California Fisheries Coalition

State to cut funding of MLPA

2010-03-09T15:08:00.000-08:00

By Ed Zieralski, San Diego Union-Tribune
March 6, 2010

What's really behind the proposed State Parks Initiative that will add $18 to our vehicle registrations in California to help fund the failing state parks system?

Fish and Game commissioner Dan Richards recognizes the proposed State Parks Initiative for what it is. A sham.

Once again, California taxpayers, in this instance, California's vehicle owners, are being asked to fund a failing state parks system that is $1 billion behind in work projects. But that's just part of the state parks' problems. The parks have been incredibly mismanaged for years. Cuyamaca Rancho State Park is a prime example. Had the state parks personnel done proper forest management, the burn that wiped out most of that park during the 2003 Cedar Fire never would have burned as hot and for as long as it did. All that timber that the park employees let lay after it died from bark beetle infestations or disease fueled that catastrophic fire in an unimaginable, horrific way. These park administrators and employees basically protected and preserved that beautiful park to death.

Richards was the only one of five commissioners on Wednesday who refused to endorse this latest sit down at the public trough for more money from an already over-taxed California citizenry. If this state parks initiative makes it to the ballot in November and is passed by the state's voters, this will give non-public entities all the public funding they need to bid on land, projects, etc., without any oversight. Oh, they promise there will be monitoring of the money, but can you really believe that from a group of fanatical environmentalists who know no boundaries when it comes to wasting the public's time, money and energy?

At some point, this out-of-control extreme environmental movement has to be stopped in this state to allow for some common sense. Right now, there isn't any. Everyone wants to be green. Everyone wants to do the right thing environmentally. So when scams and shams like this come along, everyone just signs up for it. Must be good, right? No, this is very bad.

On the surface, the funds are earmarked for the state parks, the DFG, the Ocean Protection Council and other "state conservancies." But what impact will this grab of public money have on the state budgets for the parks and the DFG? Will the legislature then reduce their budgets and funding by a like amount? What will parks and the DFG really net from all this?

Looking at it right now, the Ocean Protection Council and the other non-government groups look to make out large, getting over $40 million of taxpayer money to do what they want with it. That's just wrong.

It's bad enough that this proposed initiative is bailing out the poorly managed state parks system. They should have stopped right there, but no, they had to add the MLPA to the mix. That's where they made a huge mistake.

There have been some incredible conflicts of interest throughout this MLPA process, and this is just the latest example of the movement to take the management of fish and game away from the Department of Fish and Game.

Right now, there is a strong movement in the state legislature to completely cut funding for the Marine Life Protection Act and the black hole it has become.

Here's the latest, the Legislative Analysts' position on the MLPA for the budget year 2010-2011. This was published March 3, 2010:

"Recommend suspension of state support ($4.4 million General Fund and $400,000 special funds) for this recent public-private partnership initiative (2004) to help the state implement the Marine Life Protection Act. Funding in the budget year is for establishment of the marine protected areas (MPAs), not for long-term enforcement or management of them once established. There is no long-term comprehensive plan to finance administration and enforcement of the proposed MPAs. Other existing state fishing statutes (traditional fishing restrictions and the Marine Life Management Act) could be used to enforce fishing restrictions as an alternative to this proposal."

What's clear in this statement is that the there is a strong sentiment in Sacramento that it's time to stop wasting money on the MLPA process. For the Legislative Analysts to recommend "suspension of state support" for the MLPA, it clearly is taking a stand. The common sense arguments have finally gotten through to some in Sacramento that fisheries management has been effective, that the DFG has done its job, and that present fisheries management practices will continue to be effective without the MLPA.

The answer now is for fishermen -- and hunters, too, because you're going to be impacted by this rigged Fish and Game Commission -- to go to the state legislature and rally your state senators and state legislators. Let them know how you feel about this parks initiative, this latest sham, the latest move to fund this unholy war against fishermen.

The state legislature is getting bombarded with requests by people who want to waste more money, but in this case, this is a way for the state to cut its losses on the MLPA and quit funding this black hole of an agenda.

This initiative proposal is the latest attempt to fund not just the failing parks system, but the struggling MLPA. And the language is vague enough to allow these so-called "conservation groups" to take the money and use it rather than allow the DFG to use it for its purposes.

We still have the power to vote in this country, to voice our opinions about things we see that are just wrong.

Evidence shows MLPA corruption

2010-03-09T15:04:00.002-08:00

By Jim Matthews, San Bernardino Sun
March 6, 2010

The first wave of hard evidence documenting the corruption and conflict of interest that's guided the implementation of the 1999 Marine Life Protection Act surfaced at the meeting of the California Fish and Game Commission at the DoubleTree Inn this past week.

The commission accepted public testimony again on the so-called Blue Ribbon Task Force's recommended ocean fishing closures and protected areas along the Southern California coast before adopting a final plan. During Wednesday's testimony, documentation was provided that proved that two members of the Blue Ribbon Task Force, Bill Anderson and Greg Schem, lied to the commission at a recent meeting about having a business association.

Bob Fletcher, former president of the Sportfishing Association of California who's been involved in the entire MLPA process, said there was evidence that both members agreed "to sign off on everything else" in return for not putting a reserve on the Rocky Point area between Redondo Beach and Long Beach where both had marinas and business interests.

Fletcher and others at the meeting say this is just the tip of the iceberg. Sportfishing groups are gathering evidence on three other issues that have plagued the process.

First, Michael Sutton, a member of the Fish and Game Commission and a key supporter of vast closures, has been charged with conflict of interest and repeatedly asked to recuse himself on all MLPA issues. Sutton works for the Monterey Bay Aquarium, which stands to benefit financially from Department of Fish and Game funding to help implement and monitor protected marine areas.

When a complaint was filed with the state Fair Political Practices Commission last year, however, it wasn't investigated. Sportfishing groups are looking into whether anyone from the governor's office tampered with the issue.

In an incredible case of irony, Sutton is also on the FGC's Marine Resources Subcommittee with commissioner Richard Rogers, and recused himself recently when the issue was collection permits because his employer, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, has a vested interest in the collection permits.

Second, there's growing evidence that former Fish and Game commissioner Cindy Gustafson was asked to resign when she, along with two other commissioners, questioned the science involved in some of the proposed MLPA recommendations.

She was replaced by Don Benninghoven solely because of Benninghoven's support of the most restrictive MLPA designations, giving the closure supporters a 3-2 majority on the commission.

Benninghoven came to the commission after a two-year stint on the Blue Ribbon Task Force.

Third, at least 12 of the members of the MLPA science advisory team are fully or partially financed by grants from the Packard Foundation and Ocean Protection Council, both of which have been outspoken proponents of the MLPA process' most restrictive protections, including vast areas closed to all fishing.

The science advisory committee refused to consider catch-and- release sport angling and sport take restrictions as a management option that was less damaging to the marine environment than unrestricted commercial fishing. A catch-and-release angler fishing barbless jigs for calico bass was the same as a commercial gill net to the majority of the science advisory team.

Sportfishing interests have said the whole public process was a sham after the Blue Ribbon Task Force essentially ignored the proposals from the three volunteer study groups that labored for 18 months before forwarding their own recommendation to the Fish and Game Commission, which was a breach of what the volunteers had been assured at the outset would happen.

The Blue Ribbon Task Force has also refused to take into consideration the state's economy and budget, and how closures will affect business and recreation in the region.

Fletcher said it was likely, with the state's budget crisis, there won't be funding to finance the MLPA. Last year, the legislative budget office stripped all funding of the MLPA implementation out of the Department of Fish and Game's budget, but its funding was continued by the governor's office by backfilling with Proposition 84 funding.

This year, the budget office is again likely to recommend that funding be stopped - and that Proposition 84 funds aren't used again.

"The whole process is rife with conflict of interest," said Fletcher. "It has been hijacked."

Fish & Game Commission advances MLPA coastal fishing restrictions

2010-03-09T15:04:00.001-08:00

By Melissa Pamer, Torrance Daily Breeze
March 4, 2010

The state Fish and Game Commission this week advanced a plan to limit or end fishing in nearly 400 square miles of state coastal waters, including an area off Point Vicente and south of the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

The five-member commission voted 3-2 late Wednesday to ask its staff to develop regulatory language for an "integrated preferred alternative" plan - known as the IPA - that remains controversial but has been pitched as a compromise between fishing and environmental interests.

The vote took place at a lengthy meeting in Ontario that included more than three hours of public comment, mostly from critics of the plan.

The proposed closures, which must still undergo an environmental review, are the result of months of meetings attended by stakeholders from across Southern California as part of the Marine Life Protection Act initiative.

At the meeting this week, fishing groups continued to argue that the process that produced the plan was flawed, alleging conflicts of interest, corruption and closed-door meetings.

"It's probably one of the worst public policy debacles that I have seen in my long career," said Bob Fletcher, former president of the Sportfishing Association of California and a former deputy director of the Department of Fish and Game.

Environmental groups cited new research showing well-placed marine reserves benefit fish populations and fishermen. They continued to argue for a reserve at Rocky Point, a rich marine environment off the north end of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. As a concession to socioeconomic interests, that area was traded last fall for greater protections off Malibu.

"We were disappointed that the IPA failed to meet the science guidelines, with the most egregious failure occurring at Palos Verdes by not protecting Rocky Point," said Shelley Luce, executive director of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission.

Luce and others noted complications with the Point Vicente-area reserve because of its proximity to a huge underwater pesticide dump that's now a Superfund site.

Commissioners stuck with their original indication at a meeting in December, in which they backed the IPA. Their decision means that state staff will not write complicated regulatory language for three other proposals that came out of the stakeholder process. Those three proposals will, however, get a full environmental analysis.

The commissioners made clear that they may still make changes to the marine reserve plan before it is finalized in coming months.

The commission also voted to study requests by other agencies to allow continued water-quality monitoring and other activity in the proposed reserves.

A follow-up meeting is set for April in Monterey.

Former Congressman Dan Hamburg Slams MLPA Initiative

2010-02-17T16:18:00.000-08:00

Dan Hamburg took aim at the MLPA process in an outstanding letter he wrote to the Anderson Valley Advertiser.

By Dan Bacher, IndyBay
February 16, 2010

Dan Hamburg, a North Coast Democratic Congressman from 1992-94 and a Green Party candidate for Governor in 1998, recently blasted Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's fast-track Marine Life Protection (MLPA) process for its many conflicts of interests, private funding and other problems in a great letter to the editor he wrote to the Anderson Valley Advertiser in Boonville.

"Coastal residents — including fishermen, divers and gatherers — have joined together to protest the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPAI). There is plenty of reason to protest," Hamburg said in his letter, http://theava.com/archives/2825, entitled, "What Protection?"

He then summarized some of the key criticisms made against the MLPA process. The implementation of the MLPA, a law passed in 1999 to protect ocean ecosystems, has become a surrealistic parody of "protection" under the Schwarzenegger administration.

"Jim Martin, vice president of the Salmon Restoration Federation, the Recreation Fishing Association and a member of the Mendocino County Fish and Game Commission, has pointed out many of the foibles of the MLPAI," said Hamburg. "Special interest groups, unaccountable to elected officials, dominate the process. Key policy decisions are made by private foundations rather than the public. And, at a time when the state is broke, Martin asks who will pick up the tab to police a large number of underwater parks."

