SoCal closures in the hands of the Fish and Game Commission.

When the MLPAI Blue Ribbon Task Force finished their sausage making last week, I was nauseous from the bitter taste of this vile recipe. The disgusting ingredients included some of the most obvious agenda-driven science yet seen during the stomach-churning ordeal of the South Coast process.

Jolly SAT pirate Steve Murray surely lined up plenty of grant money booty for himself and his colleagues with the overnight invention of a new guideline. Habitat quality – there’s no definition, but as Murray showed for all the world to see, in place after place it favored maps drawn by the close-it-off-camp.

Maybe their maps were better? You couldn’t think so if you were forced to sit silently through the glaring inconsistencies. Precious and rare deep rock off Malibu was worthless at Del Mar. Persistent kelp at Pt Loma suddenly turned into garbage. Only the equivalently classified persistent kelp (an earlier SAT surprise) at La Jolla would suffice. The bias was never clearer.

Dessert was a heaping help of betrayal, as an eleventh hour backroom political deal between Los Angeles County Supervisors Zev Yaroslavsky and Don Knabe delivered every inch of Malibu’s Point Dume to the radical environmentalists, Palos Verdes’ Rocky Point standing in for a wretched thirty pieces of silver.

I suppose they were inspired by the MLPAI contrived ‘cross-interest’ machinations that came out of RSG Workgroup 1, the first place this tit for tat popped into public view. It didn’t matter in the least that no recreational fishing group bought into it. A couple of commercial RSG reps sidled close enough to get some of the slime on themselves, but to their credit they eventually repudiated the trade-off.

Of course the Point Dume debacle was just the tip of the iceberg aimed at sinking much of Southern California’s fishing economy and lifestyle. Greater Laguna suffered the same fate, as the SAT and DFG ignored directives that should have prevented acceptance of a triangle shape aimed squarely at maximizing the shoreline hit. MPAs too small to count for conservation value but just right for serving special interests ended up all over the final closure map. Examples include Catalina’s Long Point, reputedly to protect black seabass (already protected and thus unnecessary and counter to MLPA guidelines), Santa Barbara’s Naples Reef (linked to shoreline development), and a significant chunk of northern La Jolla (another trophy for the NGOs).

In the end, only the location of the Palos Verdes closure and Isla Vista up north came from the fishing-friendly maps. Everything else was a straight-up smack-down, a clear signal the governor’s Task Force has nothing but contempt for grubby fishermen and honest hard-working folk. That the largest, most egregious coastal closures landed squarely on ritzy Malibu and chic and exclusive Laguna was no coincidence. Get thee gone, rabble!

Remember this, the fishing-preferred Proposal 2 was already a serious economic hit, one that offered just a fraction less in terms of conservation value and overall acreage at significantly reduced cost. Rather than select this option and go arm in arm to the Fish and Game Commission, the BRTF shoved their sausage down our throats.

I’m sad to say none of this was a surprise. That fishing interests would lose was obvious from day one. Sooner really, as most of us who fought this hopeless battle for fisheries were aware of Central California’s ugly prior MLPA history. Few of us harbored illusions that it would be any different down here. We only knew it would be worse if we sat on the sidelines.

Did our participation make any difference in this march to a predetermined outcome? Yes, it did. Take a look at the early proposals if you doubt me. The preservationist proposals started with an ‘Ocean Closed’ sign.

We fought a stubborn rear-guard action fueled by the army of kayak anglers and free divers who turned out every time we issued the call. Other groups weren’t so obvious, but played critical roles. And of course the solidarity among the RSG’s fishing representatives was remarkable to behold. Old arguments and jealousies were largely shelved for the duration.

Now that I’m finally free of the RSG, there’s no reason to bite my tongue. The Torquemadas who drove this process twisted and tortured it at will to reach their single-minded goals. Those just getting started with the MLPA in Northern California should take heed.

Base lines repeatedly shifted; the science bar was lifted ever higher and higher. Procedure changed mysteriously in the dark of night, without explanation. And I defy you to find much in the way of public debate between BRTF members. They didn’t have the stomach to do their dirty work in the light of day, preferring instead to hide behind closed doors.

Contempt for the public was palpable, demonstrated in the bullying ways of MLPAI Executive Director Ken Wiseman. Many anglers who stood up for themselves were hectored and harassed, treated dismissively. Twenty or thirty seconds of speaking time was the norm. The BRTF didn’t want to hear it. They had their minds made up. Why else would they order their public relations staffers to actively discourage attendance? That was an outrageous, anti-democratic topper that reveals the lie in the words “open and transparent process,” and it’s on the record.

What else should we expect when private money funds public policy? The MLPAI staff served their paymasters rather than the people of the state. The MLPA law itself would not be the problem if it were enforced as written. It’s supposed to cost the state $250,000 a year, not $25 million or more. Point the finger at those who hijacked it.

There’s much more I’d like to say, but I’ll close this series of columns written from the belly of the MLPA beast with heartfelt thanks to WON’s editors and publishers for their unwavering support over the past year and this message. There’s a long way yet to go before this drastic snatch of public resources is completed. The battle for an equitable outcome will continue at the Fish and Game Commission. As it stands today the deck is stacked 3-2 against us, but circumstances change quickly in politics. A vote can’t be assumed until it happens. Whether you’ve sat on the sidelines or are only just awakening to the threat, it’s time to get involved.

Underwater Yosemite

2009-08-12T15:54:00.000-07:00

Editor (San Francisco Chronicle) –
Regarding “Fish and Game to vote on marine reserve network” (SF Chronicle, August 5): Who could deny that the “world's oceans seem in an unstoppable slide?” Who can argue with “underwater Yosemites?” Surprise! The “preferred proposal” was opposed by most people on the coast. Here’s why.
* The Kashia Rancheria and other North Coast Indian tribes because it locks them out of their traditional use of the sea.
* A large majority of businesses and citizens from Pt. Arena to Fort Ross because it devastates their economy and will close the port of Pt. Arena.
* The California Fish and Game Wardens Association because they know an unenforceable law encourages disregard for all laws.
* Coastal land stewards because they recognize a “paper park” when they see one.

Do all these people care more about their selfish interests than the oceans? No. It is a classic battle between locals with deep knowledge and concern for the environment and national interest groups with a well-funded agenda. Not many people know that the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) is an experiment in privately-funded governance. Back in 2004, power players in Sacramento realized that the state couldn’t afford to set the rules for reserves. So instead, a law firm in Sacramento is channeling millions from the Packard and Moore foundations to set up the reserves. Local voices do not stand a chance.

Contrary to the propaganda, fisheries scientists and marine ecologists openly disagree about marine reserves. A simple story helps make the point. Red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) is a success story on the North Coast. You can take only three per day, 24 a year. As a result, the red abalone is plentiful at depth from Fort Ross north. But now, marine reserves will close half of the areas open to the public for abalone. More people concentrated in fewer areas will quickly empty the shellfish from remaining open areas and force their closure as well. Fisheries science created this success story; the proposed marine reserves destroy it. Is this an isolated case? Unfortunately not, because the “science” on which this proposal is based consists of simplistic computer models with little local data. Public input has been tightly controlled by these models to ensure a predetermined result.

In Gualala, we were bulldozed. But there is a “seaweed rebellion” brewing in Fort Bragg.

Walter Ratcliff
Gualala, CA

Game Wardens to MLPA: Stop!

2009-07-15T11:24:00.000-07:00

July 9, 2009

Ms. Cindy Gustafson, President
California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090

Dear Ms. Gustafson:
Thanks to you and the Commission for recognizing the ongoing plight of Wardens in California. We greatly appreciate the tremendous support from those who understand and value California's wildlife and its susceptibility. Poaching and environmental law violations are an everyday occurrence as we continue to provide the ''thin green line" of protection in spite of the ongoing statewide budget crisis and a requirement for taking three furlough days each month. With only a little over 200 field game wardens, the furloughs create a situation where we loose the time equivalent to 28 wardens. We are well aware that a number of state law enforcement agencies have not been furloughed. We have met with cabinet level personnel, but no one can explain how some are exempt and some are not. It is clear so far, that the protection of wildlife resources and ensuring public safety do not appear important enough to remove furloughs from wardens.

We understand the need for the Commission to move forward with mandates but must request that you delay or suspend any and all mandates that place additional responsibilities on wardens until such time that furlough and staffing issues are addressed. A prime example of this is the ongoing work by the Commission related to the Marine Life Protection Act and the designation of protected areas along our coastline. Insofar as legally possible, please delay any further designations of such areas. With the furloughs in place, we now have field level staffing that provides us about 175 field level wardens. We simply cannot effectively enforce additional mandates without some relief from furlough issues that may continue through June, 2010.

We appreciate and support the difficult and conscientious work the Commission must consider. We look forward to your help.

Sincerely,
Todd Tognazzini, President
P.O. Box 2785
Paso Robles, CA 93447-2785
(805)610-3916, ttognazzini@dfg.ca.gov

View from the Coast Highway

2009-06-27T22:39:00.000-07:00

May 11, 2009 Arch Richardson

For the last 3 mornings I have sat on the hill above Highway 1 watching the same cars northbound before the tide and then again going south after the tide. Where are they going? North for abalone at some open public area: Stornetta Ranch, Mote Creek, maybe The Sea Ranch. County Parks do no open their gates until after sunrise. Hundreds of cars storming north. Cate and her family watched the same migration at Sail Rock, near Saunders Reef in Mendocino County. It was a windy and rough ocean, not even a boat from the south came north. And they will be back again for the big -1.9 tides in late May and again in late June.

I looked at our ranch: less than 8 people in three days (none this morning). Only 9 abalone were taken in 3 days, a couple sea trout, a handful of cabezon and 20 lbs of mussels. What impact do we have on the resources? Very little if any. What good is it to close these private lands? The locals who own land here on the coast are not the problem of diminishing resources. It is outsiders. How do we save the resources by punishing the locals who have been the stewards of the ocean and the ecosystem for years? The migration of people will still appear here on the coast to rape it. What are they losing with MLPA? Not much. Without closing some of the public access trails, nothing changes.

Come look for yourself at the parking lots and key access areas. You will see first hand what is happening to the habitat. Once the "Preferred Alternative" is put in place, the overload begins. New regulations must follow ASAP to lower the daily and seasonal limit, shorten the season, restrict gear type, etc. More enforcement personal are needed to patrol and enforce both open and closed areas. Illegal commercial take of abalone will flourish.

I’m at a loss for what really is going to happen. But I do know that this is a slap in the face for those of us that have lived here for generations.

The 5 Richardson families, 5 ranches, 4.6 mile of coastline, 130+ years heritage

Ft. Bragg Gets Organized

2009-06-27T22:20:00.000-07:00

June 5, 2009

Mike Chrisman, Secretary
California Natural Resources Agency
1416 9th Street, #1311
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Process for the North Coast Study Region

Dear Secretary Chrisman,

This letter represents a consensus view of interested local government agencies, tribes and port authorities within the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative North Coast Study Region. It is our understanding that the MLPA Initiative will begin our Marine Protected Area (MPA) planning process in late 2009 or early 2010. We are united in our commitment to assist the State with MLPA implementation. However, as described below, we have several concerns regarding the proposed MPA planning process. We are anxious to discuss these concerns with you and collectively determine how we can improve the process for the North Coast Study Region.

1. Insufficient data are available for science-based North Coast MPA design. We have reviewed the existing ecological data and find it inadequate for undertaking a scientifically sound MPA design process in the North Coast Study Region. Despite our attempts, we have been unsuccessful in securing funds to collect needed data. Recently, partners throughout the North Coast Study Region developed a research proposal that would gather information essential to your effort. The proposal was submitted for funding to the Ocean Protection Council but was not funded. A comparison of data used by the MLPA Initiative verses other preserve design efforts would reveal that the MLPA Initiative has a low data standard which we consider inadequate as a basis for MPA design in our region. We therefore believe that implementation of the MLPA Initiative in our region should be delayed until critical data gaps are filled. In collaboration with local fishermen and scientists we can help secure funding and conduct the necessary research to support MPA planning.

2. Implementation of MPAs without secured funds for monitoring, adaptive management and enforcement is inconsistent with the law. The MLPA provides a sound conservation framework by calling for ". . . monitoring, research, and evaluation at selected sites to facilitate adaptive management of MPAs . . ." In addition, one of the specific goals of the MLPA is "to ensure that California's MPAs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures, and adequate enforcement, and are based on sound scientific guidelines." The MLPA Master Plan estimates the cost of statewide MLPA implementation at $20 - 60 million dollars annually. The State’s ability to fund this effort is highly uncertain, especially given the current fiscal crisis and recent news that there is insufficient funding to manage the State Park system. Although private partners may contribute funds, a secure funding mechanism for long term monitoring, adaptive management and enforcement has not been identified.

In the North Coast Study Region, the MLPA Initiative is posed to design MPAs based upon coarse and insufficient data with no realistic expectation for future monitoring, adaptive management or enforcement absent a reliable funding source. The potential economic and ecological consequences of such an effort are significant and unacceptable for our region. MLPA implementation should not occur here until secure funds are available.

3. Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF). To date, only one member of the BRTF has actively participated in fisheries and none have had experience developing fishing regulations. This is a concern because a major component of MLPA implementation involves regulation of fishing activities. The BRTF should be composed of people from the Study Region who understand and represent local interests. If a BRTF is utilized in the North Coast Study Region, we strongly believe that the members must include a balanced representation of local interests, which includes fishing.

