Protect What Needs Protecting

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

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

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

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”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

Read more at http://www.californiafish.org/rfajoinslawsuit.html

Marine Access Protection Act?

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

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

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

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.