Hamburg noted how Cindy Arch, a longtime ocean preservation leader, is also disturbed that the MLPAI is being funded “by the charitable arms of huge businesses.” "She foresees aquaculture (farmed fish) as a real possibility for the coast if the initiative isn’t stopped," said Hamburg.

"Author, activist and businessman John Lewallen’s critique is perhaps the most devastating. He sees the MLPAI as a diversion from the real prize — offshore oil," emphasized Hamburg. "He reminds us that while it was during the George W. years that the possibility of drilling off the Mendocino coast reemerged, the Obama administration has done nothing to reinstate a moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf."

Hamburg said that Lewallen’s concern was "recently amplified" by the appointment of Catherine Reheis-Boyd to the MLPAI’s Blue Ribbon Task Force for the MLPA's North Coast Study Region, a group of supposedly “knowledgeable and highly credible public leaders” selected by Mike Chrisman, Schwarzenegger’s Secretary of Natural Resources. Reheis-Boyd, after serving as chief operating officer and chief of staff of the Western States Petroleum Association, became the association's president on January 1, 2010.

In August, Chrisman selected Reheis Boyd to be the chair of the Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast. She also served on the task force for the North Central Coast, helping to engineer a process that will ban the Kashia Pomo Indian Tribe and other tribes from harvesting seaweed, mussels and abalone as they have done for centuries off Stewarts Point and Point Arena starting April 1.

"I urge everyone in Mendocino County to become familiar with the MLPAI and the process currently underway for the area from Point Arena to the Oregon border," Hamburg concluded. "A good place to start is with Frank Hartzell’s excellent series that ran in the Fort Bragg Advocate-News last summer. Additional information is available on the Albion Harbor Regional Alliance website at albionharbor.org."

Hamburg is a well respected North Coast political leader, environmental advocate and writer. While in Congress, Hamburg authored the Headwaters Forest Act, a bill that passed the House overwhelmingly. After leaving Congress, he was active in the struggle to preserve the 60,000 acre Headwaters Forest Complex.

Since 1997, Hamburg has served as Executive Director of Voice of the Environment, a 501 (c-3) not-for-profit Montana-based corporation formed in 1991. The group's mission is to "educate the public regarding the transfer of public trust assets into private, mostly corporate, hands."

Hamburg is now running for the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors. He was on the board from 1981 to 1985.

Hamburg joins a growing group of environmentalists, Indian Tribes, commercial fishermen, recreational anglers and elected officials that are challenging Schwarzenegger's MLPA process for its conflicts of interests, mission creep and corruption of the democratic process.

In December, Organic Sacramento, a local environmental and sustainable food group, co-sponsored the "Organic Capital Celebration of Sustainability" with Friends of the River to honor individuals and organizations for their outstanding work on crucial water issues, including the campaigns to restore the Delta and stop the peripheral canal, to stop the Nestle Water Plant in Sacramento and for environmental justice under the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA).

The groups honored Atta P. Stephenson, traditional North Coast tribal seaweed harvester, for her dedication to defending tribal fishing and seaweed harvesting rights under the MLPA process, as well as for her many efforts on behalf on environmental water justice. Kim Glazzard of Organic Sacramento also recognized Vern Goehring of the California Fisheries Coalition and Edwin Nieves of the Mendocino Seaweed Stewardship Alliance for the great work they have done to fight for the rights of sustainable fishermen and seaweed harvesters under threat by the MLPA initiative.

The North Coast MLPA process is in its initial stages. The recently appointed MLPA stakeholder group held its first meeting in Eureka on February 7 and 8.

The group includes 32 residents of Del Norte, Humboldt and Mendocino counties within the MLPA North Coast Study Region, which encompasses state waters from the California-Oregon border to Alder Creek near Point Arena in Mendocino County. The stakeholder group includes "representatives of recreational angling and diving groups, tribes, commercial fishing and other ocean-dependent business interests, ports and harbors, conservation groups, educational and research interests, and government agencies," according to a news release from the MLPA Initiative.

Real environmentalists oppose the attempt by Schwarzenegger and his collaborators to kick commercial fishermen, tribal seaweed harvesters, commercial seaweed harvesters and recreational anglers and divers off public trust ocean waters to clear a path for offshore oil rigs, wave energy projects and corporate aquaculture. They support those who are fighting for social and environmental justice both inside and outside of the MLPA process.

Local fishermen named to MLPA group

2010-02-17T16:14:00.000-08:00

Ukiah Daily Journal
February 16, 2010

Jim Bassler, a Mendocino County commercial fisherman, has been added to the Marine Life Protection Act North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group. The stakeholder group is responsible for developing recommendations for alternative marine protected areas to help the State of California implement the Marine Life Protection Act.

There was a local push to get someone from this county in a position on the stakeholder list and calls and letters went to the director of Fish and Game, John McCamman, and the chairwoman of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force, Cindy Gustafson, to request more representation of commercial fishing interests in the Mendocino County area.

Members of the stakeholder group are intended to help ensure that multiple perspectives are heard as the state prepares to close off new ocean areas for protection.

"Bassler has the experience and ability to reach out and include not only commercial fishing interests but also the interests of all communities along the Mendocino coastline," Gustafson said.

Bassler is a small-boat fisherman who fishes primarily for nearshore rockfish, crab and salmon along the Mendocino coast; he a member of the Salmon Trollers Marketing Association in Fort Bragg.

Bassler's addition brings the stakeholder group to a total of 32 residents of Del Norte, Humboldt and Mendocino counties within the MLPA North Coast Study Region, which encompasses state waters from the California-Oregon border to Alder Creek near Point Arena in Mendocino County.

The stakeholder group will work with a blue ribbon task force, science advisory team, and MLPA staff to help California improve the design and management of the north coast portion of a statewide network of marine protected areas.

Meetings have begun, the first of which were held in Eureka at the beginning of February.

Fore more information about the MLPA Initiative, please visit www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa.

Officials show concern

2010-02-17T16:12:00.000-08:00

By Barbara Diamond, Laguna Beach Coastline Pilot
February 11, 2010

Emergency actions taken by the City Council at the Feb. 2 meeting reflected city officials’ concerns about the health of Laguna’s coastal waters and its denizens.

The council voted unanimously to direct the city manager to ensure that a city staff member of his choice or an elected official would attend hearings that pertain to the council majority’s support for a citywide marine reserve and to endorse a federal grant to restore the abalone population along Laguna’s shoreline.

Councilwoman Jane Egly sponsored the addition of the item titled “State Marine Reserve” and Mayor Pro Tem Toni Iseman introduced the item “Application for a Federal Grant to Support Abalone Revitalization.”

Both items were added to the agenda on a 4-1 vote. Councilman Kelly Boyd voted against the addition of both items because he did not see them until 1 p.m. the afternoon of the meeting and felt the public did not have time to respond to the proposals.

Although Boyd seconded the motion on Egly’s recommendation, he said his support was limited to Egly’s position that City Manager Ken Frank is the person to pick who goes to what meetings to represent the city.

“I am still absolutely opposed to the reserve,” Boyd said Wednesday.

Representation at state hearings

Egly agreed that Boyd supported her opposition to a suggestion by Councilwoman Verna Rollinger that the city’s marine safety officer be assigned to attend the meetings.

“It is my understanding that what Kelly supported was the recommendation that the city manager direct who goes to Fish and Game [hearings],” Egly said. “I don’t believe at all that he was supporting the city’s position on this [reserve] issue.”

Egly, Boyd and Mayor Elizabeth Pearson opined that the council should not usurp the city manager’s authority over staff assignments.

City employees have assigned duties that could conflict with meeting dates, Frank said. Besides, he said, sometimes it was more appropriate for the mayor or an elected official to represent the city at public meetings.

Frank added that he had tried to find out when or if the Fish and Game Commission would be considering the Laguna Beach Marine Reserve, but was unsuccessful. It is also possible that the Orange County Task Force that developed proposals for South County could be reconvened.

“We need to know what meetings are coming up and what person is appropriate to attend them,” Pearson said.

Egly said that was the substance of her motion.

Laguna resident Fred Sattler urged the council to appoint a member of the Marine Life Protection Act process to represent the city.

“We need someone who was part of the process,” Sattler said. “We need someone who can say why Laguna Beach was chosen as a reserve and why it should be the length of the city.”

During public comment, South Laguna resident Barbara Pincheny claimed scare tactics were being used to turn the public against the reserve, which is favored by many environmentalists.

Bill Shedd, who conducted the store-front collection of signatures of local voters opposed to the reserve, said less than 50 of the people he personally spoke to out of the 1,900 signators agreed with the council’s position.

“The majority of folks who live here aren’t in favor of what the city [council] is doing and I am having a tough time with spending money on something people don’t want,” Shedd said, referring to the cost of sending a representative to the meetings.

Boyd noted that the Fish and Game Commission indicated that a final decision on the marine reserve designation would be a lengthy process, and a decision might not be reached until the fall.

Abalone restoration sought

Iseman brought the second item to the council: sponsorship of a $200,000 grant application for a project to increase the diminishing number of abalone off Laguna’s shores.

She said Nancy Caruso, known as the Kelp Lady, would be responsible for most of the work related to the application. The grant application must be submitted through a municipal, county or state government, according to a staff report.

Caruso reported that the program would involve local schools and other organizations in planting up to 1,000 abalone per year.

Boyd took issue with the report, which outlines the history of California’s once-abundant abalone population, and states that the abalones were decimated by commercial fishing after the 1950s.

“Many abalones were killed through withered foot disease, not just taking by humans,” Boyd said.

Mendocino County Asks for More Local Representation on MLPA Panel

2010-02-17T16:07:00.000-08:00

By Dan Bacher, IndyBay
February 11, 2010

The Mendocino County of Supervisors has told state officials overseeing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's controversial Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative that more representation of the diverse interests found in the county is needed on the Regional Stakeholder Group (RSG).

"We are concerned that the slate of RSG appointees for Mendocino County does not adequately represent the diverse interests of our county," said Carre Brown, chair of the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, in a February 9 letter to California Department of Fish and Game Director John McCamman and MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force Chair Cindy Gustafson.

"The appointment of additional stakeholders, representing critical interests which currently appear underrepresented or completely omitted, will ensure that a more comprehensive cross-section of our community is able to participate in this process. This enhanced diversity will ultimately lead to a better final product," Brown stated.

Brown pointed out that the RSG appointments for Mendocino County now include 3 educators, 3 tribal representatives, 1 ornithologist, 1 commercial fisherman, and 3 individuals with experience in seaweed harvesting, sea urchin diving and processing, and recreational fishing.

The stakeholder group will work with a blue ribbon task force, science advisory team, and MLPA staff "to help California improve the design and management of the north coast portion of a statewide network of marine protected areas," according to Annie Reisewitz from the MLPA Initiative.

Brown charged that the southern portion of the County "has no representation." She urged McCamman and Gustafson to appoint RSG nominees, Mike Carpenter and Bruce Campbell, both of Albion, since they "have met or exceeded the RSG selection criteria."

She also criticized the lack of commercial fishing representatives from Mendocino County. After receiving many letters from local residents, the MLPA staff finally appointed Jim Bassler, a commercial fisherman from Fort Bragg, to the panel on February 6.
"Even with the MLPAI's recent nomination of Jim Bassler, there is limited Mendocino County representation for commercial crab, salmon, and nearshore permit holders," said Brown. "Stakeholders with this unique background have invaluable knowledge regarding seasonal trends in fish and invertebrate populations (abundance and distribution), and rare oceanic events typically experienced only by individuals actively working in the commercial sector."