4. MPA Planning needs to consider existing fishery management and proposed ocean uses. The widespread curtailment of fishing effort due to existing fishing regulations needs to be explicitly considered if further closures are pursued. Our area has suffered from severe closures which continue to provide ecological benefits and should therefore be a central consideration during the MLPA process. As an example, MPA planning needs to consider the Rockfish Conservation Area and the Klamath Management Zone, which constitute the most significant impact to fishing on the California coast. Additionally, wave power development may significantly constrain fishing access and should be considered in any proposal. Full consideration of the interrelationships between existing policies, current and future ocean uses, and MPA design will be a challenging process. Comprehensive dialogue will be necessary to ensure that existing regulatory impacts and progressive science methodologies are considered.

5. The MLPA Initiative must minimize economic impacts to the fishing community. Recreational and commercial fishing are proportionally more significant to our economy than in other regions. The State has a responsibility to ensure that MPAs do not compromise the short and long-term economic viability of North Coast fisheries. The MLPA Initiative has been deficient in this regard, as exemplified by proposed MPA designations on both sides of Point Arena Cove in the North Central Coast Study Region, which will have devastating impacts on the community of Point Arena. Beyond economic concerns, fish and fishing are a vital part of who we are and to impose non-science based closures could devastate our fishermen, dependent businesses and our coastal infrastructure.

6. Restriction of traditional fish and shellfish harvest by Native Americans. The North Central Coast MLPA process may eliminate traditional harvest of fish and shellfish by the Pomo Indians that spans centuries, if not millennia. Our North Coast Region has numerous indigenous Tribes that still reside in their ancestral territories and we find this precedent unacceptable.

Residents of our region, and we as their elected representatives, welcome efforts to maintain the health of coastal and ocean resources. However, for adequate implementation of the MLPA, the issues above must be resolved. We have always supported sound regulatory process. The limited entry programs initiated by the local fishing industry and the industry's strong objections to open seas gill netting are good examples. However, at this time, because of the cumulative regulatory impacts to our fishing economy, and the MLPA Initiative’s lack of scientific documentation and secured long-term funding, we respectfully request that our areas MPA planning process be postponed. With adequate resources and time, we will work proactively with the State to implement the MLPA. However, such an effort needs to be driven by sound science, not an arbitrary timeline. MLPA implementation should result in long term benefits to ecosystems and economies; we owe it to our communities to spend the time and effort required for a scientific and comprehensive MPA planning process.

We would like to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss MLPA implementation for the North Coast Study Region. Please send correspondence to Adam Wagschal, Director of Conservation for the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District (PO Box 1030, Eureka CA, 95501: adam@portofhumboldtbay.org.

Sincerely,

Craig Bell and other civic leaders in Ft Bragg

Fisherman to Chrisman: Shame On You

2009-06-27T22:16:00.000-07:00

Mr. Mike Chrisman
Secretary
State of California Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street
Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mr. Chrisman, June 20, 2009

My name is Allan Jacobs. I am a 3rd generation Californian. My heritage includes subsistence hunting and fishing. I am a retired science and math teacher and a retired commercial fisherman. I just received a copy of your letter to Cindy Gustafson, President of the California Fish and Game Commission dated June1, 2009. You stated that you were “…writing to clarify the Schwarzenegger Administration’s position on the implementation of California’s Marine Life Protection Act.” In a like fashion, I am writing to you to clarify the North Coast Citizens’ position on the implementation of the MLPA, because your letter suggests that you may not be clear on “…the wishes, needs, and desires of all those who enjoy these resources…” along the rural California coast.

Let’s take a moment to review more of the text from which I extracted the two quotes in my opening paragraph. You wrote “I am writing to clarify the Schwarzenegger Administration’s position on the implementation of California’s Marine Life Protection Act. Commentary among California Fish and Game Commission members during your May14 meeting suggests that some commissioners may not be clear on their charge to adopt a Marine Life Protection Program network of marine protected areas.” After reading this part of your letter I was reminded that the Commission’s web site also states their “charge” very nicely and it differs somewhat from your interpretation. It says in part: “The Commissioners’ ultimate decisions must reflect not only the biological needs of our fish and wildlife, but also the wishes, needs and desires of all those who enjoy these resources with the interest, understanding and involvement of everyone who appreciates our magnificent fish and wildlife resources. The California fish and Game Commission will continue along the path of sound and enlightened resource management.” It is clear to me that the commissioners would be derelict in their duties if they adopted any MPA proposal if there is evidence that it does not represent the “…the wishes, needs, and desires of all those who enjoy these resources…” along the rural California coast. Again, the key words necessary for the Commission’s decisions here are “…the wishes, needs, and desires of all those who enjoy these resources…” and not as you wrote, just because, “Hundreds of people have directly participated, tens of thousands of hours have been dedicated, and dozens of groups are committed to making this process a success.” In addition, the Commissioners would be derelict if they adopted any MPA proposal that could not be enforced or monitored as required by legislation, for any reason, including a lack of funding. To do so would not be “… continuing along the path of sound and enlightened resource management.”
Further into your letter you wrote: “The Legislature was clear that the Fish and Game Commission’s charge is to adopt a final master plan and network of marine protected areas to be managed through the Marine Life Protection Program within the California Department of Fish and Game. The issue of MLPA funding is beyond the Commission’s scope and is more appropriately the purview of the Governor and Legislature, where budgeting decisions are made.” (Or, I might add that based upon recent history: where budgeting decisions are not made.) I submit to you that delaying any further adoptions of MPAs is exactly the most responsible step the Commissioner’s can make. Your demand that they move blindly on to adopt MPAs just because there was adequate funding to write them on paper, but obviously not enough for enforcement or monitoring them – as legislated - is a completely irresponsible expectation. Shame on you for pressuring the Commissioners to shirk their greater responsibility to the Citizens of the California just to please some special interest groups who apparently lack the patience and maturity to make sure the current proposals are the best choices and represent “…the wishes, needs, and desires of all those who enjoy these resources…” along the rural California coast where they will have the greatest impact, and that they are adequately funded in order to continue “…along the path of sound and enlightened resource management.”
My final point concerns your comment: “Ultimately, those who will most directly benefit in the long term from a healthy ocean, namely recreational and commercial fishermen, are being hurt by those few who seem opposed to the MLPA Initiative.” This statement shows that you have missed the most important point of all. You need to go back and listen to what is being said by myself and others at all of the meetings (including the May 14th meeting you referred to in your letter). Allow me to say it again now as clearly and carefully as possible. The vast majority of “…those few [of us] who seem opposed to the MLPA Initiative” are the recreational, commercial and subsistence fishermen. Oh, and by the way, we are not few in number. In Northern California and the more rural areas we are the majority. We are well aware of the necessity of responsible regulations and MPAs. We strongly believe that our chosen lifestyle, including the gathering of local sea food in a sustainable fashion, is a legitimate right that we wish to continue. We subscribe to the philosophy that humans can continue to exist harmoniously as active, participating members of our local ecosystem. We don’t disagree with the intent of the MLPA, as legislated. We don’t disagree with the need to use good science in forming MPAs. What continues to cause us to react strongly and negatively is:
1. Some proposals, as written on paper, are excessive to the point of being punitive. For example the IPA proposal closes over one third of Subregion 1 of the NCCSR, and what the IPA proposes for the Point Arena area has become the classic example of the worst case scenario of MLPA applications.
2. Some proposals, as written on paper, are not based on the best current science.
3. Some of the guidelines of the masterplan are not based upon the best current science.
4. Some proposals do not follow the guidelines of the masterplan.
5. Some proposals will do more ecological harm than good.
6. The arrogance of many of those in positions of authority and power, and their lack of willingness to work openly and cooperatively with the rural communities, has alienated most locals.
The MLPAI process has been advertised as being a transparent “…process that fosters inclusiveness and progress.” However, for us the MLPAI process has too often been not readily available or not accessible to the general public and could more aptly be described as “invisible” and “fostering exclusiveness.” We have tried hard to work within the system and participate in every stage of the MLPA process. At times we felt as if we were being considered. At other times we felt as if our rights and the wishes, needs, and desires of the locals who enjoy our marine resources were being completely ignored. Your June 1, 2009 letter was another of these occasions when we felt our rights were being violated. It is a shining example of governmental arrogance and ignorance of the true “…wishes, needs, and desires of all those who enjoy these resources…”
Having our concerns heard and considered by the Fish and Game Commission is nearly our last hope for a fair and equitable solution for the North Central Coast Region. It is also an important step for setting the course in preparation for the MLPAI process on the North Coast Region. Do not make matters worse by attempting to bully the Commissioners into making a hasty, poor decision.

Sincerely,

Allan Jacobs
Point Arena, Ca

Vivian Helliwell Resigns MLPA Statewide Interest Group

2009-06-27T22:13:00.000-07:00

June 25, 2009

Dear Mr. Ken Wiseman, Mr. Don Benninghoven, and Ms. Melissa Miller-Henson

I find that I must withdraw from participation in the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Statewide Interests Group (SIG). I am realizing late that apparently the invitation to participate in the SIG comes accompanied by an expectation to act as a communication link or “liaison.” Although I did wish to stay informed and involved, I am unable to appreciate the dubious honor of encouraging fishermen to participate in the MLPA process for the following reasons:

--The MLPA process is neither fair nor transparent.
--The MPAs (Marine Protected Areas) as proposed are not necessary or effective.
--The MLPA process draws tremendous State and community resources at a time when they could be better used for other things.
--I have enough unpaid jobs.
--My work with the fishing community in salmon recovery and restoration may be compromised by association with the flawed MLPA process, under which, in every case, fishermen and fishing communities lose—it is only a matter of how much they lose--for speculative future benefit.

To elaborate:
I work mainly as an advocate for restoring salmon populations, salmon habitat, and the salmon fishery. The MLPA and the Marine Protected (study) Areas do nothing for salmon, and, in fact, draw seventeen Department of Fish and Game staff and huge community resources away from salmon recovery issues at a critical time.

The MPAs will require a tremendous amount of State funding into the future at a time when the State is closing State Parks and losing the salmon. There are currently only 193 Fish and Game Wardens for the whole state, which encourages large scale poaching in reserves while limiting legitimate public uses. The Department of Fish and Game’s Marine Management News indicates that many convicted poachers are multiple, repeat offenders.

The letter I received by email dated 2/5/09 “congratulating” me for being part of the Statewide Interest Groups phone conference calls implies that I will “help spread the word so that different viewpoints are reached.” While I did wish to remain informed through the phone calls, I am not the right person to reach out to the community and encourage participation. Fishermen see it as advocacy for the process, which I am not willing to do. Therefore, I am unwilling to participate further in the SIG. However, Mr. Aaron Newman, President of Humboldt Fishermen’s Marketing Association, has shown an interest in providing such a link. He is in a more appropriate position to do so.

I am not convinced of the necessity for creating these marine study areas, which is not addressed in this process. Under this circumstance, the losses of the already closed fishing areas, as well as the potentially closed fishing areas, more than being economic, are too personal for me.

The Fish and Game Commission has no authority to protect from extractive uses other than directed fishing. Any supposed protection from federal extractive uses is trumped by the Federal Powers Act. This makes the MPAs essentially additional layers of fisheries management that are not needed, at tremendous cost and no apparent benefit.

There is no way to adequately balance the compensation of those who are salaried to attend and those who are not, even with the stipend.

The use of small, invitational meetings to “shape the process” causes divisiveness in communities. Though perhaps considered expedient in the short term, this method causes State business to be carried out in secret, counter to the stated goals of being transparent and public.

The arbitrary behavior of the Initiative team was exemplified recently by nullifying a Stakeholder Working Group vote that eliminated one of the proposals. Arbitrary powers of authority surely demoralize the participants, especially the volunteer ones and those whose economic life support systems are at stake. What is the value of the Stakeholder Group vote?

Isolation and disenfranchisement of minority views occur at Stakeholder Groups using the “Delphi technique.” Instead of working toward agreements, individuals whose viewpoints are outnumbered are put into breakout groups where their views are nullified in the outcome. What then is the value of the Stakeholder vote?

Additionally, I have no confidence in Mike Chrisman’s appointed Panel or the Governor’s appointed Fish and Game Commission to fairly arbitrate areas of disagreement between fishermen and marine research interests. There are too many marine research paychecks on the Panel and on the Commission from organizations supported by the same foundations that want MPAs, and no fishermen. Conflicts of interest in the decision-making bodies also negate the Stakeholder vote.

This list is only a sample of the irksome juxtapositions that make it difficult for me to be involved in the MLPA process. No doubt people need to get in there and fight for what can be salvaged, but I am not the right person to be in the middle of it.

Thank you for taking me off the Statewide Interests Group email list.

Sincerely,

Vivian Helliwell
Watershed Conservation Director
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA)

Of taxis and abalone...

2009-06-27T22:03:00.000-07:00

Spotted heading South on Highway 1 passing Sail Rock Ranch on a recent low tide morning: a San Francisco Taxicab with fare. Does the resale value of abalone now make the trip cost effective? At least the cab was a Prius.

Law of Unintended Consequences

2009-05-11T18:39:00.000-07:00

Arch's post below points to an unforeseen consequence of the so-called "Integrated Preferred Alternative" (IPA). When the state reduces access but changes nothing else, the intensity of abalone take in the few areas that remain open increases. More people, fewer abalone, until open areas are depleted.

Abalone depend on clusters to procreate. Larval dispersal is very local: they tend to stay close to their home coves.

A reasonable person can predict the next step. The abalone population will crash in the areas that remain open. To bring them back, the area will be closed or take limits will be substantially reduced. Fewer open areas add pressure and a negative spiral ensues.

If the IPA is ratified by the Fish and Game Commission, an immediate reduction in abalone take is called for to prevent a crash in the abalone population. Since the consequence is foreseeable now, F&GC should take action in parallel with Marine Protected Area closures.

View from the North Coast

2009-05-11T18:31:00.000-07:00

Dan Richards -
For the last 3 mornings I have sat on the hill above Highway 1 watching the ranch and enjoying the view. Watching the same cars, 3 days in a row northbound before the tide and then again watching them go south after the tide. Where are they going? North for abalone at some open to the public area: Stornetta Ranch, Mote Creek and maybe The Sea Ranch, except the County Parks do no open the gates until after sunrise. Hundreds of cars storming north. Cate and her family sat and watched the same migration at their ranch near Sail Rock, below Saunders Reef in Mendocino County. It was a windy and rough ocean, not even a boat from the South came North. And they will be back again for the big -1.9 tides in late May and again in late June.

Then I looked at our ranch, less than 8 people in three days (none this morning). Only 9 abalone were taken in 3 days, a couple sea trout and a handful of cabazon and 20 lbs of mussels. What impact do we have on the resources. Very little if any. What good is it to close these private lands? The locals that own lands here on the coast are not the problem of diminishing resources. It is outsiders. How do we save the resources by punishing the private landowners who have been the stewards of the ocean and the ecosystem for years? We have done nothing wrong for 130 years, but we are the ones who lose if the IPA is implemented. The migration of people will still appear here on the coast to rape it. What are they losing? At this time not much of anything. So without closing some of the public access trails (The Sea Ranch/2XA) nothing changes. If 2XA is adopted, the ecosystem gains by having a longer stretch of coastline protected by The Sea Ranch and the Richardson family. And the Sonoma County Park access trails are already in place for enjoyment and study of an SMR, unlike private lands which don’t have trails and you don’t even know if you can access yet…or ever.

And now that brings us to the cost factor. You and Comm. Kellogg have the right idea. Just send it back to the state for their real opinion of the cost for the future. I don’t think this will happen, so we will just have to guess. With the present budget how it is and prop 84 in limbo, where will it come from? As the state is broke and for how may more years will it be broke? Will the outside interests still be there in years to come…or will they take it over from the state. What would happen if the state dropped all funding and the outside organizations took control? Is this legal? Would the Fish and Game still have a say in what goes on? Will it really cost $60 million a year as I have read about?

Before any action is taken by the Commission I think it is advisable that you all come take a look at our coast on a major abalone low tide. Either in person or have F&G personal take pictures of the parking lots and coastline in key access areas. You will see first hand what is happening to our resources. Once the process is put into place, and it doesn’t really mater which one, the overload will begin. New regulations must follow ASAP…lowering the daily and seasonal limit, shortening the season, restricting the gear type…boats should go!!! More enforcement personnel is needed to patrol and enforce both open and closed areas. As the landowners will not be keeping an open eye any longer. Cal-Tip will have to put in more lines. The illegal activity, commercial take of abalone will flourish under these or any changes.

I’m at a loss for what really is going to and will happen, it is a slap in the faces for those of us that have lived here for generations. If anything does happen I sure hope that 2XA is the “chosen one” and we deal with the financial problems as they arise. See you on the 14th and let’s hope all goes well. As my family and the people of Sub-regions 1 & 2 can only live with 2XA. It doesn’t matter what “she” says…It was the popular and supported proposal in this area…2XA!!!

Arch Richardson

The 5 Richardson families, 5 ranches, 4.6 mile of coastline, 130+ years heritage

The thousands on the coast that support 2XA

Pt. Arena City Council Petitions F&G Commission

2009-02-13T11:23:00.000-08:00

January 22, 2009

California Fish and Game Commission

1416 Ninth Street

PO Box 944209

Sacramento, CA 94244-2090

Attention: Richard B. Rogers

Cindy Gustafson

Jim Kellogg

Michael Sutton

Daniel Richards

Dear Commissioners,

As we have previously stated,

We the City Council of Point Arena, speaking on behalf of our citizens and members of the surrounding community, value our Municipal Pier as a vital part of the City and as an access point for recreational and commercial boating and hope that the final Marine Protected Areas will permit continued boating operations, both for recreational users and the professionals that constitute our tiny fleet.
Many members of our community, including a number of particularly dedicated sport and professional fishermen, have been diligently involved in the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process and have advocated for those alternatives that appeared at each stage of the process which best achieved both the goals of the MLPA and also reduced the impact on socioeconomics, fishing tradition, heritage and safety.

At this point, as the Blue Ribbon Task Force sets forth before the California Department of Fish and Game yet another array of options - 1-3, 2XA, 4, an Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA) which combines elements of the first three and No Action - the City of Point Arena continues to favor Proposal 2XA for reasons including:

1. Proposal 2XA protects 18.5% of the coastline from Alder Creek to Pigeon Point, the same amount of protected areas as the new Marine Protected Areas (MPA’s) in the Central Coast region. What more does our remote and less populated coast need to protect its resources from?

2. Socioeconomic impact is not a consideration in the environmental impact report that is currently being prepared by the Department of Fish and Game, but it matters gravely to us. Reduced fishing opportunities have a direct impact on our already strained economy. 2/XA places one MPA near Point Arena whereas the preferred alternative option has 3 MPA areas to the north and south of Arena Cove. We believe there will be a negative impact resulting from increased fishing pressure in the open area in front of the Cove.

3. Sea Lion Island is unique. For a long time access from shore was limited to the Stornetta family and their guests, therefore harvest from the shore was minimal. However, be aware of the fact that it has been a favorite destination of recreational dive boats from the pier over the last 15 years! Sea Lion Island is also unique in that the inside cove is almost landlocked and therefore Abalone can’t easily migrate there. If left open to Abalone harvest, it will be part of the other harvest locations and because of increased effort needed to get the mollusks, popularity will subside. If closed to Sea Urchin fishing and Abalone diving it will still take a long time to reach its pre-BLM population and when it does it will tempt any poacher due to the easy access and monitoring of arriving cars on lighthouse road. Food is not plentiful in this cove and water movement is nothing compared to the south side of Arena Cove where the winter 07/08 storms twice deposited hundreds of Abalone. Healthy Abalone populations are found everywhere in our area just outside of free diving range and the fishery is very well managed with a yearly take of 24 Abs per person and a daily limit of 3 as well as a size limit and limited season. Why support a special closure in an area that is easily studied but is not representative of the other harvest locations?

In addition, knowing that the BRTF deliberated at its April 22-23 meeting and recognized that the four proposals (1-3, 2XA, IPA, and 4) all generally met the science of the master plan for the MPAs, the City of Point Arena City Council, speaking on behalf of our citizens and members of the surrounding community, urges in the strongest possible terms that, should the IPA be chosen, the following changes be implemented in the IPA:

While the size and location of the Point Arena SMCA in the IPA are agreeable, please return to the description of it in 2XA. Also, remove the Saunders Reef Conservation Area and remove Sea Lion Cove Conservation Area.

Yours respectfully,

Lauren Sinnott, Lloyd Cross, Brian Riehl, Laura Smith

City of Point Arena Councilmembers

Pt. Arena Fisherman Petition Fish & Game Commission

2009-02-09T07:50:00.000-08:00

February 8, 2009

Dear Commissioners,

The attached petition was signed during a short period of time. All but two of the signatures were obtained at Arena Cove. The two exceptions signed on at one’s home about five miles away. Arena Cove is the harbor and fishing port within the city of Point Arena where these fishermen make their local landings. All of these fishermen have a history of fishing out of Arena Cove, and plan to continue commercial fishing in the future. Of course, those who only fish for salmon did not fish last year due to the state-wide closure, but they expect to troll for salmon again when the Chinook stocks recover. This petition could not be more local. It’s the ultimate example of one group of “the people who actually fish and use the resource that need to step up” actually stepping up to be heard!

These 19 signatures include all of the local commercial fishermen except one salmon troller who is out of the state at this time. So it is important to note that while there are only 19 signatures it is 95% of the active local commercial fishermen with a history of fishing out of Arena Cove. Our local communities are small and so these fishermen make up a relatively large part of the local workforce. But just their impact directly on our economy, as important as that is in these times of hardship, should not be the only concern. Read the wording of the petition carefully. It is not a trivial thing that they all agreed to sign this. They really do understand the issues. They have more to lose than most if we cannot maintain a sustainable fishery. It is a major step for them to agree with the 2XA proposal for the right reasons and with the hope and expectation that you will respect their professional opinions and their rights to continue in their chosen lifestyles.

Thank you for your consideration,

Allan Jacobs
Point Arena, Ca 95468

Point Arena Commercial Fisherman Petition

We, the undersigned, are licensed commercial fishermen who have earned income working out of the Port of Arena Cove and along the nearby coastline. We take pride in being active participants in sustainable fisheries that provide a significant economic support for our local communities. We are also proud of our marine heritage and the traditions of making an honorable living by supplying high quality seafood for those who do not have the ability to harvest their own seafood. We have enjoyed a working relationship with the City of Point Arena, which has maintained a working pier and harbor facility since 1986. We understand and acknowledge that our landing fees are the principal income necessary for the continued use of the Pier and Harbor facilities which are public and made available equally to all people. We also understand, appreciate, and enjoy our additional role in the community of providing a close up view of the lifestyle and culture of fishermen that is a colorful attraction for the general public’s enjoyment and an added attraction for tourism.

In order to maintain our current levels of sustainable harvest while maintaining a reasonable level of safety and the lowest possible carbon footprint and lowest level of other forms of polution, we ask only that the number and size of MPAs near the Port of Arena Cove be kept at a manageable minimum. The IPA, as it is currently proposed, is excessively severe in its size, species restrictions, and proximity to our port. We all agree that the alternative proposal named 2XA would satisfy all of the governmental and scientific requirements of the MLPA while allowing us to continue as we have in well managed, sustainable fisheries. Therefore, we are taking this opportunity to ask you, the California Fish and Game Commissioners, to act in our best interests, the best interests of our local communities, and the best interests of the citizens of California as a whole, by adopting the local MPAs as described in Proposal 2XA.

Thank you for your consideration.

Schwarzenegger Freezes Funding for MLPA-Related Activities Due to State Budget Crisis

2009-01-22T14:45:00.000-08:00

SACRAMENTO, CA, January 22, 2009 – Governor Schwarzenegger’s December 19, 2008 Executive Order (S-16-08), designed to help prevent a state budget shortfall, suspended indefinitely funding for essential Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) oversight initiatives. The budget cuts have created concern among stakeholders that, with a loss of funding, critical scientific and enforcement safeguards in newly created marine protected areas (MPAs) may unnecessarily restrict recreational angling or prohibit it entirely.

Proposed cutbacks related to the MLPA implementation total more than $6,756,000. This does not include work stoppages or potential furloughs or cutbacks within the Department of Fish and Game itself. In response, the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO) recently sent a letter to the governor urging him to consider the impact of such funding restrictions on the effectiveness of the implementation process and the impacts on anglers, boaters and local economies.

The California Department of Finance has released a 161-page, 5,300-item list of public works projects that will be suspended or delayed indefinitely because of the state's cash crunch which can be found on the following Website:
http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pmia-laif/pmib-staff/20090116_projects.pdf

“The MLPA is supposed to be a science-based initiative, and with the current budget crisis in California, that will no longer be the case,” said Gordon Robertson, vice president of the American Sportfishing Association and a member of the PSO, a coalition of angling and boating groups. “Without funding, the MPA review process will lack basic enforcement safeguards. In addition, without a scientific basis and required scientific baseline and monitoring data, there cannot be a proper five-year review and a chance for adaptive management, which is clearly prescribed in the statute.”

In order for the MLPA process to work, MPA management requires a scientific baseline, along with continued monitoring and enforcement. Absent such enforcement and scientific monitoring, future scientists will not have the data to analyze the success or failure of a marine protected area, significantly curtailing its utility.

“California cannot pick and choose which part of the statute to implement,” Robertson continued. “Without scientific monitoring and adequate enforcement, vast areas of the California coast will be closed to public access and public resources. In the end, such piecemeal implementation only costs California more jobs and more economic woes, with coastal communities taking the brunt of the economic hit.”

The PSO has requested a meeting with Governor Schwarzenegger to develop a strategy to ensure the future health of the marine environment without unnecessary restrictions on recreational anglers and boaters. To download a copy of the PSO letter to the governor, go to http://www.keepamericafishing.org/california.asp.

PSO members include the American Sportfishing Association, Berkley Conservation Institute, Coastside Fishing Club, International Game Fish Association, Kayak Fishing Association of California, National Marine Manufacturers Association, Nor-Cal Kayak Anglers, Shimano Sport Fisheries Initiative, Southern California Marine Association and the Sportfishing Association of California.

Following are the entries to the "shut down or suspended" list for clarification along with the amount for the project and if it was active or just in the pipeline.