She urged the two officials to appoint RSG nominee Tom Estes, a commercial groundfish and large boat crab fisherman, to fill this gap in representation.

Finally, Brown noted that Del Norte and Humboldt County Harbor District are represented on the RSG, while Mendocino County's Noyo Harbor District is inexplicably not.

"This representation on the RSG could be attained through the appointment of Jim Burns, Noyo Harbor Commissioner, or a similar delegate," she said.

The Fort Bragg City Council on February 10 also sent a letter to Gustafson and McCamman requesting them to appoint a member of the RSG from the Albion area. "Four persons from that port followed the nomination process set out by the MLPAI, and all were passed over," wrote Doug Hammerstrom, Mayor, Dave Turner, Vice Mayor, Meg Courtney, Council Member, Dan Gjerde, Council Member, and Jere Melo, Council Member.

The Council disputed the MLPA staff's claims that the process is "open and transparent," when they believe the process is in fact plagued with a lack of transparency and bias.

"The MLPAI staff has repeatedly praised the process as being public and open," the letter stated. "Yet there are many deviations from the announced process. For the North Coast RSG, a specific process with deadlines was established for nominatinos, interviews and appointments."

The Council emphasized that this process was not used in the appointment of some RSG members, pointing to "a lack of transparency and bias that undermines the integrity of the entire MLPA."

"This is a very serious problem," they concluded, "and the MLPAI will continue to suffer from a lack of public trust until a truly open and public process that considers local communities is imposed."

The stakeholder group currently includes total of 32 residents of Del Norte, Humboldt and Mendocino counties within the MLPA North Coast Study Region, which encompasses state waters from the California-Oregon border to Alder Creek near Point Arena in Mendocino County. The first meeting of the stakeholder group was held in Eureka on February 7 and 8.

North Coast environmentalists, fishermen, Indian Tribes and seaweed harvesters have strongly criticized the MLPA process for being rife with conflicts of interests, mission creep and corruption of the democratic process. Many believe that Schwarzenegger and his collaborators are using the MLPA Initiative to remove tribal seaweed gatherers, recreational anglers, commercial seaweed harvesters and commercial fishermen, the greatest advocates for the preservation and restoration of ocean fisheries, to clear a path for offshore oil rigs, wave energy projects and corporate aquaculture.

The MPLA, a state law passed in 1999 with support from a broad coalition of environmentalists and fishermen, has under Schwarzeneggger become a surrealistic parody of marine "protection," with oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corporate interests overseeing the process, critics of the initiative charge.

Stakeholder group enters MLPA process

2010-02-09T10:59:00.000-08:00

By John Driscoll, Eureka Times-Standard
February 9, 2010

A 32-member group of people representing North Coast and state interests in the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative met for the first time Monday in front of video cameras and big screens connected to a dock of laptop computers.

The kickoff of three Regional Stakeholder Group meetings was meant to introduce the members to the process of developing marine reserves -- or Marine Protected Areas -- off the North Coast. Initiative staff told the group that they were chosen because they are believed to be good listeners committed to finding common ground.

"This is heavy lifting,” said MLPA Initiative Executive Director Ken Wiseman. “This is passionate.”

The planning process for the 1999 act is just beginning in the fourth of five regions, this time in state waters along the coast of Humboldt, Del Norte and Mendocino counties. The act calls for a coordinated network of zones that are off limits or restricted to fishing and gathering, and has been a major source of controversy among fishing and tribal communities along the California coast.

The beginning of the two-day meeting at the Red Lion Hotel was meant to establish some ground rules and lay out procedures the group will be following. The group is charged with sending along a small number of proposals -- or “arrays” -- to a Blue Ribbon Task Force, which will make recommendations to the state Fish and Game Commission, which is scheduled to make a final decision in December. Along the way, a Science Advisory Team will review the proposals.

The diverse interests, competing uses and different expectations of those in the group will make the process challenging, said MLPA Initiative Program Manager Melissa Miller-Henson.

"Challenges are actually opportunities in disguise,” Miller-Henson said.

Miller-Henson said that the group is not meeting to debate the merits for the MLPA or the usefulness of MPAs, or to identify a certain percentage of state waters that should be included in MPAs.

Eight different arrays have been submitted to the initiative and are undergoing a technical review. A proposal submitted by the North Coast Interest MPA Work Group calls for a handful of marine protected areas that it believes will minimize economic harm to fishing, gathering and traditional tribal uses. Others range from fewer areas with less restrictions to more MPAs with a higher level of protection.

There are three basic types of MPAs. A marine reserve is the most restrictive, allowing no extractive activities. A state marine park limits all commercial fishing and gathering and can restrict recreational fishing and gathering. A state marine conservation area puts special restrictions on, but allows, both commercial and sport fishing and gathering.

Recently appointed Blue Ribbon Task Force member Jimmy Smith, also Humboldt County's 1st District supervisor, welcomed the group. He said that the expertise of the individuals on the stakeholder group will guide and inform the task force through a project of great magnitude and complexity.

"You are in the lead,” Smith said.

The Regional Stakeholder Group is expected to meet again in May.

Mix-up to begin for MLPA proposals

2010-02-09T10:56:00.000-08:00

By John Driscoll, Eureka Times-Standard
February 7, 2010

A number of proposals to create marine reserves off the North Coast have gone into the blender, as a 31-member group formed under the state Marine Life Protection Act Initiative meets for the first time on Monday.

A group of local stakeholders and conservationists say their proposals are meant to soften the economic and social blow anticipated with the shutting down or restricting fishing and gathering in some areas along the sparsely populated coast. But while several proposals are roughly similar, few of them appear to meet the guidelines set up by the 1999 act.

That means that whatever comes out of the mix over the next year is likely to be more restrictive than what local interests have proposed. The initiative's staff are currently reviewing the submissions, which are expected to be made public on Feb. 16.

Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Conservation Director Adam Wagschal said that each type of reserve proposed in various coastal habitats is added up to meet the state's requirements. Wagschal coordinated the proposal submitted by the North Coast Local Interest MPA Working Group -- composed of local agencies, commercial and sport fishing and other stakeholders from Humboldt, Del Norte and Mendocino counties.

"Everything contributes a certain amount toward meeting the guidelines,” Wagschal said.

According to those guidelines, each marine reserve should stretch along at least 3 to 6 miles of coast, but preferably be 6 to 12.5 miles long. They should also be within 31 to 62 miles of each other. That's based on the idea that larvae from fish and other organisms can travel between reserves.

The guidelines have been challenged by local fisheries biologists who say the North Coast's habitats and currents are different than the rest of the state's, and should be treated differently. They also cite existing closures and fishing regulations that currently limit fishing in both state and federal waters in the region, much of which is inaccessible due to weather for large portions of the year.

The North Coast is the fourth of five regions in which the MLPA has planned marine protected areas -- or MPAs -- which range from restricting all fishing and harvesting of shellfish and seaweed to allowing some commercial fishing and gathering. The reserves are in state waters, which go out 3 miles along California's 1,100-mile coastline.

The first set of reserves proposed by the North Coast interest group calls for a 21-square-mile reserve from the Del Norte County line to just south of the mouth of the Smith River. Moving south, another marine reserve is proposed for the area north of Reading Rock, and butts up against a marine conservation area in shallower waters to the east. Commercial crab fishing would be allowed in the conservation area. Much of the reserve area around the rock is already off limits to rockfish fishing, which can't be done in water deeper than 120 feet.

The next reserve to the south is a special marine recreational management area pitched for the southwestern portion of Humboldt Bay. This encompasses much of the bay's important eel grass habitat and estuaries flowing into South Bay, but hunting and clamming would be allowed.

A 13.2-square-mile marine conservation area is proposed for the area around the mouth of the Eel River, where crabbing would still be allowed but salmon trolling in shallow water could be restricted. An existing rockfish conservation area at Punta Gorda would effectively be expanded to a marine reserve of 19.4 square miles on either side of the mouth of the Mattole River, under the proposal.

The North Coast group opted not to propose any MPAs around Shelter Cove, Wagschal said, out of concern that the small fishing community could suffer disproportionately from any further restriction.

Tim Klassen, who runs the charter operation Reel Steel Sportfishing out of Eureka, said that the proposal for the most part avoids major losses to sport fishing along the coast. Klassen said he believes it fulfills the spirit of the MLPA while leaving most valuable fishing areas open. But it's no cause for celebration, Klassen said, as the process to form MPAs is just getting started.

“Are we excited about it?” Klassen said. “No.”

A series of meetings of the 31-member regional stakeholder group will be held over the next several months to hammer out proposals -- or “arrays” -- to be sent to the state's Blue Ribbon Task Force. It will develop a set of proposals in March, narrow them down in May, and select one to three arrays in September. A Science Advisory Team will review the proposals along the way.

"There's a whole lot of opportunity between February and September for the public to be actively involved in providing input,” said initiative Program Manager Melissa Miller-Henson.

That group will make final recommendations to the Blue Ribbon Task Force, which will then select a preferred proposal to send to the California Fish and Game Commission, which is expected to receive the proposal in December.

Environmental groups Humboldt Baykeeper and the Ocean Conservancy have proposed a similar set of reserves for the North Coast, with some exceptions. They have proposed a conservation area off False Cape just north of the Klamath River mouth, and an addition to the one proposed for the west side of Reading Rock. The North Coast group's reserve off Punta Gorda is a conservation area in the environmental group's proposal, and is shifted slightly south.

The MPAs proposed by the North Coast group would allow traditional tribal uses, hunting and gathering for cultural, subsistence and ceremonial purposes. Yurok Tribe Acting Self-Governance Officer Megan Rocha said that the tribe saw a lot of support in the community, but questioned whether the state would be satisfied with the exceptions. If the language isn't accepted, Rocha said, the tribe won't support any MPA in Yurok ancestral territory.

"There's still quite a bit of work to be done to make sure that tribal uses along the coast are not affected in any way,” she said.

The Humboldt Baykeeper and Ocean Conservancy proposals calls for only conservation areas, the least restrictive type of MPA. That is a difference in approach taken by the North Coast group and the environmental groups in trying to protect American Indian traditional fishing and gathering uses along the coast.

Ocean Conservancy spokeswoman Jennifer Savage said there is not a clear method for allowing tribal uses laid out in the MLPA. She said the difference between the two groups' proposals doesn't represent a difference in intent, but rather in approach.

Savage said the conservation groups pitched a separate proposal to include other areas in the mix in an effort to meet state guidelines, not because there was a major disagreement on what areas should be MPA's.

"These are just conversation starters,” Savage said. “Nobody is looking at it like an absolute.”

There are also several other proposals for MPAs along the North Coast, some of which pitch smaller and less restrictive zones and others which look to create larger but less restrictive areas.

The end product is also likely to change substantially as different organizations, including major environmental organizations, weigh in. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Mendocino Chapter of the Sierra Club have proposed a series of MPAs which they say fully protect 8 percent of state waters and partially protect 9 percent of state waters between the Oregon border and Punta Gorda. Their proposal is focused on several areas to the south of Punta Gorda.

The two groups' maps of the reserves have been forwarded to the initiative, but are not yet available for viewing on an MLPA clearinghouse Web site.