3760 Santa Monica Bay survey of science needs relative to the Marine Life Protection Act Los Angeles $ 142,818 x was active
3760 California Ocean Science Trust will develop and implement the California Marine Life Protection Act Monitoring Program Statewide $ 1,789,427 x was active
3760 Initiate, manage and implement data acquisition for nearshore and offshore substrate and marine habitat mapping within the Central and North Central Coast Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) project areas Statewide $ 1,092,727 x was active
3760 Funds are being used to conduct intertidal visual surveys for year two of the Central Coast Marine Protected Area Baseline Monitoring project (“the project”) for the Central Coast Study Region (CCSR) of the Marine Life Protection Act. Statewide $ 197,690 x was active
3760 Funds are being used to conduct two distinct surveys to assess MPAs in the Central Coast Study Region (CCSR) of the Marine Life Protection Act: (1) submarine surveys of deep waters and (2) hook and line surveys of nearshore fish in cooperation with recreational fishermen. Statewide $ 1,180,190 x was in pipeline.
3760 The grantee shall use these funds to conduct SCUBA surveys for year two of the Central Coast Marine Protected Area Baseline Monitoring project (“the project”) for the Central Coast Study Region (CCSR) of the Marine Life Protection Act. Statewide $ 325,870 x was in pipeline
3760 Funds are being used to carry out the Central Coast ROV Monitoring Research Project Central Coast MPAs $ 843,729 x was active

Partnership wants to slow marine protection process

2009-01-20T14:16:00.000-08:00

In the third inning, MLPAI flaws seem to be catching up with it.

Ed Zieralski Union-Tribune Staff Writer
2:00 a.m. January 17, 2009

A group of recreational fishing interests has asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to suspend the Marine Life Protection Act process until financially challenged California has the money to fund it properly.

The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans, which includes MLPA South Coast Region stakeholders such as Bob Fletcher of the Sportfishing Association of California, has sent a letter to Schwarzenegger requesting a meeting.

The partnership has “serious concerns regarding the availability of funds necessary to adequately implement the MLPA going forward,” the letter states. The PSO wants to meet with the governor to discuss a strategy to “ensure the health of our marine environment going forward.” The PSO's alternative to the MLPA process is to allow existing state and federal fisheries' management practices to play out and do the work for which they were funded and designed to do.

The PSO told the governor that when there's enough money to properly complete the MLPA, then the state should proceed.

The MLPA calls for the redesign of California's system of marine protected areas along its 1,200 miles of coastline. The Department of Fish and Game estimates that the state needs as much as $40 million a year to monitor, enforce and do public outreach with regard to these protected areas.

Lacking proper data, enforcement and funding, the PSO said, the MLPA process will result in permanent placement of marine protection acts that “either unnecessarily restrict recreational angling or prohibit it entirely.”

“Not only does that fail to comply with the requirements of the MLPA, it arbitrarily and unnecessarily creates additional economic hardship in California whose citizens are suffering terribly,” the PSO said.

Much of these financial struggles were evident at the two-day Marine Life Protection Act's regional stakeholder event in San Diego this week. The major theme of the meetings was haste.

No question the MLPA Initiative's paid facilitators are in a hurry-up offense the likes of which any NFL offensive coordinator would envy.

They talked fast and continually asked South Coast stakeholder members, especially the commercial and recreational fishermen, to talk to scientists and others “off-line.”

Even the scheduled scientist-presenters, armed with Power Point presentations and such, were shoved along.

The public was hustled in and out. Attorney Peter Flournoy, who represents commercial fishing interests, spoke during the public comment period and scolded the MLPA Initiative team for “steamrolling” the process.

The reason for the accelerated pace of the MLPA process is obvious now. The Marine Life Protection Act Initiative team has run out of allotted state money. It once again will put out its hand to its financial backers, the preservationist-backed Resources Legacy Fund Foundation. The RLFF has donated more than $18 million to keep the MLPA process afloat.

But now other funding for the MLPA process has dried up.

Projected state money will be wiped out in proposed budget cuts.

Schwarzenegger this week asked the Legislature to make more tough cuts to close a record $42 billion deficit forecast over the next 18 months.

All of this has gotten the attention of the Fish and Game Commission, which has the final approval on any marine protected areas. Commissioner Dan Richards of Upland has been the panel's common-sense voice in asking that any future marine protection acts be properly funded. He asked for the cost analysis by the Department of Fish and Game.

The recreational fisheries partnership isn't asking the MLPA initiative team to leave the playing field. It is asking Schwarzenegger to recognize this financial fiasco and headlong rush to fisheries management, and call a timeout to get the play right.

Ed Zieralski: (619) 293-1225; ed.zieralski@uniontrib.com

Getting Real

2009-01-19T08:28:00.000-08:00

Could it be that the lack of substantial data behind the MLPAI is going to stop enactment of closures?

Fish and Game Commissioner Dan Richards voiced substantial concerns about the MLPA closures, though he and others want to honor the public input to the process so far. He is one of two, possibly three, commissioners who are currently voicing this concern. His comments can be seen in Western Outdoor News . In summary, the concerns are:

No science that supports abalone closure
Lack of state funds to enforce the law

Richards noted that the evaluation contracts for the Central Coast MLPA project had been put on hold due to lack of funding.

Civics 101

2008-12-23T15:21:00.000-08:00

By Ed Zieralski

UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

December 21, 2008

Welcome to Civics 101, courtesy of the California Fish and Game Commission, the Legislature and the rabid preservationists who are hijacking our state's resources. Today's lesson is a basic one.
Don't pass legislation like the Marine Life Protection Act without a funding plan to make it work. Otherwise, all you get is a giant ocean money pit and dazed and confused Fish and Game commissioners.

I digress.

In 1999, the misguided Legislature passed the Marine Life Protection Act, a plan to establish a network of underwater refuges along the state's 1,100-mile coastline. Proponents of the act say it's all about protection of habitat, ecosystems and developing a beautiful underwater Yosemite.
In reality, the process was hijacked by preservationists and anti-fishing groups who now are targeting commercial and recreational fishing and want to eliminate any take of sustainable and viable ocean resources in most of these underwater parks.

The process already is here in the South Coast after some fishermen's lives were destroyed by fishing closures in marine protected areas on the Central Coast. Some fishermen now are working on the North Central Coast, where abalone divers are fighting the good fight. Soon, we'll be fighting for our ocean-fishing lives, with everyone from urchin divers to bait suppliers threatened.
I know this because I watched a replay of the recent Fish and Game Commission meeting at which the DFG listened to abalone divers make a case for a change in marine protected area boundaries that will lessen the impact on abalone divers. At this meeting, I heard DFG personnel tell the commissioners how many millions of dollars the entire network of marine protected areas will cost the state.

UN Report on MPAs: "Paper parks"

2008-08-05T19:59:00.000-07:00

A recent report by the United Nations cautions about the use of marine protected areas as a panacea for conservation efforts.

"MPAs are widely advocated and widely declared. But nearly all of them are paper parks (Mora et al 2006). They are legal, may have management staff, usually have detailed regulations governing their use, but there is little if any enforcement of regulations. The paper park syndrome exists for several reasons. Many coastal states have quite limited budgets, and adequately resourcing an environmental management department to administer MPAs simply does not happen."

"There also appears to be an over-reliance by managers on the no-take protected area concept. MPAs can manage activities that occur within their borders well, but MPAs have been particularly ineffective for managing fisheries in surrounding waters, or extrinsic disturbances such as coral bleaching, pollution, or invading species ( Jameson, et al.2002). Yet, much of the literature on protected areas is advocacy suggesting that a network of MPAs is practically all a nation needs to effectively manage its coastal waters. Of course, if numerous, well-managed, MPA networks existed, our coastal ocean would be in much better state than it is – mostly there are small, isolated, poorly managed MPAs. This management tool could be used much more effectively than at present, and with some additional research it should be possible to design networks of MPAs effectively (World Bank 2006)"

Read more of the report here...

Does the MLPA abet factory fishing and harm the little guy while aiming to protect the environment?

2008-07-24T13:03:00.000-07:00

Great article! Quotes Cate Carre and Allan Jacobs about MLPA impact on sustainable local fishery.
Trawling for Answers

Pt. Arena City Council Supports 2-XA

2008-07-24T12:36:00.000-07:00

July 22, 2008

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

Attention: Ken Wiseman

Melissa Miller-Henson

Susan Ashcraft

Steve Martarano

Stephen P. Wertz

Dear Blue Ribbon Task Force Members,

As we have previously stated,

§ We the City Council of Point Arena, speaking on behalf of our citizens and members of the surrounding community, value our Municipal Pier as a vital part of the City and as an access point for recreational and commercial boating and hope that the final Marine Protected Areas will permit continued boating operations, both for recreational users and the professionals that constitute our tiny fleet.

§ Many members of our community, including a number of particularly dedicated sport and professional fishermen, have been diligently involved in the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process and have advocated for those alternatives that appeared at each stage of the process which best achieved both the goals of the MLPA and also reduced the impact on socioeconomics, fishing tradition, heritage and safety.

4. Proposal 2/XA managed to come up with a solution for the Sea Ranch and Stewarts Point area that we think is fair to all interests. This design balances issues of preservation, private land, private land with public access, and fishing interests. The claim that it has wide support is well founded.

In addition, knowing that the BRTF deliberated at its April 22-23 meeting and recognized that the three proposals (1-3, 2XA and 4) all generally met the science of the master plan for the MPAs, the City of Point Arena City Council, speaking on behalf of our citizens and members of the surrounding community, urges in the strongest possible terms that, should the IPA be chosen, the following changes be implemented in the IPA:

Yours respectfully,

Lauren Sinnott, Lloyd Cross, Brian Riehl, Laura Smith

City of Point Arena Councilmembers

Missing in Action: 500 Signatures for 2-XA

2008-05-17T20:06:00.000-07:00

Commissioners
May 14th, 2008
Calif. Fish & Game Commission

Ref: MLPA

I have spoke before you twice during the last 9 months in reference to
the MLPA process in the North Central Coast Study Region. Hopefully you
will remember my face, concerns and dedication to this process.
Unfortunately I will be out of state for the next 41/2 months and cannot
attend any of your meetings in regards to the MLPA process. Hope you take
the time to read about my concerns and evaluation of the process over the last 9 months.

After the April 22-3 meeting of the BRTF in San Rafael I walked away
with tears in my eyes and total disbelief of the findings of the two day meeting. It was startling to find that the BRTF sent forth all three
proposals (1-3, 2XA & 4) along with the Proposed Alternative which they developed at the spur of a moment.

My main concern and one that should be yours is "What happened to the Public Comments" that have not been posted since April 3rd? Between April 3rd and the April 22-3rd meeting no public comment letters were given to the
Stakeholders, SAT or BRTF....or even posted on the State of California Fish & Game, MLPA website...where did they go? Did the I-Team fail in their support of the process and opinions of the people of this state? My and
your concern should be: "How did the BRTF make a final decision without seeing all the letters of support for all proposals?" I have been pondering this question since April 23rd and wondering why?

I do know that letters from the following (which I deem of importance) have STILL HAVE NOT BEEN POSTED: The Sea Ranch Association (which wanted
the 2XA proposal in front of their properties), The Mendocino County Fish & Game Advisory Council, The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, Mendocino County Farm Bureau, Sonoma County Farm Bureau, Point Arena Fisherman's Group, Point Arena City Council, Fort Bragg City Council, Fort Bragg
Fisherman and over 500 signatures that were gathered and submitted by me alone........... All the above was in support of Proposal 2XA. It is unknown how many other letters are missing somewhere, never to be seen by the Commission or anyone. 2XA was the preferred proposal by the majority of the landowners and users of our coastline in Subregion 1 of the North Central Coast Study Region.

Although I will be out of state, I will be available for direct contact
with you via email and or telephone (one on one or conference call). I feel that my concerns are valid and substantial. I would really be disappointed if this process ended up going against the major public input and support...and that would be for Proposal 2XA.

Thanks for your time, thanks for you concern with this process. As you know there are other concerns which we all share, the enforcement issue, the closures of park lands and the loss of enforcement near ex-facto reserves as under the private stewardship & ownerships. And the even bigger question...Will it work without overloading and over harvesting from un-zoned areas? Maybe we had better start small to start with?

Archer J. "Arch" Richardson
4th Generation, 130+ years of coastal stewardship
Stewarts Point, CA. 95480

Can be reached in Alaska starting May 17th, 2008
At 907-262-4256 and archerj@mcn.org

Putting MLPA in Perspective

2008-03-31T20:02:00.000-07:00

Posted on MLPA Comments

To whom it may concern March 28 2008

I am writing today to support proposal 2XA. Not because I feel this is a proper or fair proposal but because of the three proposals given a choice proposal 2XA seems the best for the coastline and our devoted coastline owners. I have lived on the Southern Mendocino Coast all my life, my husband is fourth generation for our community. In my lifetime I have personally witnessed landowners protecting their coastline. As far back as I can remember I have images of Delia Hay parked outside her Mote Creek entrance north of Anchor Bay. Parked with her truck blocking the gate to the coastline entrance far to many tourists would love to have gained entrance to and taken their legal or not so legal amounts of abalone and trampled upon the shore us locals so proudly Cherish. In the case of Mote creek, Our State of California forced the Hay family into giving that property to them so they could develop four to five houses on the southern cliff, this was the trade the state felt proper in order for them to build on the coast. Well because of water issues those homes never got developed but that Coastal access was now owned by the State of California and is now lined with cars and trucks miles in each direction along with a full parking lot the State has provided. When is it lined you may ask. During abalone season , not weekends with families walking on the beach, not surfers enjoying the waves, no Abalone season, when there are so many trampling on the land and in the water it's amazing they find enough for them to keep returning. Delia Hay passed on in the 1980's, fortunately for her she doesn't have to see the effects that the State has had on her once cherished property that she so determinedly protected.

Another family I have witnessed my entire live has been the Ratcliff family North of Anchor Bay and South of Point Arena. They own an amazing stretch of coastline not to many locals have even walked on. It has always been fenced and privately protected by it's family members. I have always seen their family vehicles parked alone the highway or them personally walking the highway guarding their Private personal estuary. I say estuary for a stretch of land that large in the lifetime I have lived here, I attended school with their child and have family members that are very close to their entire generation of family, yet have we even walked the bluff or shoreline, no I have not. I have no right to, I do not own the property. I feel very strong about what people own remain their own, especially when in My lifetime I have always witnessed landowners taking far better care of their property than any one else could ever hope to do. I would also like to mention, The Ratcliff's entire acreage has always been immaculately maintained. The grass has always been mowed regularly, the fence always maintained, brush removed, dead trees tended to, all by the family. They do not have a home in the view of the ocean, they have not blocked or changed the landscape or view of this coastline in the 41 years I have been seeing it. This speaks volumes in my eyes, because in my lifetime, I have witnessed so many of our coast developed or poorly maintained and obstructed by new comers and State officials who govern our coast but do not live on it or Cherish it the way long time land owners can and do.

I can't even speak of the now State owned Stornetta Property north of Point Arena adjoining and connecting to the Point Arena Lighthouse property. I am long time friends with three generations of Stornetta's and I have to say I can't even drive North now and Look out at the duns or gaze out onto the beach or ocean from the highway one drive. I can't bear to see the massive amounts of people trampling on the once precious sacred land that the State of California couldn't manage to save and protect as the estuary it had been for over 100 years under the ownership of it's property owners .

So in reading the proposals 13, 4 and 2XA, I am sorry any of these have even been written, I can't believe we need to write letters to try and save the rights of our landowners. What year is it? What Country do we live in ? All that aside, haven't our Northern and Southerns Mendocino and Sonoma County Landowners prove with generations of years that they have maintained the beauty of their coastline? Every long time resident I have known that has owned their property for generations has always respected that land more than anyone claiming to be looking out for the people. Families depend on the plants, the sea life and the peacefulness of their own private property for their lifestyles.. I Can't bear to see my friends grandchildren not enjoy the property as their great grandparents have their entire life.

In closing a local issue came to mind, we have a local group pressuring landowners from Gualala to Anchor Bay to give up rights to enough space for this group to build walking paths along the coastline and Highway. I just drove around looking at the paths they have been developing, I was not surprised , but still saddened to see that you can't even see the path now, less than a year old. The grass has overtaken the gravel and chips laid in to the pathway and grown all around the wood boarder that is to define the path. It seams that people with good intentions for the good of the people just don't have to time or the Passion to follow through. I however noticed that on the first dry weekend of the year the long time landowners on the North Coast did manage to mow all their acres on both sides of the road, thank you Ratcliff family for always making the coast view as maintained and yet as natural as god made it ...

Kindly,

Brent and Kelly M. Mason
Jeremy Mason
James H. Lampman

Map Accuracy Is Not Important to MLPA Director

2008-03-28T16:31:00.000-07:00

Arch Richardson wrote 3/24/08:

MLPA I TEAM
STAFF
ALL INVOLVED

Please be advised that there is a mayor problem with all proposal maps which have been printed in the past. In Subregion 1, North Central Coast Project of the MLPA in reference to The Sea Ranch Public Access Points.

There are a total of 8 access points on The Sea Ranch including Gualala County Park. Of which most are above the Stengel Beach Access. In the old Proposal JD and in the present Proposal 2XA the maps are very deceiving as the access point placement is wrong. For example: JD contained only 3 access point...but the map show 5. 2XA contains only 2 (Black Point & Pebble Beach)...but the map shows 4.

This is very deceiving and for the person who looks only at the maps and not the text, as a wrong decision or opinion of the proposal could be sought. I feel it necessary to change these maps at once, notify all involved that there is a MISTAKE ON ALL MAPS.

Please do not mislead the public!!! And especially The Sea Ranch property owners!

Looking forward to hearing your solution to this very important issue and how it will be solved to satisfy and notify ALL INVOLVED AND EFFECTED.

Ken Wiseman, MLPAI Director responded:

Dear Arch (aka "friendly and outside information source"),

We are looking into this, but preliniary review shows that the points in the data file are correctly placed. I think you are expecting a level of detail that we have never offered on these maps. The coastal access layer in our mapping software does not represent all access points. It only includes those published in the "California Coastal Access Guide" by the California Coastal Conservancy in 2002.

There are many trails and potential access sites at The Sea Ranch and other locations which are not shown on the maps, thus the detailed explanation in the templates which reflects the work of the stakeholder groups. You were there when they looked at very detailed maps with very specific choices made for each proposal.

We have no intention of misleading the public and will make sure all involved understand the issue of the scale of these maps. Just as you did not use these maps to explain the detail of your requested changes, we will not use them to describe the intricate details of each proposal. Thanks for your perspective, as it is always helpful in making sure we communicate as effectively and completely as possible.

Your favorite happy person,

Ken Wiseman

Executive Director

A View from the Sea Ranch

2008-03-17T14:38:00.000-07:00

Letter to MLPA Comments from CE Brown of Sea Ranch. March 17, 2008

I appreciate and support the purpose of the MLPA to protect the natural diversity and abundance of marine life, but the unfortunate reality of what is presently happening in the process is the sacrifice of that goal in favor of political pressure for public access, while failing to improve upon existing protections. The Act itself makes no mention of public access, but that focus has been written into the Master Plan by staff at the request of stakeholders. In this area, private landowners have been excluded as stakeholders, including approximately 2,000 private landowners at The Sea Ranch, who are owners in common of 10 miles of coastline.

I’ve been an owner at The Sea Ranch for more than 20 years, and share the stewardship values of other private landowners along this beautiful North Coast. We realize the magnificent treasure we hold in safe keeping for the future.

Here at The Sea Ranch we do have one significant difference from our neighboring private landowners, because public access across our private lands has been imposed by law. We have borne the costs and difficulties associated with that access in terms of increased needs for monitoring and security and difficulties associated with trespass and vandalism. We’ve borne these burdens with our own funds, in addition to paying high property taxes. As owners and stewards of these lands and the marine environments adjacent, we have done an admirable job of respectful use by owners and their invited guests and renters. That should continue, as it should on neighboring private lands. What is needed is appropriate control of the public’s taking of our abalone, which is the main source of the problems.

The proposed MPAs along the North Coast are in areas which have already been protected for generation upon generation of wise stewardship using private funds, while leaving the public access areas unprotected and subject to further depletion. There is no benefit to be derived by simply putting new MPA labels on old problems, and further entrenching the status quo of depletion due to public access.

I do understand that the MLPA process is limited to the size and spacing of protected areas, and that the stated goal is to use the best available science. But the “science” is woefully absent, without even the most basic studies of these Northern marine environments, and assumptions are being made based on studies of southerly areas, not appropriate for the unique climates and marine cultures of this ecological treasure on the North Coast.

Since the reserve designations are already set by law, we must work within those confines to create a solution that approximates common sense and wise stewardship. I urge you to shift the proposed MPA designations to areas of public access, and leave the marine interface on private lands in the care of the private owners who are remarkably effective and wise stewards of the resources, without public costs. The private owners have been operating de facto marine sanctuaries for generations, at their own cost.

Since our imposed public access here at The Sea Ranch creates a peculiar situation, my suggestion for a solution is to designate MPAs selectively at those points where the greatest public usage has depleted our ecosystems, and leave the rest of The Sea Ranch open for the use of the owners and their guests and renters. In addition, I suggest that the State Marine Preserve area we already have at Del Mar Point be confirmed to protect the seal rookery, tidepools and other resources that have been vigorously protected by The Sea Ranch community for nearly 40 years.

Before any MPAs are designated, appropriate site-specific baseline studies with measurable data, and replicable research designs, must be conducted. Otherwise, no outcome studies can be valid, and no scientific basis for policy choices can be in effect. Without appropriate biological studies we will have only a political process of choosing closure areas based on political pressure. Such a process cannot protect the natural wonders we have here, and cannot produce the laudable goals of the MLPA. The Northern California coastline and unique marine environments are natural treasures, and are worth much more than the well-intentioned but woefully non-science based options that are presently proposed. You need to put this process in abeyance until the necessary data has been collected and analyzed so that the intent of the MLPA will indeed help, rather than hurt marine ecosystems which have been degraded by overuse.

It simply does not make sense to restrict the taking of marine resources adjacent to private lands which have been exceedingly well managed and produced vibrantly healthy ecosystems, while continuing to provide unmitigated public access to abalone and fishing in areas which have already suffered depletion. Restrict the depleted areas so that they can recover and the ecosystems can flourish again, and when measurable success has been achieved, then re-open those areas to public use, but with wiser restrictions in place.

Sincerely,

CE Brown

707 785-1957

cebrown@mcn.org

Protect What Needs Protecting

2008-03-11T09:24:00.000-07:00

Recent post to MLPAComments.

March 10,2008

To Whom It May Concern:

I respectively submit, for your consideration, this letter in regards to creating State Marine Conservation Areas and State Marine Reserves. I have been a resident of this area (Mendocino/Sonoma Coast) for over 55 years and have, during that time, fished the waters from Elk to Stewarts Point.

It does not make sense to me that you are considering creating SMCAs ad SMRs along private properties that have been held by families for generatios and gererations. It seems that these coastal areas are being monitored and taken care of quite adequately by the respective land owners. My suggestion is that you protect and try to "bring back" the resources in the areas that have been overused and over fished. One area, in particular, that I will suggest is the whole coastal area fronting The Sea Ranch. My wife and I have owned property on The Sea Ranch for over 20 years. As a property owner I feel that this would be the obvious area to protect and preserve as it would tie in with The Sea Ranch philosophy (i.e. living lightly on the land).

Thank your for your consideration.

Clark E. Beall
41569 Hatchway
The Sea Ranch, CA 95497

Makes No Sense

2008-03-11T07:29:00.000-07:00

ICO Fence Post February 29

Editor:

My parents with my brother and I moved to Point Arena in 1949. We would go with Pop “rock picking” abalone and I remember how Pop had to work hard wading among the rocks to find legal-sized abalone.

I also remember how much better it was on the Pedretti and Stornetta ranches where we were often invited to pick abalone and to fish from the rocks.

The reason it was so good was that so few people were allowed by the landowners to fish and pick abalone on their property.

In essence, landowners like the Richarsons, Ratcliffs, Stornettas, Pedrettis, Leporis, and others were operating their own marine sanctuaries. Their families and friends didn’t take enough fish and abalone to notice. They constantly repaired fences damaged by trespassers, patrolled their properties to chase away poachers, and were far more effective, with no cost to taxpayers, than an army of game wardens.

The difference a change from private to public access can make is obvious on the Stornetta property turned over to the Bureau of Land Management. Abalone were rapidly depleted and the land trashed. What the Stornettas did without cost to taxpayers, the government can’t afford.

Now the public wants fishing restricted on private lands, and not on public. This makes no sense.

The private owners take very little from the ocean resources, pay large property tax bills, and spend their own money to prevent or reduce damage caused by the public. Restricting them on their own property would deprive them of valuable property rights they have enjoyed, and paid taxes on, for a very long time.

It would make more sense to place restrictions primarily on areas now open to the public, because those are the areas that have suffered the most over the years.

Major Michael B. Combs
U.S. Air Force, Retired
Gualala

Past as Prologue

2008-02-16T08:38:00.000-08:00

Here's a blog entry regarding the April 2007 Fish and Game Commission vote on the Central Coast MLPA. It's a must-read to put the Marine Protection Area legislation in perspective.

http://sacramentofordemocracy.org/?q=node/view/5375

Support Alan Jacob's Proposal

2008-02-12T09:09:00.000-08:00

F& G Commission 12 February 2008
MLPA Comments

Thank you for considering Alan Jacobs, Point Arena/Saunders Reef proposal. As he has lived and fished here for some 30 years and understands Point Arena and the surrounding communities needs. I think it takes that combination of both knowledge about our fishery and the lay of the land to put something as difficult as this together.

We need our local commercial fisherman, who can’t possibly be interfering with the fish populations. They supply our local grocery stores, restaurants and people on the street with fresh fish. The more they distribute locally, the less we have to ship in by dirty diesel trucks pounding up and down Hwy. 1 on our delicate crumbling Jenner Grade!

I fish too. The fish that I catch, my vegetable garden and orchard are extremely important to me. As with a lot of us who live here on the coast who are trying to be as “Green” and self sufficient as possible.

I am of the opinion that the MLPA could be a good thing if it were done carefully, fairly and honestly where it was needed.

The proposals as they now stand; from Salt Point to Point Arena make no changes to help marine life populations, especially for the future.

It’s almost as if the members of the MLPA ran out of time and energy for this area. Either that or they have a very different agenda than saving and enhancing marine life.

Thank You

Care Ratcliff Carrre’
3^rd generation, Sail Rock Ranch, Gualala

If I have to choose a proposal I would prefer External Proposal “A” or Draft Proposal 2 (JD). These two proposals do the least amount of damage to our fragile coast.

“SCIENCE”

2008-02-10T18:30:00.000-08:00

F & G Commission
MLPA comments
Scientist
Stakeholders
General Public

In order for science to be effective and to work correctly…we must have data, biologically data. The data that we do not have at this time to implement any or all MPA’s in the North Central Coast area. At the SAT meeting Jan. 8, 2008 at the San Francisco Airport members of the SAT staff used the following: “assume”, “probably”, “think would be valid,” “assumptions”, “potentially”, “assuming”, and my favorite, “in the back of my mind…I don’t know.” Now what kind of science is this?

Before placement of any MPA studies should be started and completed to backup the need if any for a Marine Protection Area. Studies or observations done 5 years down the road will have no meaning if we do not know what was there upon the implementation of a MPA. Areas that are UNZONED are just as important to areas that are ZONED.