Even with the North Coast working group's relatively light-touch proposal, commercial fishermen say they've made major concessions. The Pelican Bay reserve area is in significant Dungeness crabbing grounds, for example, and crabbing is the most valuable fishery the North Coast fleet has left. Humboldt Fisherman's Marketing Association President Aaron Newman said that the local groups have worked well together in drafting the proposals -- but that the association can't sign off on them, even though it helped create the North Coast working group draft.

"We're going to lose,” Newman said. “Why would anyone endorse a loss?”

MLPA Initiative Announces New Member of Stakeholder Group

2010-02-09T10:54:00.000-08:00

By Dan Bacher, IndyBay
February 7, 2010

Under political pressure from North Coast fishermen and environmentalists, California’s MLPA Initiative staff on Saturday, February 6 announced that Jim Bassler, a Mendocino County commercial fisherman, has been added to the MLPA North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group.

The stakeholder group is responsible for developing recommendations for "alternative marine protected areas" to help the State of California implement Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's controversial fast-track Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process.

"This past week, many citizens contacted the director of Fish and Game, John McCamman, and the chair of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force, Cindy Gustafson, to request more representation of commercial fishing interests in the Mendocino County area," according to Annie Reisewitz from the MLPA Initiative.

"Members of the stakeholder group are intended to help ensure that multiple perspectives are heard in the MLPA Initiative’s marine protected area planning process," Reisewitz stated. "Jim Bassler has the experience and ability to reach out and include not only commercial fishing interests but also the interests of all communities along the Mendocino coastline. Bassler is a small-boat fisherman who fishes primarily for nearshore rockfish, crab and salmon along the Mendocino coast; he a member of the Salmon Trollers Marketing Association in Fort Bragg."

Bassler’s addition brings the stakeholder group to a total of 32 residents of Del Norte, Humboldt and Mendocino counties within the MLPA North Coast Study Region, which encompasses state waters from the California-Oregon border to Alder Creek near Point Arena in Mendocino County.

The stakeholder group will work with a blue ribbon task force, science advisory team, and MLPA staff "to help California improve the design and management of the north coast portion of a statewide network of marine protected areas," said Reisewitz. The first meeting of the stakeholder group is Monday, Feb. 7 and Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2010 at the Red Lion Inn, 1929 Fourth Street in Eureka.

"We're pleased that Jim Bassler was appointed," said Jim Martin, the Mendocino County MLPA Outreach Coordinator. "He was one of the people nominated by the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors to be on the stakeholders group. However, there are still gaps in representation from Mendocino County."

For example, there are no representatives from Albion Harbor or from grassroots ocean protection groups, such as Judith Vidaver, chair of the Ocean Protection Coalition. "We hope the initiative staff fills these gaps," said Martin.

Collectively, the stakeholder group members represent "broad interests and perspectives" from the states north coast region, from the border with Oregon to the Point Arena area in Mendocino County, according to a Department of Fish and Game news release. The stakeholder group includes representatives of recreational angling and diving groups, tribes, commercial fishing and other ocean-dependent business interests, ports and harbors, conservation groups, educational and research interests, and government agencies.

Critics of Schwarzenegger's MLPA process have charged that the process is rife with conflicts of interest, mission creep and the corruption of the democratic process and violates tribal sovereignty by not considering traditional seaweed gathering and fishing rights.

For more information about the MLPA Initiative, please visit http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa.

Below is the list of members of the stakeholders group prior to the addition of the new member:

California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

Members of the North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group
Revised January 27, 2010

Steve Chaney, Superintendent, Redwood National Park

Russ Crabtree, Tribal Administrator, Smith River Rancheria

Greg Dale, Southwest Operations Manager, Coast Seafood Company

John Dixon, Ecologist, California Coastal Commission
Henry “Ben” Doane, board member, Humboldt Area Saltwater Anglers and Klamath Management Zone Fisheries Coalition
Brandi Easter, member, Humboldt Skin Divers

Don Gillespie, retired teacher and board member, Friends of Del Norte and Smith River Alliance

Benjamin Henthorne, Environmental Coordinator, Hopland Band of Pomo Indians

Jacque Hostler, Chief Executive Officer and Transportation & Land-Use Director, Trinidad Rancheria

Robert Jamgochian, educator, Mendocino High School of Natural Resources

Dave Jensen, President, Mendocino Coast Audubon Society

Tim Klassen, Owner, Reel Steel Sportfishing

Larry Knowles, Owner, Rising Tide Sea Vegetables

Zack Larson, Consultant, Zack Larson and Associates and Chair, Del Norte County Fish and Game Advisory Commission

William Lemos, retired teacher and consultant, Natural Resources Defense Council

Kevin McGrath, member, Shelter Cove Fisherman’s Alliance

Kevin McKernan, California Program Director, National Conservation System Foundation

Aaron Newman, President, Humboldt Fisherman’s Marketing Association

Pete Nichols, Executive Director, Humboldt Baykeeper

Charlie Notthoff, Owner, Nothoff Underwater Service

Megan Rocha, Assistant Self Governance Officer, Yurok Tribe

Jennifer Savage, North Coast Program Coordinator, The Ocean Conservancy

Valerie Stanley, member, Noyo River Indian Community

Atta Stevenson, Acting President, Inter-Tribal Council of California and member, Laytonville Rancheria

Thomas Trumper, Owner/diver, Pacific Rim Seafood

Adam Wagschal, Conservation Director, Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District

Rob Wakefield, member, Del Norte Fisherman’s Marketing Association

Reweti Wiki, Tribal Administrator, Elk Valley Rancheria

Harold Wollenberg, professional geologist

David Wright, member, NorCal Kayak Anglers and Vice Chair, Surfrider Foundation’s Mendocino Chapter

Richard Young, Chief Executive Officer and Harbormaster, Crescent City Harbor District

MPA plans due Monday

2010-02-09T09:17:00.000-08:00

Groups are trying to reach an accord on restricted areas

By Kurt Madar, The Daily Triplicate
February 01, 2010

Marine protected areas are coming to the North Coast, and a local effort to influence where and what size they are culminates Monday.

The MPAs could include the establishment of no-take zones for fishermen.

The state-sponsored Marine Life Protection Act Initiative includes an option that allows MPA proposals to be submitted by individuals and groups outside of the official process.

Meanwhile, part of the official process is forming a Science Advisory Team (SAT) and a Regional Stakeholder Group, both of which will be responsible for developing the state-sponsored proposal for the location and types of MPAs along the North Coast.

The names of the regional stakeholder group were released Thursday night.

External proposals for potential MPAs are developed by individuals and groups outside of the SAT or stakeholder group, and they have to be submitted by Feb. 1.

In response to the MLPA Initiative starting its process along the North Coast, local governments and organizations formed a work group in an effort to have a cohesive region-wide alternative proposal.

“We’ve been working non-stop to meet the deadline,”

said Zach Larson, Del Norte County’s work-group coordinator. “We were looking to have one external array proposal for the whole region, but now it looks like there may be as many as six.”

This was not due to a lack of cohesiveness in the North Coast effort to submit an external proposal, he said.

Larson said that the people on a tri-county work-group have not only worked well together, “they have been able to compromise and everyone learned a lot about working together as a region.”

“We invited all 18 groups that sent in an intent to submit (external proposal),” Larson said. “There were a lot of cross interests.”

Of the various external proposals that may be submitted Monday, Larson feels that the one that represents Del Norte County is as palatable as possible.

“Our goal was to meet all the science guidelines while limiting the effect on the local economy as much as possible,” Larson said.

Nine of the 31 members of the North Coast stakeholder group whose names were released Thursday are Del Norte County residents. The North Coast study region includes Mendocino, Humboldt and Del Norte Counties.

Local members include:

• Redwood National Park Superintendent Steve Chaney
• Smith River Rancheria Tribal Administrator Russ Crabtree
• Smith River Alliance and Friends of Del Norte board member Don Gillespie
• Fisheries Biology consultant Zach Larson
• National Conservation System Foundation California Program Officer Kevin McKernan
• Yurok Tribe Assistant Self Governance Officer Megan Rocha
• Del Norte Fisherman’s Marketing Association member Rob Wakefield
• Elk Valley Rancheria Tribal Administrator Reweti Wiki
• Crescent City Harbormaster Richard Young

Another View: Wardens not staffed for sufficient enforcement

2010-02-09T09:15:00.000-08:00

By Jerry Karnow, Special to The Sacramento Bee
January 31, 2010

California's Fish and Game wardens are responsible for enforcing fishing and hunting laws, and have jurisdiction over illegal water diversions and water pollution. Wardens are the front-line defense for all natural resources that belong to all 38 million Californians.

We are California's "environmental police." Shamefully, California has the "lowest ratio of wardens to population of any state or province in North America," as stated in The Bee article "Wildlife panel seeks furlough exception" (Capitol & California, Jan. 23).

It is impossible for the warden force to effectively enforce existing regulations, much less new regulations that the Fish and Game Commission approves over our objections. Many of the regulations approved by the commission will not protect the natural resources of California. They will serve only one purpose; they will stretch the warden force ever thinner, which will eventually result in another warden's on-duty injury or death.

We take no policy position on the Marine Life Protection Act. Yet the act is a hollow regulation and unenforceable. The Department of Fish and Game has reported to the commission that enforcement cost for the Marine Life Protection Act for the first year of implementation will be $27 million and annually thereafter, the cost for enforcement will be a minimum of $17 million. While it seeks to design Marine Protected Areas, my warden colleagues have a different meaning for "MPA" – we call them Marine Poaching Areas. Since the protection act closes productive fishing areas, poachers will know where to rape our resources, and they will know that there is unlikely to be any law enforcement presence or legal anglers present to turn in poachers.

The governor does not support wardens; his actions speak louder than words. He says he supports wardens but his Department of Personnel Administration opposes the warden request for severance from their current bargaining unit. He keeps wardens on furlough yet eliminates furloughs from non-sworn peace officers in our own bargaining unit.

Commissioner Richard Rogers of Fish and Game has approved new regulations knowing they cannot be enforced. Rogers said in the article that "I'm very disappointed the governor chose to restrict the amount of time that the wardens can put in." Hopefully, Rogers will change his position and oppose regulations placing additional duties upon wardens.

We truly appreciate the commission's letter to the governor. But, it is our hope the commission will back up its words with action, otherwise they are just words and meaningless echoes of the governor.

Save the Date! Fishermen's Cioppino Dinner at Portugese Hall March 13

2010-02-09T09:13:00.000-08:00

The North Coast Fishing Association, in conjunction with the California Fisheries Coalition, will be hosting a family-style cioppino dinner on Saturday, March 13, at Portugese Hall in Fort Bragg. Doors open at 5 p.m., with a raffle, auction and no-host bar.

Proceeds support the engagement of the local fishing community in the MLPA process. The North Coast Fishing Association has been supporting a lawsuit against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for its lack of a comprehensive plan on wave energy projects.

Support your sustainable seafood providers and sample locally caught seafood. For more information, call (707) 964-3710. Tickets ($35 per person) are available at the Noyo Fishing Center and Redwood Liquors in Fort Bragg.

If you want to promote our local fishing communities, call us. We need donations of seafood, volunteers and raffle items.

Save the date and spread the word!