What is the impact on the UNZONED areas caused by the ZONED areas? It will be impossible to know unless a biological study is done before the zoning and law is enacted. Scientist have no idea what will happen….do they? Zoned areas might improve in species and numbers, but to what degree? Will the bleed over from a SMR support the over fishing pressure of the adjacent UNZONED area? Will the UNZONED area be hit so hard by fishing pressure that it will fall below the standards or baseline? And again we do not know what the standards; baseline or minimal sustainability is without a scientific biological study before implantation of these MPA’s. And again, we have insufficient scientific and biological study data!

I urge all involved to stop and think about this for a minute. What type of scientific data do we have to implement this State mandated legislation? NEXT TO NOTHING!!! Therefore placement of all MPA’s, (SMR’s, SMP’s & SMCA’s) are a guess, gamble and shot in the dark without major underwater, above water studies of all spices mentioned for protection in the study region. “Show me the numbers”

Early in the MLPA process (Gualala, 10-16-08) Exec. Director Ken Wiseman stated that “we are going to do this once and do it right.” At the last meeting in Gualala (02-05-08) Exec. Director Wiseman stated “this is not a perfect process.” Now which one is correct? So let’s slow down and do this correctly!

A concerned and caring fisherman, Archer J. Richardson, Stewarts Point, CA.

Chrisman Misses the Point

2008-02-08T07:44:00.000-08:00

This is the 2nd letter to Chrisman, responding to his previous one.

January 22, 2008

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

Dear Secretary Chrisman;

Thank you for your January 16 response to my letter concerning the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA).

While I appreciate that you support all the goals of the MLPA, your letter leads to the conclusion that goal #1 protection of “the natural diversity and abundance of marine life…” will be sacrificed in favor of public access. To avoid this adverse impact, your leadership is needed.

By siting MPAs only adjacent to areas that have been protected nearshore for decades, the current siting proposals ratify the status quo. They put a new label on existing protected nearshore areas while leaving unaffected all the areas that have been unprotected. Please look at the overlap of public access and MPAs. The proposed nearshore MPA sites do not improve upon existing protections.

The Act itself makes no mention of public access. Section 2853(b) goal #3 states that recreational, educational, and study opportunities be managed “in a manner consistent with
protecting biodiversity.” Public access has been written into the MLPA Master Plan by MLPA staff at the request of stakeholders.

What’s at Stake

Over this last weekend there was a particularly low tide (-1.4 feet). Jeanne Adams and I and a photographer took the opportunity to make an informal comparison of biodiversity off Sail Rock Ranch with Moat Creek, a public access point just north of us. The differences were striking. We hope to provide you with the opportunity to see these pictures for yourself in the near future. As a taste, in a two-hour period in front of Sail Rock Ranch (SRR) we found:

§ Abalone growing so thickly they were difficult to avoid walking on. At Moat Creek during a two-hour period the following day (same tide) we found only one.

§ 6 types of starfish too numerous to count, including a bright orange brittle star. At Moat Creek, we found 2 types of starfish and very few.

§ Two nudibranchs. At Moat Creek, we found none.

§ Large green and orange anemones open and feeding. At Moat Creek, we found no anemones in tide pools…only small ones on top of rocks.

§ Clouds of small rockfish fry swimming in formation. At Moat Creek, we found a few isolated fry.

These are a few examples of what is at stake. The nearshore habitats off SRR and Richardson Ranch have been de facto preserves for decades. The important thing I hope you realize is that these differences are not an accident of oceanography. Nor will they magically become more productive hatcheries for the rest of the coast just because they are designated MPAs. What’s important is that other areas—areas that currently have public access—must receive protection equal to the level already afforded SRR and Richardson Ranches if goal #1 is to be achieved. Exclusively targeting areas that have been protected for decades by land stewards will not achieve MLPA's goals.

Your Leadership Is Needed

We are particularly concerned that objectives such as “Protects complex and highly productive rocky reef and kelp habitat including one of the largest stands of bull kelp in the north central coast, and associated species” (proposal 4) are being represented to you as measurable. Because this area is currently at or close to climax, a baseline taken offshore of SRR will not show progress in 5, 10 or 20 years. These objectives lack targets by which progress can be measured (MLPA goal #5). In consequence, your Agency lacks the mechanism to objectively alter the area, spacing or level of protection or to “sunset” an MPA.

There is a clear alternative. By including areas in which progress will be obvious after a short time—for example Moat Creek—the MLPA can demonstrate success. If degraded areas are not included, progress will need to be manufactured.

Why haven’t the very capable participants in the MLPA initiative realized this and self-corrected? There are three reasons public access has taken priority in MLPA deliberations, all of which can be remedied by appropriate leadership: 1) the evaluation criteria do not provide adequate siting guidance, leaving public access as the default siting criteria, 2) objectives are not required to be S.M.A.R.T.[1] and 3) the focus is on the short term activity of setting boundaries, not long-term outcomes.

Implementation Must Be a Criteria for Siting

Exclusively targeting nearshore areas off private lands is problematic for other important reasons which have received little attention in public deliberations:

§ What are the monitoring logistics? Private landowners will be expected to open their fence lines to state contractors. Legal mechanisms and additional state insurance costs have not been made public.

§ What are the enforcement logistics? Tree-lined cliffs and deep coves are difficult for any number of wardens to patrol even on public lands. It is truly incomprehensible that wardens will be tasked with looking across fence lines and transiting private land to check the MPAs beyond.

Obviously public process is constrained by administrative interpretation of the Act. In my observation, MLPA Initiative staff are competent and focused professionals truly committed to siting MPAs. However, the Initiative process is missing the big picture. It’s off the track and needs to be put right. We at Sail Rock Ranch support real progress. We do not support being disproportionately targeted by valuing public access—a goal that is not in the enabling legislation—at the expense of the primary authorized goal of the Act.

We appreciate your personal attention to these important issues.

Best regards,

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

cc Senator Patricia Wiggins
Assemblyman Patty Berg
John Carlson, Executive Director, California Fish and Game Commission
John McCamman, Acting Director, California Department of Fish and Game
Richard B. Rogers, President, California Fish and Game Commission
Michael Mantell, Resources Law Group
Ken Wiseman, Executive Director, Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Archer Richardson, Richardson Ranches
Dr. Marcos Underwood, President, Haven’s Neck Preserve LLC
Members of Sail Rock Highlands LLC

[1] The commonly accepted criteria for objectives is: S(pecific) M(easurable) (A)chievable (R)ealistic T(ime bound). MPA objectives, as written, do not meet these criteria.

Mike Chrisman Responds

2008-02-08T07:42:00.000-08:00

In response to my December 14 letter to Chrisman, this response appears to have been written by Ken Wiseman.

January 16, 2008

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

Dear Mr. Ratcliff,

Thank you very much for your letter dated December 14, 2007 regarding the California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. I appreciate your interest in the process and suggestions for improvements.

I understand from our MLPA staff that you and other members of Sail Rock Ranch have been actively involved in the MLPA Initiative process, by speaking at the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force, North Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group and Master Plan Science Advisory Team meetings. The MLPA Initiative process is one of the most extensive public processes I have ever seen in government, which I had the chance to witness firsthand in Gualala last October. I am pleased to know that you have been able to take advantage of this opportunity.

In response to specific points you raise in your letter:

• You are correct in that public access has been one of various criteria stakeholders have used in developing marine protected area (MPA) proposals; early in the MLPA Initiative process, the desire to maintain existing public access was raised by the public and consideration of that access was subsequently incorporated into the regional goals and objectives for this study region. I recognize and appreciate the impact land stewardship has on the surrounding environment. It is not our desire to discourage private landowners from protecting natural resources on or adjacent to their property.

• The Blue Ribbon Task Force has provisionally adopted goals and objectives for the study region that the science advisory team has indicated are measurable. In addition, the regional stakeholder group has developed objectives for each proposed MPA. Once the California Fish and Game Commission has acted on MPAs in the north central coast, a baseline evaluation will be conducted and then ongoing monitoring will be put in place, specifically to allow the state to determine if the adopted goals and objectives are being met through an adaptive management program.

• The Marine Life Protection Act requires the best readily available science be used to help inform the decision-making process. Over the last three years, two groups of esteemed scientists have worked to identify that science and how it should be applied to the MPA planning process; as with the overall MLPA Initiative process, a transparent public process was used to develop the science guidelines which were adopted by the California Fish and Game Commission.

• Every Californian has a stake in the outcome of this process. To help ensure that all voices are heard, the director of the California Department of Fish and Game and the chair of the task force appointed as broad a constituency representation as possible on the regional stakeholder group; combined with an extensive public outreach and participation strategy, a wide range of voices are being heard at the table, including those of private landowners. We strongly believe in a science-based process that includes the public in the design of California’s marine protected area network, and we believe we have a process which accomplished just that.

Thank you for your continued, active participation and recommendations for improving the MLPA Initiative process. If you have any questions, please contact Executive Director Ken Wiseman at (916) 653-5674.

Sincerely,

Mike Chrisman
Secretary for Resources
cc: John Carlson, Executive Director, california Fish and Game Commission
Richard B. Rogers, President, California Fish and Game Commission
John McCamman, Acting Director, California Department of Fish and Game
MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force members
Ken Wiseman, Executive Director, MLPA Initiative

Adjust the Model

2008-01-14T21:25:00.001-08:00

Submitted by Walter Ratcliff to the Modeling Working Team of the MLPA Scientific Advisory Team.

Gentlemen:

Following up on a comment made by Dr. John Largier during the January 8 SAT meeting, this note is to support including wind and coastal stewardship patterns in modeling fishing effort.

We at Sail Rock Ranch are one of the last few large intact coastal lands in sub-region 1. At each MLPA meeting, we have stood up to raise awareness about these de facto preserves. We have protected the land-sea interface off these properties for 80 plus years. It seems to us that the size-spacing scoring method used by itself enables—actually encourages—the teams to put a new label—SMR, SMCA—on these areas without substantive change in protection level for the sub-region. In the SAT session, we presented a map showing how the stakeholder proposals neatly avoid areas of public access and target areas off these last undeveloped properties. We fail to see how this placement (which has been identified as a selection bias in the literature) will improve habitat or fishery outcomes.

We support the goals of MLPA. As conservationists and partners of DFG wardens of long standing, we want to see it work. We are concerned that the current MPA placements in sub-region 1 simply ratify the status quo. Putting a new label on these already-protected waters is politically popular, but we all should expect more.

To give you a sense of usage, members of Sail Rock Ranch took fewer than 10 rockfish in 2007. Following termination of the nearshore longlining program of the 1990’s, rockfish are recovering. The urchin fishery has all but disappeared from its levels of the 90s, from 20 plus boats down to one or two in this sub-region.

To assist with modeling, we provided the latitude coordinates of these already-protected areas...

Dear Fish and Game Commission

2008-01-14T21:18:00.000-08:00

by Arch Richardson

15 January 2008

California Fish & Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Commissioners

Ref: MLPA, North Central Coast Region

The big question???? Are the Governors cut backs going to affect the MLPA process in the making? Will it take away moneys from signage, enforcement or any other part of this process?

IF these cutbacks will hinder or slow down the MLPA process in anyway please stop it now, before it gets completed incorrectly. The MLPA staff has stated from the beginning that they “are only going to do this once, and do it right.” Well that is not happening. The rules set in their guidelines have been altered to fit their timeframe and the region they are dealing with. There are 5 regions in this process…why should the guidelines and process change from region to region? Is that fair to the Central Coast Region which is already law? From meeting to meeting I’m observing heated discussions between Stakeholders, Scientists and Staff…why? Because the guidelines are either changing or not deciphered the same way by all. It’s your job to get them back on track. The parallel process is now a jetport. “Hold off, we will use it in the next region”…No I say, use it in all regions or none. And it is a valuable tool, and proven to be of value.

IF in the North Central Coast Region the SMR’s were not put adjoining private property the enforcement problem would be minimized. As landowners historically have protected their lands and the adjoining waters. All large chunks of private lands North of Salt Point State Park and on to the Alder Creek area have been targeted for SMR’s. Why, it is our feeling as private property owner on the coast that we have been targeted because of “our private lands”. We have heard comments from Stakeholders, Scientist and yours truly Mr. Ken Wiseman, Exec. Director that “Your land is not user friendly,” “If it is private, close it,” and “If there is not public access, close it.” Was this bill written and passed about the ecosystem or public access? As one representing one of the 3 major land holding potencionally targeted for a SMR, I’m defiantly concerned and think this process is going in the wrong direction. The three major private land holders in this study region are the Richardson Family, Ratcliff Family and the Havens Neck LLC. The major property on this coast with miles and miles of coastline is the California State Parks System…look at your maps please. The Richardson Family owns about 5 miles of coastline here on the Sonoma Coast, everything between Salt Point State Park and The Sea Ranch, and the MLPA process has selected ALL of our lands for SMR’s. We are loosing 125 years of heritage, 125 years of care and management of our terrestrial and non-terrestrial ecosystem. 100% LOSE!!!!! Is this fare?

IF the Governors cut backs included Fish & Game Officers as well as other law enforcement agencies, who will take the enforcement role? If State Parks are being closed, I’m assuming some Stake Park Personal will also be cut. Will this affect any of the Marine Life Protected Areas that are potencionally being earmarked in our area? We as good stewards and property owners throughout time have patrolled our own lands. Check out fences daily and doing the work of all law enforcement agencies. But will defiantly stop patrolling if this goes the way it is going. If we do see a problem or violation we will call someone…maybe…but who will come? Is Cal Tip going to be cut back too, or will there phone just ring and ring. Please think this over. Be advised the trespasser who crosses our lands and goes to a “targeted” reserve, SMR, is going there for a reason. He or she will be entering the Fort Knox of the Abalone Kingdom. At $100.00 per abalone on the black market…who wants to deal with this guys??? And all SMR’s will be a poachers delight if they boarder private lands.

IF our area was represented fairly on the Stakeholders Group, some of this would have never happened. There is NO private property owners, NO small business owners, NO Chamber of Commerce Members, NO retired F & G Wardens (as they know the problem areas) and NOBODY that know the history of this coast. I have offered my years of experience and my services to the MLPA process…and they don’t want me, or do they ask me questions…Hey that’s a loss to the system.

IF more rules, regulations and laws were enacted years ago we would not have this MLPA process today. In fact we might be money ahead (if there is a shortage) to cancel the MLPA process before we all end up in court and just make more and better laws.

Now who am I? … I’m a 60 year old native Sonoma County resident, 4th of 6th generation, representing 5 ranches in this battle, some 84+ family members. Past Pres. & First Pres. of The Sea Ranch VFD, Retired Sonoma County Reserve Deputy Sheriff (10 yrs, Badge #835), retired from the retail business in Stewarts Point in 2004, NRA Life Member, X-Commercial Salmon Fisherman, taught the F&G Hunter Safety Classes for 10 yrs, hold both a California Lifetime Hunting and Fishing License, Life Member of the California Rifle & Pistol Assn, Past Pres. of the Gualala River Steelhead Project, starting the restoration on the Gualala River, worked with the Dept. of F&G…probably more…

...but most of all I care! Care about what happens on this coast, both to the ecosystem and the great people that live here and visit here.

IF our coastline was in jeopardy or deprived of sea life, then yes, put an SMR here. But it is not, the Abalone count is up and the fish counts are unknown, as no studies have been done in this area. The system is placing SMR’s in this area just to keep the Bay Area people happy…Ask the scientist about fish studies in this Region…sorry there is none. As you can see there is way too many IF’S in this letter and this MLPA process.

Hope to meet you all at the BRTF Meeting on February 13th in Pacifica

Archer J. “Arch” Richardson
32333 Coast Hwy 1
Stewarts Point
archerj@mcn.org

MLPA Meetings

2008-01-11T15:10:00.000-08:00

WHO: Master Plan Science Advisory Team
WHAT: Eighth meeting
WHEN: January 23, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.
WHERE: Best Western Lighthouse Hotel
105 Rockaway Beach Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
and via simultaneous webcast on the day of the meeting at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings.asp

WHAT: Public Workshop (public input on draft MPA proposals)
WHEN: February 4, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.
WHERE: Sheraton Sonoma County
745 Baywood Drive
Petaluma, CA 94954

WHAT: Public Workshop (public input on draft MPA proposals)
WHEN: February 5, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.
WHERE: Gualala Arts Center
46501 Gualala Road
Gualala, CA 95455

WHAT: Public Workshop (public input on draft MPA proposals)
WHEN: February 6, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.
WHERE: Best Western Lighthouse Hotel
105 Rockaway Beach Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044

WHO: Blue Ribbon Task Force
WHAT: Seventh meeting
WHEN: February 13-14, 2008
(first day is joint meeting with the California Fish and Game Commission)
WHERE: Best Western Lighthouse Hotel
105 Rockaway Beach Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
and via simultaneous webcast on the day of the meeting at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings.asp

WHO: MLPA North Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group
WHAT: Seventh meeting
WHEN: March 18-19, 2008
WHERE: Four Points by Sheraton
1010 Northgate Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
and via simultaneous webcast on the day of the meeting at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings.asp

WHO: Master Plan Science Advisory Team
WHAT: Ninth meeting
WHEN: April 3, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.
WHERE: Location to be determined (Pacifica or SFO)
and via simultaneous webcast on the day of the meeting at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings.asp

WHO: Blue Ribbon Task Force
WHAT: Eighth meeting
WHEN: April 22-23, 2008
WHERE: Four Points by Sheraton
1010 Northgate Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
and via simultaneous webcast on the day of the meeting at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings.asp

Scientific Advisory Team Meeting January 8 2008 Comments by Walter Ratcliff

2008-01-09T20:15:00.000-08:00

Hello. My name is Walter Ratcliff. I’m representing the Sail Rock Ranch, which is fronted by what’s being called the Saunder’s Reef protected area in sub-region 1. We support the goals of MLPA and want to see it accomplish significant results. But we don’t see it heading in that direction in sub-region 1. Here’s why.

This map overlays the latest proposals in sub-region 1 and public access points. Siting decisions are pretty clearly a function of an effort to avoid existing access points. Is this a problem? Well, it depends on what you believe the scoring methodology is supposed to achieve.

Setting boundaries is an activity, not results. Results would be recovery of species. The multi-million dollar question is: will the activity lead to the result?

If you’ve been to previous meetings, you would have heard managers of the last three large intact lands in this area—Sail Rock Ranch, Haven’s Neck, and Richardson Ranch—talk about de facto preserves. We have protected the land-sea interface off these properties for 80 plus years.

It seems to us that the scoring method enables—actually encourages—the teams to put a new label—SMR, SMCA—on these areas and not actually change anything. Going back to the idea of focusing on results not activity:

If the scoring method simply ratifies the status quo, we ask you: what do you expect will be different at the end of the next 80 years?

Let me be clear. The Scientific Advisory Team shouldn’t settle for a re-labeling outcome. Applying science should result in better outcomes. We urge you to alter the evaluation guidance using a targeted, bottom-up perspective to protect what is NOT already protected.

Thank you.

Latest Maps for Pt Arena to Salt Point

2007-12-24T12:15:00.001-08:00

The following internal proposals come from the NCC stakeholder teams. They are "convergent" proposals in that the group process required that each team to converge their proposal, other teams' proposals, and external proposals to one.

Emerald #C
Jade #D
Turquoise #C
Jade #C

Private Stewardship and Preserving the North Coast

2007-12-18T17:38:00.000-08:00

Letter from Robert and Kathryn Larson, Hillside Ranch

To whom it may concern re: MLPA:

We are writing to inform you that we feel that the ocean waters from Salt Point State Park north to Black Point should be left open to shore fishing, abalone picking and diving.

This is all private land and limited access anyway. Why close these areas that are well managed by the private landowners? Because of the respect that these land owners have of the land and the sea, these areas are already "game preserves."

Our kids have been lucky enough to have been able to experience the beauty of this unspoiled land and sea. Many young people have had the opportunity to experience catching their first fish or picking or diving for their fist abalone.

We are raising and educating our kids to respect these natural resources and not abuse them. Because this area is a "game preserve" and so well managed, there are a lot of sea life to choose from. For instance we often only take one abalone because that is all we need to feed our family; and then some. The people that are allowed access to this private preserve share these same values as the landowners.

Again we question, why close something that is already managed with respect, love, and limited access. The education and respect that will be lost when youth and others are forced to experience the north coast sea world in areas that are overpopulated with people, polluted, and with limited sea life and access. They may never be able to dive in a safe place or see a large abalone or catch a fish from a small boat safely in public access areas.

We support the landowners in pleading to keep these private lands open and private from Salt Point to Black Point on the Sonoma Coast. Keep these preserves managed and allow these families to continue to educate and pass on their respect of this beautiful land that we live on and love.

Thank you,

Robert and Kathryn Larson
Hillside Ranch

Ocean Conservancy Argues for More Marine Reserves

2007-12-16T13:17:00.000-08:00

Following the first pass to choose Marine Protected Area proposals in Pacifica December 11 and 12, the Ocean Conservancy wrote MLPA Chair Susan Golding to lobby for more protection. For the text of their letter, see http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/comments/oc_111907.pdf

They include two journal articles advocating Marine Reserves that are worth reading:

Recreational Fishing and Marine Fish Populations in California (UC Santa Barbara Marine Science Institute)

Why Have No-Take Marine Protected Areas? (NOAA and Key West MPA)

Both articles emphasize that no-take reserves are easier to administer because there is no question that anyone inside the reserve is suspect.

MLPA Expands to Southern California and North Coast

2007-12-16T13:00:00.000-08:00

On December 6, California Secretary of Resources Mike Chrisman announced that MLPA will be extended south from Monterey to the Mexico border, and north from Pt. Arena to the Oregon border.

In response, Walter Ratcliff wrote the following letter to Chrisman:

December 14, 2007 Mike Chrisman
Secretary
California Department of Resources
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Secretary Chrisman; Last Thursday you announced the schedule for the remaining Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) study regions. This letter is to urge you to stop further implementation until significant issues can be resolved, issues that undermine the Act’s ability to achieve its goals in the North Central Coast (NCC) and future study regions.

I represent the 14 owners of Sail Rock Ranch in Mendocino County. Sail Rock Ranch was started in 1926 by my grandfather, who was a well-known architect and friend of John Muir. It comprises 1000 acres along the coast north of Gualala running a mile along the ocean and a mile inland to the ridgeline, protecting three watersheds: Morrison, Slick Rock, and Signal Port.

We have taken conservation of the nearshore habitat seriously for three generations. And it turns out that this commitment is shared by the managers of other large parcels in NCC sub-region 1: Haven’s Neck Preserve, Sea Ranch, and Richardson Ranches.

The Sail Rock Ranch owners support the MLPA goals. However, we are concerned that the Act will fail for the following reasons:

1. Public access has clearly driven Marine Protected Area (MPA) site selection. The map below overlays MPA proposals (in pink) and public access points (yellow triangles). Note the close fit.

Nearshore marine habitats in the proposed MPAs have been protected effectively for decades by private landowners under existing law. Labeling these areas “Marine Reserves” protects what is already protected and leaves open what is already open. The only change is the MPA label. The MLPA scoring method, developed by a few members the Science Advisory Team (SAT), encourages this dysfunctional result.

2. The Act calls for each Marine Reserve to have specific objectives. This is wise considering the potential impact on livelihoods. Yet measurable objectives have been deferred. If maintaining a robust marine ecology adjacent to Sail Rock Ranch from 1926 to 2007 has not produced adequate larval dispersal “downstream,” then what difference will another 80 years make? In other words, if we don’t know where we started and don’t know where we’re going, how will we know whether we’ve arrived? Without measurable objectives, there is no basis to objectively alter the area, spacing or level of protection based on results, or to “sunset” Marine Reserves.

3. Empirical data on which to base siting decisions are absent. For example, at the December 11 Regional Stakeholder Group meeting a thesis project prepared by UCSB students was presented by MLPA staff. Local data about stocks, mortality and movement of species were absent. End points were undefined. Causation was assumed, not demonstrated. If this level of rigor was the exception, one could put it in context. Sadly, it is the norm. Lack of empirically-based theory was a critique of the Central Coast implementation, but the lesson was not learned. It appears that the standard of scientific rigor applied to MLPA does not rise to the level that should be expected by policy-setting agencies.

4. Private land stewards in the North Coast region have partnered with the Department of Fish and Game for many years to protect nearshore habitats. By labeling these areas “Marine Reserves” and not changing the level of protection of accessible shoreline next door, public pressure will make our enforcement efforts more difficult and dangerous. The state of California should seek to partner with, rather than replace, the actions of local land stewards.

5. The Act calls for involvement of stakeholders, which it defines as “coastal tourism businesses and users of marine resources, such as fishers, divers, kayakers, researchers, underwater photographers, and boaters.” Inexplicably, stewards of contiguous land are not included. Although we have a large stake in the status of state land fronting our property, we have been unable to gain representation at the table. It is only through letters, public comment, and negotiation with represented interest groups, that we have been involved. Unfortunately, participants have found it convenient to label land stewards as NIMBYs. As a result, we have few alternatives to be heard.

The members of Sail Rock Ranch support MLPA goals. We have great sorrow that the fruits of our stewardship, and some of the values we’ve enjoyed for so many years, will be taken away for an ill-formed experiment without reasonable likelihood of achieving its goals. We urge you to alter the course of implementation from a political grab for territory toward a science-based approach to improve marine resources for future generations. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

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

Recreational Fishing Alliance Lawsuit on Channel Island Marine Reserves

2007-12-16T12:52:00.000-08:00

As Secretary Chrisman rolls out MLPA to Southern California and North Coast, additional voices are joining to contest the way it is implemented. Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) uses the same points we do:

Clearly identify the problem being solved
Include measurable criteria for the benefit
Allow fishing for species that are not of concern
Include a sunset provision for specific MPAs when they reach a target

Marine Access Protection Act?

2007-12-06T07:21:00.000-08:00

This map overlays the Marine Protected Area (MPA) options being considered and public access points. Of the MPA coastline between Stewarts Point and Point Arena shown here, more than 70% fronts privately-held land that has no public access.

These areas have been protected from nearly all human predation for decades. If they are the only ones to be "protected" by the Act, MLPA goals cannot be met in this area. MLPA protects what is already protected and leaves open what is already open.

How can MLPA be more than an exercise in labeling? Is marine protection the primary goal or is access protection?

Suggested Metric for Comparing Effects of Predation on Marine Protected Areas

2007-12-04T21:49:00.000-08:00

From Ken Jones and John Zeissig of CA Fishing Coalition

At their Nov. 13 meeting the SAT for the North Central Region MLPA introduced a draft option for assessing the level of protection offered by various extractive processes (fishing techniques and methods of take) if allowed within MPAs. In order to provide more flexibility in assessing the impact of the various ranked techniques on MPAs, this draft option expanded a similar rank ordering of level of protection used in the South Central Region from three levels to six levels. Members of the SAT, the Regional Stakeholders Group, and the Blue Ribbon Task Force have all expressed some doubt or confusion over how to apply this ordinal list of levels of protection to the assessment of MPAs. (See “Proposed Revisions to the draft evaluation method report of the MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team”, from MLPA Initiative Staff, Nov. 18, 2007.)