MLPAI: The Thousand-Year View

2010-02-09T09:12:00.000-08:00

By John Lewallen, Public Ocean Access Network

The conflict between “conservationists” and “preservationists” as it shapes fisheries policy and law is analyzed by Laura L. Manning in her 1989 study focused on marine mammals. “Preservationism,” as practiced by the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPAI), exploits a culturally suicidal belief that human beings must be removed from the ocean food chain in order to keep fisheries from collapsing worldwide.

This belief is obviously untrue on California’s North Coast, where we have enjoyed two annual seasons of super-nutritious upwelling in the world’s cleanest and best-managed ocean fishery in the world.

Living with North Coast wild seaweed for thirty years, I see that in a thousand years the intertidal and nearshore ocean will always be a basic source of essential human nutrition. People will use the same access points, and the same fishing and diving areas, as have been used for the past thousand years.

Now the “preservationists” are so-called “environmentalists” who oppose the basic inspiration of the environmental movement: the truth that human beings are part of the Earth’s whole ecosystem. The protectionists fantasize a pristine, primordial ocean ecosystem without humans in it, much as the European invaders of North America fantasized an uninhabited, virgin wilderness.

The sea otter and harp seal are the preservation movement’s best money-producing poster children. The preservationists who drive the MLPAI are primarily funded by ocean industrialists: corporate money, coming through Packard and Pew, made anonymous by the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation.

Ocean industrialists and the new preservationists love each other, and they are leading the world on a suicidal quest to remove essential ocean food providers from the ocean food chain. The industrialists have bought a science to make a new marine management orthodoxy out of Marine Protected Areas, acting primarily through Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS).

In California today, the government is broke; the super-rich and big corporations have all the money. In the MLPAI process, the Pew-Packard-RLFF finances the Governor, the Legislators, the foundation-funded careerists in protectionist groups, the process itself, Fish & Game Commissioners, the mass media.

With a thousand-year eye, this attempt to impose no-take zones on North Coast fisheries is foredoomed. The people doing it are trying to cut themselves off from essential food for human health and survival. It won’t work here, not for long.

Supervisors approve part of MLPA request

2010-01-25T12:10:00.001-08:00

By John Driscoll, Eureka Times-Standard
January 20, 2010

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved partial funding of a project to measure the anticipated social and economic effects of the Marine Life Protection Act on the North Coast.

Supervisors approved $50,000 to go to the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District to look into the value of fishing along the coast, a project to help gauge the impacts of forming marine reserves here. The Harbor District, which is coordinating a large group of governments, tribes and stakeholders, had asked for nearly $200,000 from the Headwaters Fund Community Investment Fund.

But the Headwaters Fund Board said it wanted the district to show that it had more matching funds for the study and more public support before funding the remainder of the request. It approved $50,000 in funding. Supervisors on Tuesday approved that amount for the first phase of the study and asked the Headwaters Fund Board to consider the remainder of the request at its Feb. 16 meeting.

Harbor District Executive Officer Dave Hull voiced concern about the tight timeline set up by the state for developing the network of marine reserves, and said that it's vital the North Coast be able to show how they will affect the economy and way of life here.

Hull laid out a slate of other grants the district earned to look into the status of fish populations on the North Coast and to help develop proposed marine protected areas. That funding totals about $250,000.

”It's all one big package,” Hull said. “We need all of that information.”

The MLPA aims to set up a network of marine reserves meant to protect habitat and species along the California coast. In the North Coast study area, nearly every elected body has expressed concerns about the potential for the process to harm the region's economy and way of life.

”There will be damage done to the coastal fisheries, that's for sure,” said 1st District Supervisor Jimmy Smith.

Supervisors also approved an agreement among counties, tribes, cities and special districts to coordinate efforts regarding the Marine Life Protection Act. The board is asking for applications from those interested in serving on the North Coast Local Agency Coastal Coordination Committee for up to three years. Two representatives for the county are expected to be chosen at the Feb. 8 supervisors' meeting.

Supes to give Humboldt Bay's MLPA efforts Headwaters funding

2010-01-25T11:47:00.000-08:00

By Donna Tam, Eureka Times-Standard
January 18, 2010

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors may financially support a study about the potentially negative impact the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) would have on the local community.

The board will vote on the $50,000 Headwaters Fund grant to the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District's proposed pre-MLPA study on Tuesday.

The board will also discuss entering into an agreement with the Harbor District to provide staff and organizational assistance for any MLPA-related coastal projects.

The MLPA aims to set up a network of marine reserves meant to protect different habitats along the California coast, such as rocky areas and kelp forests, as well as the species that live in them.

The process has been controversial in other areas of the state, and in the North Coast study area essentially every elected body has expressed concerns about the potential for the process to harm the region's economy and way of life.

According to a staff report, the Headwaters Board is recommending the grant because the analysis being done for the MLPA will not consider the economic impacts beyond the dock, including dock activities, processing, or fishing industry-related products.

The Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District is trying to contract with a company, Impact Assessment Inc., to do a report that will detail current socioeconomic trends, conditions and the effects the MLPA would have on commercial and recreational fishing sectors and associated businesses and communities.
The Harbor District requested almost $200,000 from the Headwaters Fund to cover the entire cost of the report, but the Headwaters Board is asking the district to pursue other funding sources as well.

The Headwaters grant will pay for the first phase of the study, which will characterize the existing socioeconomic conditions as they relate to the fishing industry.

The Headwaters Fund is also recommending the approval of three other grants totaling about $80,000. The fund

is recommending awarding about $16,000 to the Humboldt County Agriculture, Nature and Heritage Tourism Project, about $16,000 to the Mattole Diversified Economy Project, and $48,000 to the Eel River Digital Media Academy.

Schwarzenegger Tours Earthquake Damage As MLPA Proceeds on Fast Track

2010-01-25T11:42:00.000-08:00

By Dan Bacher, IndyBay
January 14, 2010

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday toured damage caused by the 6.5 magnitude earthquake that took place in the Eureka area of Humboldt County on Saturday. He also received a briefing on the status of recovery efforts as the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force was holding its meeting in Crescent City.

On Tuesday, Schwarzenegger proclaimed a state of emergency in Humboldt County due to the earthquake that impacted the northern coast of California, disrupted utilities and damaged hundreds of homes and businesses.

"Luckily there were not lives lost; we were very happy when we heard about that," said Schwarzenegger. "However, it did cause damage to 251 buildings, homes and businesses in this area here. We estimate the total damage that was caused to exceed $43 million."

"This is why on Tuesday I declared a state of emergency here in Humboldt County. This will cut through the red tape," he added.

However, if Schwarzenegger is so concerned about the disaster-stricken residents of the North Coast, why did his staff go ahead with conducting the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force meetings held in Crescent City Wednesday and Thursday? You would think that Mike Chrisman and the MPLA Initiative Team would have the compassion to cancel the meeting at a time when many businesses and residents are dealing with the aftermath of the earthquake damage. The meeting could have been easily rescheduled.

Even better yet, why won't Schwarzenegger really help out North Coast communities by suspending the MLPA initiative in light of strong criticism of the process by the overwhelming majority of the residents of the region?

The Kashia Pomo and other tribes will be removed from their traditional gathering areas off Stewarts Point and Point Arena when the new Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) on the North Central Coast go into effect on April 1, 2010. We cannot allow the MLPA process to remove more North Coast tribes from their traditional gathering areas as the initiative, a process infested with conflicts of interest, mission creep and corruption of the democratic process, unfolds on the North Coast north of Point Arena.

Atta P. Stephenson, a traditional North Coast tribal seaweed harvester who was honored by Organic Sacramento and Friends of the River in December for her many efforts on behalf on environmental water justice, has strongly criticized the fast-track MLPA process for violating traditional tribal seaweed gathering and fishing rights.

"The MLPA process has railroaded communities and tribes in southern and central California and now has come to the North Coast," said Stephenson at the Organic Capital Celebration of Sustainability in Sacramento. "The state is calling areas where we traditionally harvested seaweed 'no take' zones where seaweed gathering will no longer be allowed."

Kenyon Hensel to MLPA Task Force: "Please Leave This Area"

During Thursday's meeting, recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, environmentalists and representatives of North Coast Indian Tribes provided excellent, heart-felt testimony to the task force about their concerns with the MLPA process.

“We all (North Coast tribes) are aligned as far as our way of life is concerned,” said David Gensaw Sr., a Yurok tribal councilman, as quoted in the Crescent City Triplicate by reporter Kurt Madar (http://www.triplicate.com/20100115107950/News/Local-News/MLPA-panel-hears-local-concerns). “We know how serious this is, and we’re here to tell you how serious it is to us.”

"Since you continue to deny our local requests and act without a majority of local people on your Task Force, it is plain you do not have our best interests in mind," said Kenyon Hensel, a Crescent City fisherman. "Please leave this area and move on to some other part of California. Leave us and we will continue the creation of our own reserves and the side-by-side management of our resources that will exceed the intent of the MLPA. Give us three years and support our local effort if you are truly interested in seeing meaningful management of our renewable ocean resources."

I encourage everybody who supports environmental justice to read Hensel's excellent article in the Daily Triplicate about the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative and Native American sovereignty at http://www.triplicate.com/20100113107931/Opinion/Editorials/Coastal-Voices-Guest-Opinion-Native-sovereignty-and-the-MLPA.

Environmentalists and fishermen must support tribal seaweed gathering and fishing rights on traditional areas on the North Coast - and stand firm against any attempts by the state of California to pursue a "divide and conquer" strategy under Schwarzenegger's MLPA process. The fast-track MLPA initiative is being promoted by the same Governor who has presided over the collapse of Central Valley salmon, Delta smelt and other fish populations - and is planning to drive imperiled fish species into the abyss of extinction by building a peripheral canal and more dams to expedite the export of Delta water to corporate agribusiness and southern California.

Below is a copy of Hensel's testimony before the task force:

To the Blue Ribbon Task Force,

These are some of the unique local qualities you must take into consideration before further restricting access to our local renewable ocean resource.

Our area has the highest unemployment rate in the state. Our county is one of the poorest in California. The state or federal government owns over 75% of our county land, depriving us property taxes needed to maintain services. Our local jobs and revenue streams must be protected to offset this loss. Historically isolated from state population centers, our community knows the value of self-sufficiency. If you do not honor that value, you diminish both our community and our state.

The coastal waters of this management area already have the strictest rules of anywhere in the state. Because of these rules, our sport season is now measured in weeks, and our commercial landing limits are at less then ten percent of historic levels. Our harbor sport slip rental has gone from 1000 boats 15 years ago to less then 40 now. Our local commercial near shore fleet has been reduced from over 70 boats to less then 18. These reductions are due to fishing regulations applied since the MLPA was passed, restrictions that have greatly increased the overall stocks of fish, while locking them out reach. The crab fleet has grown, but that harvest is a boom and bust cycle, barely keeping the small near shore boats going. This has strained our fishing community and it’s infrastructure to the point of collapse. We can’t take the burden of more closures.

Local weather severely limits our time on the water, and how far small boats that fish the near shore can safely travel. We regularly experience less then 120 fishable days a year. More then half of those days, weather limits safe travel and time on the water. Closing fishing areas we can reach, where we have been traditionally fishing, will compound these conditions. Making us jump over a MPA to reach fishable waters creates an unacceptable risk to life and property.

There is no imminent environmental threat that justifies creating hardships for our coastal communities. All sea going mammals and their haul out areas, sea birds and their rookeries, coral and invertebrates are fully protected by existing federal and state laws.