One reason for this is that the six levels of protection relate to one another only by the logical operation “greater than”. For example, a ranking of 2 does not mean that the practices included in that category are half as protective as practices ranked in category 4, only that they are less protective by some unspecified amount. Furthermore, different practices ranked in the same category are not necessarily equivalent. In applying the rank ordering to assessing the impact of a particular practice on an MPA there is, therefore, no basis for quantifying the
effect that allowing that practice will have on any particular species or on the ecosystem in general.

In order to properly answer these types of questions it is necessary to quantify the various practices, preferably on a rational scale where the elements consist of integers or are continuous variables. Beyond that, it would be extremely important to have such quantification based on empirical data rather than the somewhat plausible but essentially ad hoc considerations that have lead to the present ranking scale. One way to accomplish this would be to relate some measure of angling effort, such as fishing trips taken or time spent fishing (independent variables), to some measure of fishing success, like number of fish caught, or pounds of fish caught (dependent variables).

The most obvious source of precisely these kinds of data are the data collected by the California Recreational Fishing Survey (CRFS) conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The stated purpose of this effort is: “In response to fishery managers' and constituents' concerns about the use of MRFSS for making management decisions, CDFG and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) developed the CRFS. The CRFS was created to provide accurate and timely estimates of marine recreational finfish catch and effort. The program was implemented state-wide in January 2004.”

What can we learn by looking at the CRFS database? Let’s take an example and see how it can be applied to the assessment of the impact of some fishing categories on an MPA. Specifically, we want to see how the number of fish caught (dependent variable) varies as a function of whether the fisherman is fishing from the shore or bank, from a private boat or rental skiff, or from a party fishing boat (independent variables).

We can go to the DFG website, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ and then click on the tab at the top of the page that says “Marine”. On the page that comes up click on “Ocean Sport Fishing”, just below the tabs at the top. Scroll down a little way and click on “California Recreational Fishing Survey (CRFS)”. You will be taken to a page where you can query the database for information by using the categories above.

Note that the numbers obtained are estimates, rounded to the nearest 1000, of the total effort and total catch, generated from large scale sampling of actual effort and catch by a complex mathematical algorithm. Also obtained are estimated proportional standard errors that reflect uncertainties associated with the estimates.

Level of Protection (LOP): Examples Rating Angling Methods

The following information was obtained by asking for the number of fishing trips by anglers fishing in the ocean, for all species, from the bank, beach, or man made structures (all shore modes, MMBB) in the San Francisco District, in the ocean only, for fish inspected during the survey, between the start of the survey in January 2004 and October 2007, the last monthly data available at the time of this analysis:

Number of angler fishing trips (T) = 858,000.

Next we want to ask how many fish of all species were caught on these
858,000 fishing trips.

Number of fish caught (C) = 996,000.

To get an estimate of the efficiency of bank and beach fishing we take the ratio of fish caught per angler fishing trip:

C/T = 996,000 / 858,000 = 1.16 Fish/Trip.

Because the idea of LOP is reciprocally related to the catch per trip (more fish caught per trip results in a lower level of protection) we take the reciprocal of C/T = 1/C/T = T/C as our measure of LOP:

LOP = T/C = 0.86.

In order to relate the LOPs to the entire North Central Region of the MLPA, we need to expand our coverage by including the Wine District of the CRFS. The San Francisco District of the CRFS corresponds fairly well with the southern sub region of the North Central MLPA, but the northern sub region of the North Central MLPA is smaller than the Wine District of the CRFS, which extends from roughly the Tomales Bay area to Cape Mendocino. This will tend to result in underestimates of LOP for anglers, although the distortion should not be very large.

Taking the CRFS estimates from the Wine District for the same criteria that we used in the S.F. District and combining them gives us the following:

C = 996,000 (SF) + 117,000 (Wine) = 1,113,000.

Combining angler trips gives us:

T = 858,000 (SF) + 165,000 (Wine) = 1,023,000.

LOP = 1,023,000/1,113,000 = 0.92

Repeating this procedure for private boat and rental skiff fishing and party boat fishing gives us the following table for the LOP of the fishing methods in our original question. For boat fishing modes, however, the data query added the criterion that the fish were caught within 3 miles of shore to correspond to the seaward boundaries of MPAs.

TABLE 1

Fishing Method LOP

Bank & Beach 0.96
Private Boat & Rental 0.48
Party Boat 0.13

We can now say, for example, for an angler fishing trip on a party boat in the North Central Region, from Jan. 2004 through Oct., within 3 mi. of shore, the angler will on the average catch approximately 3.69 times the number of fish that he would have caught had he fished from a private boat, and approximately 7.38 times the number of fish he would have caught had he fished from shore.

Before we can use LOP to assess the effect of some activity on an MPA, we’ll first have to deal with some obvious objections that could limit the generality of the concept. One might jump to the (false) conclusion that C/T = 0 means an infinite LOP. Realistically, fishermen have to be considered to be just one of a variety of predators in the ecosystem, so that eliminating fishing just shifts the balance of predation among species, and may reduce the overall level of predation, but certainly doesn’t eliminate it. For that matter, eliminating all predation will not result in a LOP of zero since some level of mortality will remain in any event. On the other hand, LOP allows a direct comparison between harbor seals and fishermen, for example, if one considers a day’s foraging of a harbor seal to be the equivalent of a day fishing by an angler.

Example Comparing Shore Angler LOP to Harbor Seal LOP

While not as straightforward as comparison of fishing modes using the CRFS data alone, it is nevertheless possible to make comparisons of LOP between different species. The major difficulties in doing this type of comparison arise from the paucity of data pertaining to some species and the fact that the relevant dependent variables are not always the same even when data is available. For the comparison of shore angler LOP to harbor seal LOP the first problem encountered is the measurement of harbor seal prey consumption in lbs./day rather than the fish/trip
metric used in the previous examples.

From the “MPLA Master Plan Science Advisory Team Draft Work Group Responses to Science Questions Posed by the NCCRSG at its August 22-23, 2007 Meeting (revised November 9, 2007)” we have the information that harbor seals consume 10 lbs of prey/day, as well as the information that there are approximately 8,000 harbor seals within the North Central Region during the “peak breeding season”. If we regard a day’s foraging by a harbor seal to be equivalent to a fishing trip by an angler then a seal has an LOP by weight in lbs. of 0.1 (Keeping in mind the uncertainty of this data).

The angler catch in tonnes is available from the CRFS database using the same MMBB criteria we used in our initial example, so we can obtain an estimate from the database that we can convert to lbs./trip for shore anglers, and use that to calculate a LOP by weight of catch. For catch by weight, we obtain the following for Jan. 2004-Oct. 2007:

C = (SF) tonnes 336 + (Wine) tonnes 76 = 472 tonnes

472 tonnes X 2200 = 1,038,400 lbs.

T = 858,000 (SF) + 165000 (Wine) = 102,3000 angler trips

LOP (by weight) = 1,023,000/1,038,400 = 0.99

So, to a first approximation, it appears that it takes about ten shore and pier anglers (0.99 LOP/0.10 LOP = 9.9) to equal the extractive effect of a single harbor seal.

Of course, there are a number of caveats that need to be attended to in using data like this. As mentioned previously, the LOP of anglers is likely to be underestimated by the way this analysis was conducted. Also the estimate of harbor seal population is almost certainly very rough. Comparisons to other pinnipeds were not considered, so the combined effect of all pinnipeds is certain to be much greater than the apparent order of magnitude prey-take advantage of harbor seals over shore anglers. The LOPs of bird and fish-fish predation have not been addressed at all. The estimates of LOP derived from any recreational fishing data in California are surely underestimates of the true efficiency of fishing effort in every category, because the size and take limits imposed by DFG regulations truncate the amount of catch for any species to which they apply (assuming anglers are abiding by the regulations). They also do not include take due to poaching.

Other factors to be considered are the validity of data available from the CRFS database. While most of the numbers seem plausible, there are some entries that do not correspond to what one would expect based on personal experience. Another difficulty, that arises from the way we constructed our examples above, is that it allows us to compare predation/angling methods in terms of their effect on overall numbers or weight of fish caught, but clearly there are differences in the particular species caught depending on the method as well as geographically within the region. This can be examined, but no attempt was made to do so at this time. In addition, there are a number of other cautions to be considered in using the CRFS, or any other data, for that matter. This is certainly not an exhaustive list of all the potential pitfalls involved in doing this kind of analysis, and there probably other data sources that can be usefully employed.

Given the caveats above, the goal is to accomplish something like what follows. Ascertain at least a manageable cluster of important predators and generate estimates of their effects on the ecosystem in terms of take of species of interest. Express these effects in terms of LOPs as outlined in this essay. If this can be accomplished, then it might be possible to get at least a static picture of the relative importance of these predators in the ecosystem. My suspicion, based on the preliminary analysis above, is that shore anglers will rank very low in the
hierarchy of predators (by a factor of at least 2-4 compared to boat fishermen, a factor of 7-10 compared to party boat fishermen, more than an order of magnitude in comparison to seals and sea lions, and unknown additional amounts attributable to birds etc.). The ratios are sufficiently divergent that it can be persuasively argued that allowing shore fishing has a negligible effect on the ecology of an MPA (i.e., a ribbon! proposal or variation thereof). In any event the LOP measurement scheme has considerable advantages over the current ad hoc ranking, which relies on subjective judgments and offers scant hope for an equitable solution.

Science Guidelines for MPAs

2007-12-04T20:33:00.001-08:00

The science guidance provided to the RSGs is a subset of what has been published on the subject. There is consensus among marine ecologists that MPAs are not a panacea that can effectively achieve results in all situations.

Some of the areas of disagreement that have kept out of the MLPA process include:

The interaction of fisheries management practices with MPAs
The few and large versus small and numerous MPA debate
Diffuse biodiversity goals versus measurable fisheries objectives

Here are several excellent journal publications that could serve as guidance to RSGs if listened to:

After the Central Coast MLPA process, Hilborn, Walters et al were commissioned by the Cal Fisheries Coalition to do a peer review. This critique is the reason why the scoring methodology is being backed up by running the RSG proposals through two or three models.

The SAT is currently trying to decide which "models" to use to evaluate the RSG proposals. It appears that the Botsford model and Walters model will win out. These models are spreadsheets into which they plug certain local data, though we are unclear about these independent variables.

Botsford's Principles for Design of Marine Reserves include:

Adding reserves is equivalent to increasing the size limits in fishing
Adding reserves is equivalent to limiting fishing
MPAs preserve biodiversity best when inhabitants don't travel far (like abalone and rockfish)
If the goal is to protect more active species (like halibut, sharks, deeper water rockfish) the MPA must occupy a long stretch of coast
Very little is known about the relationship between variables or behavior of different species. Type 1 and 2 errors will be high.

Dr. Carr writes about when MPAs are and are not appropriate. This is a very readable elaboration of the potential objectives met by MPAs and the uncertainties. He calls for an "increased need for accountability and the explicit statement of performance-oriented conservation goals. Consequently, there is an immediate need to set realistic MPA objectives, expressed as well defined, tractable, and measurable targets."

Lessons Learned from Central Coast

2007-12-04T20:28:00.000-08:00

Many participants in the Central Coast iteration of MLPA felt steamrolled by the process and lack confidence in the outcomes. Read their suggestions for improving the process.

Excerpts:

The State should commit to providing a quality product, including best available science and socio-economic information [rather than expediting a decision based on inadequate information because ‘time did not allow…’]
The ecosystem benefits of current fishery regulations should be fully integrated into SAT guidelines from the beginning of discussion, and MPAs should be designed against a backdrop of existing fishery regulations
Both the State and NOAA Fisheries have moved to an eco-system based management philosophy, and very strong management measures have been put into place. As was heard at several points during the MLPAI process, overfishing is no longer occurring off the coast of California.
SAT guidelines and other SAT products should be subject to full scientific peer review (at least 3, preferably 5 reviewers, including scientists expert in fishery and oceanographic disciplines), with stakeholder input in the selection of the reviewers. This review should occur BEFORE MPA network packages are evaluated.
...ecological theorists dominated the SAT. Scientists with population dynamics and oceanographic expertise were not replaced in-kind, and this imbalance led to a SAT membership that engaged in virtually no skeptical debate about assumptions and other science questions involved in creating the science guidelines.
Be clear to identify and separate science assumptions from policy decisions.
One problem with the MLPA is that the science assertions made for the value of MPAs are based on MPA work done largely in tropical areas with different species and different fishing cultures.

Evidence of Land Stewardship Impact on the Ocean

2007-11-20T21:20:00.001-08:00

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

2007-11-20T17:41:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-20T17:37:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-20T17:36:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-20T17:26:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-20T17:19:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-20T17:18:00.000-08:00

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?

2007-11-20T17:08:00.000-08:00

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!

There is a resident warden in Elk who patrols from the Navarro River South to the Gualala River and East to Boonville.
There is a resident warden on the South Coast that patrols the North half of Marin County North to the Russian River.
There is NO RESIDENT WARDEN in the area from the Russian River North to the Gualala River.
There is NO RESIDENT WARDEN on the Hwy 101 corridor inland from this area.
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.
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

2007-11-12T10:29:00.000-08:00

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?

2007-11-10T09:05:00.000-08:00

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