The MLPA can be interpreted many ways. The initiative you are acting under is a narrow-minded approach, little but window dressing, to true effective fishery management. You are not using the accepted MPA science or process to create marine reserves. Without the science and the time we have asked for, you are only making little no fishing areas. They will drain enforcement, and create a false sense of higher protection. The process you are pushing will only lower the protection of our resources.

Since you continue to deny our local requests, and act without a majority of local people on your Task Force, it is plain you do not have our best interests in mind. Please leave this area and move on to some other part of California. Leave us and we will continue the creation of our own reserves and the side-by-side management of our resources that will exceed the intent of the MLPA. Give us three years and support our local effort if you are truly interested in seeing meaningful management of our renewable ocean resources.

Coastal Voices Guest Opinion: Native sovereignty and the MLPA

2010-01-25T11:40:00.000-08:00

By Kenyon Hensel, Special to the Daily Triplicate
January 13, 2010

The process to close off public access in our ocean waters is now entering a critical stage.
Local groups, hoping to keep important access open, have almost finished their proposals for closures. This process will result in one group of possible Marine Protected Area sites that match the sizing and spacing requirements of the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. It is a local good-faith effort to minimize the impact of the closures on our fishing community.

This well-meaning group can’t change the MLPA Initiative process. The Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) makes the final decisions. This is the group that will decide what closures to send to the state Fish and Game Commission. They can choose from the proposals that come from the local arrays now being finished, the future Science Advisory Team (SAT), or Regional Stakeholder Group (RSG) yet to be formed. These proposals may or may not include local arrays. The Blue Ribbon Task Force is also allowed to mix, match or make up its own.

The biggest oversight of the MLPA Initiative process has been ignoring Native American rights to hunt and gather. This has left everyone involved in the North Coast process very uncomfortable. The local groups preparing MPA sites, whose members include first-nation representatives, cannot make any decisions affecting those rights. Yet, they are forced to try and propose sites, or leave the decisions completely to some one else.
No one locally can resolve this issue, but the Blue Ribbon Task Force will discuss it at their meeting here in Crescent City on Thursday. The task force also does not have the power to decide the issue, the only way this can be resolved is if the state enters into direct talks with the sovereign Indian nations.

For all of you who care about maintaining access to our renewable ocean resources, please take the time on Thursday to attend the task force meeting at the Elk Valley Rancheria conference room.

The meeting starts at 8 a.m. Public comment is on the agenda at 12:30. I will be trying to comment on the futility of this process and how destructive it is to our communities. We need everyone who cares about access to our renewable ocean resource to be there. Please join us and watch history being made.

Kenyon Hensel is a local fisherman who has been closely involved with California’s MPA process.

Governor Can Really Help North Coast by Suspending MLPA Process

2010-01-13T15:20:00.000-08:00

By Dan Bacher, IndyBay
January 11, 2010

On January 10, Melissa Miller-Henson from the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative sent a message to the "north coast community" regarding the magnitude 6.5 earthquake that struck the Eureka area Saturday. The quake damaged homes and businesses, toppled chimneys, knocked out traffic signals, snapped power lines and left a trail of broken windows, dishes and bottles.

"The MLPA Initiative staff would like to extend our deepest and most heartfelt wishes to those living in the Eureka area," the MLPA I-Team stated. "It has been a relief to hear from news reports that there were no fatalities and, overall, the region fared relatively well given the magnitude of the earthquake. May you and yours be safe and out of harms way."

That's nice that Miller-Henson and the MLPA "I-Team" are expressing their "deepest and most heartfelt wishes" to those living in the Eureka area. However, what would be even nicer if Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Secretary of Natural Resources and the MLPA "I-Team" would really help out the communities of the North Coast by immediately suspending the Governor's fast-track MLPA process.

In fact, if the Schwarzenegger administration is so concerned about the people recovering from the earthquake on the North Coast, they should cancel the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force set for this Wednesday, January 13 and Thursday, January 14, 2010 at the Elk Valley Rancheria Community Center in Crescent City!

The fast-track MLPA Initiative, a process infested with conflicts of interest, racism and corruption of the democratic process, is opposed by a broad coalition of environmentalists, fishermen, Indian Tribes and North Coast cities and communities.

On December 24, Secretary of Natural Resources Mike Chrisman turned down a request by a coalition of North Coast fishermen, tribes and local governments for more time to draft marine protected areas (MPAs), keeping the widely-contested process on Schwarzenegger's fast track. Chrisman rejected the request, sent by Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Commissioner Pat Higgins on behalf of the North Coast Local Interest MPA Workgroup, because he felt that an additional extension of the deadline is "unnecessary at this time."

"While I understand your concerns and have thoroughly considered the points you raised regarding the timeline and availability of information, I am confident that given that all that is available to you now, the current timeline provides ample opportunity for your group to submit a quality first-round draft array," said Chrisman, a Central Valley agribusinessman who has been an adamant proponent of the peripheral canal, more dams and the destruction of Central Valley salmon and Delta smelt populations.

Chrisman will retire from state "service" on February 1 to continue his career of corporate greenwashing at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. He will be replaced by Lester Snow, the Director of the Department of Water Resources. Hopefully, Snow will respond to the grassroots movement against the MLPA initiative and suspend this process.

Just as Schwarzenegger and his staff are fast-tracking the MLPA process to kick Indian Tribes, fishermen and seaweed harvesters off traditional areas on the ocean, they are relentlessly pushing for the construction of the peripheral canal and new dams and the gutting of Endangered Species Act protections for Central Valley salmon and other fish species. There is nothing "green" about the MLPA process, since it aims to privatize ocean public trust resources to serve the interests of the oil industry, real estate companies, marina developers, water districts and corporate agribusiness.

As John Lewallen said so eloquently, "It is unconscionable for true environmentalists to participate in the MLPAI process of cultural genocide. May we Californians put a stop to the genocidal MLPAI, support Tribal Sovereignty, and emulate the sense of personal and cultural sovereignty of the tribal peoples of Northern California."

Visalia rancher to leave state post

2010-01-13T15:16:00.002-08:00

Chrisman is retiring as secretary of resources agency

By E.J. Schultz, Fresno Bee
January 5, 2010

Visalia rancher Mike Chrisman will retire next month as the state's Natural Resources Agency secretary to take a job at a fish and wildlife foundation, he said Tuesday.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- who continues to deal with turnover among top officials in his final year -- appointed Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow to replace Chrisman, who will depart Feb. 1.

Chrisman, a 65-year-old Republican, is the third-longest-serving secretary in Schwarzenegger's Cabinet. He took the job in November 2003, but kept his Visalia home, commuting to Sacramento nearly every weekend.

"For the past seven years, Mike has worked tirelessly with me to safeguard our state's precious natural resources and I am grateful to him for his service to the people of California," the governor said in a statement.

The Natural Resources Agency manages 17,000 employees in departments overseeing California's water, wildlife, fish, forests and parks.

Chrisman's retirement follows the recent departures of other top-ranking officials, including Schwarzenegger's finance director, and leaders at Caltrans and the Employment Development Department.

Chrisman said he will start his new job Feb. 1 as director of the southwest partnership office of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit directs public and private money to environmental projects. Chrisman will maintain his Visalia residence, he said.

Snow, a 58-year-old Democrat, last year played a key role negotiating an $11 billion water bond pushed by the governor. The bond still requires voter approval in November. The Senate has a year to confirm Snow, who can serve in the interim, earning a salary of $175,000.

The office of Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, did not immediately comment on the appointment, although it is not expected that Snow will face stiff opposition.

To replace Snow, the governor picked Democrat Mark Cowin, a longtime water department official. Schwarzenegger also appointed John McCamman as director of the Department of Fish and Game. McCamman, a Republican, has been acting director since November. From 1994 to 2003, he was chief of staff for Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa.

Chrisman's tenure was highlighted by the implementation of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy. The grant-giving organization seeks to safeguard the environment and economy of 25 million acres in the state's eastern mountain range.

Chrisman also created a public-private partnership to implement the state's Marine Life Protection Act, which calls for the protection of the state's coastline from overfishing.

In recent years, Chrisman dealt with severe budget cuts that led to a decline in game wardens and cutbacks in the state's parks budget.

"Chrisman led the Resources agency though some very difficult times," said Kim Delfino, California program director at Defenders of Wildlife, an environmental group. "Not all decisions were perfect. But on the whole, I think he did a good job as secretary."

Harbor grants to help fisheries research, MLPA efforts

2010-01-13T15:16:00.001-08:00

By John Driscoll, Eureka Times-Standard
January 7, 2010

The Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District has netted $250,000 in grants to coordinate efforts during the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative process and for other related fisheries research.

A $50,000 grant from the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation will help fund the district's work with fishermen, tribes and conservation groups to develop proposals for Marine Protected Areas along the North Coast. The proposals will be submitted to the initiative and the state, which are developing a network of areas off limits or restricted to fishing and other harvesting in California waters.

The North Coast region, including virtually every elected body in Humboldt, Del Norte and Mendocino counties, has opted to try to work in a unified manner to pitch concepts for MPAs, which are supposed to cover a wide variety of nearshore habitats.

Another grant for $198,490, also from the foundation, will go toward a collaborative fisheries research program, which would draw in the district, Humboldt State University and fishermen from the three counties. The goal of the program is to gather information on fish populations -- information that is sorely lacking -- along the North Coast.

District Conservation Director Adam Wagschal said that some of that data may be gathered in time to influence the end of the MLPA process locally. But the program will be more valuable for long-term management of MPAs and other fisheries regulations. For example, the program will look at assumptions about whether fish populations are more affected closer to ports, he said.

District Commissioner Pat Higgins said that the program would begin to collect the information needed to “unlock” the richness off the coast, as access to many fish is regulated based on precaution, not because there is data showing the are struggling.

”We got a jump-start with this grant,” Higgins said.

Natural Resources Defense Council Brings Big Oil’s Agenda to North Coast

2010-01-13T15:13:00.000-08:00

By John Lewallen, Public Ocean Access Network, oceannetwork [at] mcn.org

There has to be another word to define the “foundation-funded corporations” such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which calls itself an “environmentalist” organization. Created by oil money and awash in Pew Charitable Trust funds, the NRDC brings big oil’s agenda wherever it operates.

On California’s North Coast, the NRDC is working in tandem with the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation to make sure the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPAI) gets the Foundation-preferred alternatives enacted on tight schedule.

Karen Garrison, may she enjoy good health, is NRDC’s lead employee in helping other foundation-funded corporations deal with problems met in the MLPAI process of trying to separate California’s ocean food providers from public ocean waters and intertidal zones.

Now operating on California’s North coast, the MLPAI is operating a cruel private process of imposing permanent zones where sustainable ocean food providers are permanently banned.

My wife Barbara and I were “processed” in the North Central Coast by the MLPAI, where ancient tribal food-gathering areas were permanently closed, along with vital, sustainable abalone diving, fishing, and seaweed harvesting habitats.

Karen Garrison of the NRDC both was a “conservation stakeholder” in the stakeholder process involving ocean food providers, and acted as an MLPAI official in doing interviews in the Point Arena area. I have seen Karen Garrison encourage complaining ocean food providers to make their own “external array,” which is a complete closure plan. Then I saw her organize mobs of ill-informed “conservationists” to come to key hearings and tell Fish & Game Commissioners to ignore the voices of ocean food providers present, and enact the Integrated Preferred Alternative.

In the North coast, the NRDC and another foundation-funded corporation, the Ocean Conservancy, have hired field agents from the community to promote and advance the MLPAI agenda. I believe it is a conflict of interest for any NRDC employee to participate in any of the community “external array” processes now in progress.

At best, a good-hearted community member employed by the NRDC is in danger of being used by the NRDC to advance their corporate agenda in community groups.

Now we environmentalists must distinguish between democratically run and membership-funded groups such as the Sierra Club (usually), the Ocean Protection Coalition and the Mendocino Environmental Center, contrasted with foundation-funded corporations such as NRDC, heavily funded and influenced by big corporate money.

The Natural Resources Defense Council was founded with a big Tides Foundation grant (see ActivistCash.com). The Tides Foundation is the first money-laundering foundation, doing “donor-advised giving,” open about where the money goes, but not where it comes from. Other sources show that the Pew Charitable Trusts has poured over $40 million into Tides.

The Resources Legacy Fund Foundation (Foundation) is also a money-laundering foundation. Who is really directing MLPAI Executive Director Ken Wiseman, my beautiful friend so transparent in deception? The money trail leads to the Resources Law Fund, a legal group committed to donor confidentiality.

The MLPAI team, who are all Foundation employees, are running the MLPAI with no legislative oversight, under authority given to them by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the California Resources Agency. This is a very destructive and divisive process, and I believe this MOU should be cancelled as soon as possible.

I could find only two grants made by the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation in 2002: $500,000 to the NRDC, $264,000 to Tides. Now the Foundation funds and controls the MLPAI, and even has granted modest sums for North coast external array participants.

The Pew Charitable Trusts: Oil Money

Started by Joseph Pew with profits from the oil company he founded, Sun Oil, the Pew Charitable Trusts now deploys the biggest profits ever made in the history of profits, oil company profits, into managing America in a direction oil companies like.

Of the two top NRDC financial supporters, the first, Energy Foundation (almost $15 million between 1991-2005) was founded by a Pew grant, and the second is Pew itself (almost $13 million from 1991-2000).

The presence of Katherine Reheis-Boyd, CEO of the Western States Petroleum Association, on the MLPAI North coast Blue Ribbon Task Force is further sign of oil industry influence in the MLPAI process. Nothing in the MLPAI would stop the ongoing process of opening offshore oil and gas drilling along the North coast, a major Petroleum Association goal.

Ms. Reheis-Boyd is also the oil industry’s international expert on climate change policy. This leads to “cap and trade,” a moneymaking shell game that big polluting corporations and the NRDC love, but real pollution control activists hate.

NRDC, Cap-and-Trade, Draining Salmon Habitat: Real Environmentalists React

A Nov. 30 Huffington Post story covered the Mobilization for Climate Justice Demonstration against the NRDC. The NRDC has joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, along with America’s great oil companies and greenhouse gas emitters. “U.S. CAP played a pivotal lobbying role in drafting the massive Waxman-Markey climate bill in the House which, while calling for modest emission reductions, will also create an exponentially lucrative carbon trading market...what some activists call a new system of climate profiteering,” wrote Joseph Huff-Hannon.

California Delta water activist Daniel Bacher reports that NRDC representatives worked out backroom deals supporting the water legislation package, ramrodded through the Legislature by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg in early November, that creates a clear path to the construction of the peripheral canal and more dams. “Northern California water activists--tribal leaders, environmentalists, fishermen, Delta family farmers and community leaders--feel sold out by the NRDC in their signoff on this water catastrophe for Northern California,” said Bacher.

The External Array Process: Cruel Deception

By encouraging the external array process and even hiring a community member to participate in it, the NRDC is both setting community members against each other, and stimulating the community to get organized to support sustainable ocean food providers. Both the NRDC and the Foundation would be wise to ask the new Resources Secretary, Mr. snow, to join in stopping the MLPAI process. We ocean food providers of the North Coast always are, have been, and will be, ready for government help in protecting our vital and sacred home, the ocean ecosystem and intertidal zone.

I am afraid the vain hope that the MLPAI process may be good for people and ecosystems if citizens help make closure maps--the external array process--sometimes keeps people from the inevitable task of organizing to stop the privatization of California resources management. It is not sustainable to try to close huge, vital public areas of North Coast Ocean and intertidal zones, rapidly and with no reason, in the beginning of a spiraling depression that already has almost one-third of Mendocino County residents food-insecure.

The NRDC, the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, and other foundation-funded corporations are going to fail in their bid to privatize public access to the North coast’s ancient and sacred ocean food habitats. People are an integral part of the North coast ocean ecosystem. Dear foundations, please spare our society this suicidal, exhausting attack on the North Coast’s sustainable ocean food providers!

Natural Resources Agency chief Chrisman steps down

2010-01-06T11:11:00.000-08:00

By Kevin Yamamura, Sacramento Bee
January 6, 2010

Mike Chrisman said Tuesday he is leaving his job as Natural Resources Agency secretary in February for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Lester Snow, director of the state Department of Water Resources, will succeed Chrisman, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Tuesday.

Chrisman, 65, is one of the few remaining Schwarzenegger aides who have been with the governor from the start. He will be in charge of the foundation's Southwest Partnership Office, working in San Francisco.

Snow, 58, who takes over Feb. 1, has led the Department of Water Resources since 2004. He will earn $175,000.

In turn, Mark Cowin, 51, will take over DWR. Cowin, now deputy director of integrated water management, has worked for the department for 29 years. He will earn $149,496.

Lester Snow to Replace Mike Chrisman as Natural Resources Secretary

2010-01-06T10:54:00.000-08:00

By Dan Bacher, IndyBay
January 5, 2010

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Lester Snow as Resources Secretary on Tuesday to replace Secretary Mike Chrisman, who announced his retirement from state service effective February 1, 2010 to work in a new position at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Snow has distinguished himself by presiding over the unprecedented collapse of Central Valley salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other species as Director of the Department of Water Resources. During his tenure, corporate agribusiness and southern California water agencies exported the record water exports out of the California Delta that precipitated the collapse.

Record water export levels occurred in 2004 (6.1 MAF), 2005 (6.5 MAF) and 2006 (6.3 MAF). Exports averaged 4.6 MAF annually between 1990 and 1999 and increased to an average of 6 MAF between 2000 and 2007 under the Davis and Schwarzenegger administrations, a rise of almost 30 percent.

Schwarzenegger praised Snow for his role in developing the peripheral canal and dams water package that was was rushed through a special legislative session by Schwarzenegger, Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass in early November 2009.

The water package, developed in back door negotiating sessions between Legislative leaders, the Westlands Water District, Metropolitan Water District, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Conservancy and Environmental Defense Fund, completely excluded the input of Delta Legislators, fishermen, Indian Tribes, environmental justice communities and Delta residents.

"Throughout the course of my Administration, Lester has used his high-level expertise in public resource management to protect California's water supply," Schwarzenegger gushed. "With his skills and knowledge, Lester served a key role in developing the historic comprehensive water package to reform and rebuild our state's water infrastructure that will benefit future generations of Californians. I am confident that he will bring that same level of commitment and dedication to managing the agency in this new role and I look forward to working with him to preserve California's invaluable natural resources."

"I am extremely honored by the opportunity to continue serving my fellow Californians in this new position," claimed Snow. "One of California's greatest treasures is its natural resources and I am committed to working with the Governor to promote policies that protect our environment and preserve these invaluable assets for future generations to come."

Schwarzenegger also lauded Mike Chrisman, criticized by fishermen, environmentalists and Indian Tribes for his relentless efforts to build the peripheral canal and new dams and fast track the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, for his "dedicated years of service."

"For the past seven years, Mike has worked tirelessly with me to safeguard our state's precious natural resources and I am grateful to him for his service to the people of California," said Schwarzenegger. "He is a dedicated public servant and I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors."

According to Kevin Yamamura in the Sacramento Bee, "he said he hadn't anticipated leaving, but the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation job 'was an opportunity that presented itself, and I couldn't turn it down.'"

Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA), said that nothing really has changed with the appointment of Snow as Natural Resources Secretary.

"Snow has always been Resources Secretary," said Jennings. "Schwarzenegger is just putting a title with his job that he's actually held for a long time. Lester was the architect of the Delta's collapse as the head of Cal-Fed. Nothing's different with his appointment today - it's basically a case of musical chairs."

In regard to Mike Chrisman's retirement, Jennings quipped, "he was a loyal deputy for Lester Snow for many years."

Snow has served as director for the California Department of Water Resources since 2004. From 2004 to 2001, he was a principal in a "water resource consulting company." Prior to that, Snow served as the Mid-Pacific regional director of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

From 1995 to 1999, he served as the executive director of the CALFED Bay-Delta program and, prior to that, spent seven years as the general manager of the San Diego County Water Authority. Snow's experience also includes six years with the Arizona Department of Water Resources including four years as the Tucson area director.

Snow, 58, of Fair Oaks, earned a Master of Science degree in water resources administration from the University of Arizona, and a Bachelor of Science degree in earth sciences from Pennsylvania State University. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $175,000. Snow is a Democrat.

The Governor also announced the appointment of Mark Cowin as director of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the appointment of John McCamman as the director of the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG).

Mark Cowin, 51, of Sacramento, is a DWR insider. He has served DWR for 29 years in various positions, most recently as deputy director of integrated water management for the Department of Water Resources since 2007, where he has overseen DWR's flood management and dam safety programs, implemented integrated regional water management, coordinated DWR's efforts related to climate change, and updated and implementing the California Water Plan.

Prior to that, Cowin served DWR as chief of the division of planning and local assistance from 2002 to 2007 and assistant director for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program from 1998 to 2002. From 1981 to 1998, he served in a variety of other engineering positions at DWR. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering from Stanford University.

This position requires senate confirmation and the compensation is $149,496. Cowin is a Democrat.

McCamman, 56, of Sacramento has since 2006, served as chief deputy director of DFG where he has been acting director since November 2009 and previously from 2007 to 2008. McCamman was senior vice president for Fleishman-Hillard Government Relations from 2003 to 2006 and chief of staff for U.S. Congressman George Radanovich from 1994 to 2003. Prior to that, he was county administrative officer for Shasta County from 1992 to 1994 and Mariposa County from 1987 to 1992.

This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $142,965. McCamman is a Republican.

John Lewallen, a member of the Ocean Access Network, was hopeful that Schwarzenegger's new appointees will cancel the Memorandum of Understanding that gives all power of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative to the Resources Legacy Foundation, a private corporation. "This will allow Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger a chance to avoid leaving a legacy of fisheries fascism and the privatization of California resources management before he leaves office," said Lewallen.

Chrisman out at Resources; Gov taps Lester Snow to replace him

2010-01-06T10:52:00.000-08:00

By Molly Peterson, Southern California Public Radio
January 5, 2010

Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman has been one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's closest allies in the last seven years. Guess that's enough: he's leaving the department, as of February 1.

Climate change has given Chrisman a higher profile: he was with Schwarzenegger in Copenhagen, for example, and has featured prominently in the Governor's global climate summits the last couple of years. (Apparently he had trouble getting credentialed in Copenhagen, so he met with state-level officials about forestry issues.) So has ocean protection: just recently, following the completion of the South Coast region's Marine Life Protection Act process, Chrisman denied a [ed. 4:28 pm] second extension request from Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Commissioner Pat Higgins on behalf of the North Coast Local Interest MPA Workgroup to lengthen the time for considering and gathering data. Chrisman said the region had more data than anyone else so far has had, at that point in the process; just get on with it.

Anyone who's paid attention to CALFED or to water politics generally in California knows who Chrisman's intended replacement, Lester Snow, is. Here's what the Governator said about him in the press release:

"Throughout the course of my Administration, Lester has used his high-level expertise in public resource management to protect California's water supply. With his skills and knowledge, Lester served a key role in developing the historic comprehensive water package to reform and rebuild our state's water infrastructure that will benefit future generations of Californians," said Governor Schwarzenegger. "I am confident that he will bring that same level of commitment and dedication to managing the agency in this new role and I look forward to working with him to preserve California's invaluable natural resources."

AB 32, the climate legislation, has created a lot of work for the state's EPA, air board, and resources agencies to deal with - usually in the form of mandates. Those mandates are really beginning coming to fruit this year and next. It'll be interesting to see how Snow handles all that.

AND ANOTHER THING:Accompanying the Chrisman-Snow announcement, Schwarzenegger announced his pick a new DFG chief: John McCamman. McCamman is the second this year. Earlier, Schwarzenegger picked another guy as Fish and Game director; his appointment got stuck in turnaround, as they say in the movie industry. Or, as they say in the political industry, the state Senate.

Lester Snow may not have trouble getting over the Senate-confirmation hurdle. Hard to know if the same is true about McCamman, though. It's been a tough few years for the DFG. The warden's union is apoplectic about diminishing numbers and flat salaries. Outdoorsmen aren't fond of Schwarzenegger and Chrisman's steady progress on building marine protected areas. If I were a robot, perhaps with serial number P7QFAK33MK4C, I'd say, "bleep-boop." Which means, "more data needed."

AND FINALLY: Mark Cowin may bump up a step from deputy to director of the Department of Water Resources, if the governor gets his way on all three appointments. That'll keep him reporting to Snow, so maybe those guys already have a shorthand worked out. Signals for ending long meetings. that sort of thing.

UPDATE: Guess this will go smoothly. At 4:40 pm, from Modesto Republican Dave Cogdill:

I’ve had the distinct pleasure of working closely with both Lester Snow and Mark Cowin on the comprehensive solution to improve the state’s water supply.

“Lester is a tireless public servant and his expertise on managing the state’s resources is unparalleled. I have no doubt that Lester will be a successful new leader of the Resources Agency.

“I am also glad that the transition will be seamless with the appointment of Mark Cowin as the new Department of Water Resources Director. Together, we’ve made tremendous strides to ensure clean and safe water is available for all Californians and I look forward to working with Mark and Lester on the additional work that lies ahead to protect our state’s natural resources.”

NRDC, Sierra Club Propose to Close Coast From Mendocino to Caspar

2010-01-06T10:51:00.000-08:00

By Tomas DiFiore, IndyBay
January 5, 2010

At last night's Mendocino Ocean Community Alliance meeting in Fort Bragg, Bill Lemos, the NRDC consultant who wears a hat by a different constituent user group each time he appears anywhere to speak about Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), and who has been instrumental in both slowing the MOCA group's ability to accomplish anything from the onset, continues now to rush to submit a MPA external array proposal of 'their' own and rejects community discussion!

Each group within MOCA that is preparing an external array for the Tri-County workgroup, has brought their array up for discussion at MOCA meetings. The last MOCA meeting was held in Albion. Maps were drawn by ocean seafood providers. At the nearly 4 hour meeting, almost 30 people were present and conversed with each other. Lemos left before the meeting was half over.

At last night's meeting Bill Lemos cut short any discussion by saying "discussion is not an agenda item" while pressing everyone to move forward, and rejected the group's offer to come to Albion on this Saturday with most MOCA members to hammer out agreements on external MPA arrays.

Albion Harbor Regional Alliance has been hosting the digital Marine Map efforts to complement efforts by Local Ocean Food Providers to find acceptable common ground with Underwater Park Advocates who have their own agenda, not necessarily marine life protection in it's orientation.

Last night's proposal by Bill Lemos speaking on behalf of the NRDC, Sierra Club, and Conservation First! is big! It closes access to seafood harvested in coastal waters from Mendocino to Caspar. All forms of extractive use would be banned except Salmon fishing. The closure as planned, is a SMR from the mouth of Big River north to Caspar, with a SMCA component to allow Salmon fishing. For more information, call Tomas DiFiore, 707-937-4378.

South Coast Marine Protection Plan Formulation Is A Drawn-Out Process

2010-01-06T10:48:00.000-08:00

Final Decision Is Not Expected Now until the Fall of 2010

By Suzanne Guldimann, Malibu Surfside News
January 3, 2010

The process of choosing an implementation plan for the south coast region of the California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative is going to be complicated and time consuming. That was the official warning at the start of the Dec. 9 joint meeting between the MLPA South Coast study region’s Blue Ribbon Task Force and the California Fish and Game Commission, the state panel charged with making the final decision on establishing a statewide network of Marine Protected Areas.

Over 160 public speakers addressed the commission. At one point the meeting was halted, while security was dispatched to deal with unruly audience members, but generally, the tone of the event was cordial.

“It’s very important that everyone understand that the Fish and Game Commission is not going to make any decisions about adopting a project or any one of these packages today,” commission vice president Richard Rogers, who chaired the meeting in the absence of President Jim Kellogg, told the audience. “Our process is we go through three public meetings. These three public meetings will probably stretch all the way into October, so there’s going to be a lot of time for people to see what’s happening and to bring us more information.

Rogers added that the final decision would probably not be made until late fall of 2010. “We have a long way to go past today. The deliberative process is very important. We want to understand the packages thoroughly. Today is the Blue Ribbon task Force reporting to us their findings.”

For the past 18 months, the BRTF has worked with the official Regional Stakeholder Group, Science Advisory Team, and the public to develop proposals for creating Marine Protected Areas in the region that extends from Point Conception to the Mexican border and includes a hotly contested area of reefs off of Point Dume in Malibu.

Four proposals, or packages, have come out of that process. The RSG developed three final revised proposals: P3R, favored by conservation interests; P2R, preferred by fishing interests; and P1R, a compromise between 3 and 2. The BRTF developed its Integrated Preferred Alternative, or IPA, based primarily on P1R and P2R.

According to the Science Advisory Team, the Point Dume area is significant because it contains a large and unique submarine canyon, the Big Kelp Reef and vital areas of kelp forest. It would receive protection in three of the five plans.

The Point Dume portion of the IPA, drawn directly from Proposal 1, incorporates a State Marine Reserve, which would prohibit all fishing from the west end of Paradise Cove to the outflow of Zuma Creek at Westward Beach. It also includes a State Marine Conservation Area from Zuma Creek to El Matador Beach at Lechusa that would permit fishing for a limited number of species. According to the SAT, “the IPA [for Point Dume] was developed in a way to capture the submarine canyon as much as possible and keep half of the BKR open.”

Tribal co-management for the proposed MPAs in Malibu was also discussed at the meeting. “Co-management is a strong theme running through the South Coast region” BRTF member Meg Caldwell told the commission. “Very capable groups are reaching out to participate in co-management.”

During public comment, Chumash representative Luhui Isha, the cultural resource director for the Wishtoyo Foundation in Malibu, requested that the commission consider a Memo of Understanding with the Chumash for the proposed MPAs at Point Dume and Lechusa in Malibu.

“We can and will assist with outreach, education, restoration. We have a village [at Nicholas Beach] set up and ready to help,” Isha told the commission. The Chumash proposal includes what Wishtoyo representatives described as “eyes on the water,” to help DFG patrol the proposed MPAs.

Wishtoyo founder and executive director Mati Waiya reminded the commission that the names Malibu and Zuma come from the Chumash language, and that the Chumash have a place in the history, tradition and heritage of the coast.

The South Coast Region is the third of five California coastal regions to go through the MLPA process. The commission opted to adopt task force recommendations with few changes in both the North Central and Central Coast regions, however, the South Coast Region is more complex bcause it includes the most heavily urbanized part of the coast and the areas that receive the highest level of recreational use in the state.

The commission had tough questions for the SAT and task force and stakeholder representatives.

“What I’ve seen time and time again is political expediency trumping biological bottom line,” Michael Sutton, the commissioner from Monterey told the SAT. “[The proposals are] at best, a lean compromise. Are you satisfied that each meets guidelines? Is it going to work from a biological perspective?

“The larger an MPA is, the more likely you are to achieve the desired goal,” replied SAT spokesperson Eric Bjorkstedt. “That’s not to say that the IPA would fail, we cannot say that definitively. What we can say is that...the packages that have been submitted are on the small size across the board.”

Asked if “it is fair to say that Proposal 3 is ranked best in each category—size, spacing and habitat,” the science team responded “The answer is clearly yes.”

Commissioner Donald Benninghoven of Santa Barbara moved to accept the report as presented.

“I suspect many of us would differ on what is the preferred alternative,” Rogers said, at the end of the daylong meeting. “The BRTF has done an extraordinary job, and as you know in the past we’ve gone forward with the BRTF recommendations. In this case, with Jim Kellogg missing and not our full compliment of commissioners, I think it is appropriate to go forward listing the IPA as the preferred project and then all of the other proposals.” He reminded the commission that this was not a regulatory vote. The commission voted to pass the motion with only Commissioner Daniel Richards, of Upland, casting a no vote.

The lengthy process of developing California Environmental Quality Act and regulatory documents will now begin. The commission directed staff to prepare a draft and initial statement for the commission’s public March 2010 meeting in Upland. Additional information on the MPLA process is available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/

Local group’s MPA request gets rejected

2010-01-06T10:42:00.002-08:00

More time was sought for alternative plan

By Kurt Madar, The Daily Triplicate
December 31, 2009

The North Coast will not get another deadline extension as the process to establish marine protected areas moves forward.

A request from Del Norte, Humboldt and Mendocino counties to extend the deadline for designating protected areas along the North Coast was denied by The California Natural Resources Agency.

The extension request was submitted by the North Coast Local Interest MPA Work Group.

The group, which is a collaborative effort of the three counties, was formed to create a proposal for potential marine protected areas external to the state-driven process.

According to representatives from all three counties, if not done properly, MPAs could do lasting harm to the economies of North Coast communities that rely on harvesting the ocean.

Agency Secretary Mike Chrisman said he denied the request because he didn’t believe the tri-county group had a legitimate need for more time to submit a viable first draft.

“We already extended the deadline once (from Dec. 14 to Feb. 1),” said Ken Wiseman, executive director of the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. “This is just the first draft deadline, we’re trying to get all the ideas on the table.”
Fisheries biologist Zach Larson, the outreach coordinator for Del Norte County’s portion of the work group, said he wasn’t surprised by the action.

“It took the help of Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro to get the first extension,” Larson said. “We’re aren’t happy about having to rush what should be a carefully thought process, but the work group will have a proposal by the Feb. 1 deadline.”

Wiseman said the initiative and the state try to keep any extensions at the end of year-long process.

“We have a limited amount of money, which means we have to stick to a pretty strict timetable,” Wiseman said. “If we need more time we take it on the final decision when we really need it.”

Wiseman added that there was more data available for the North Coast than any of the three other study regions that have already gone through the process.

“There’s enough data to work with for us to come up with a map,” Larson said. “We set the tri-county work group deadline for sub-region proposals (county specific) for Jan. 5. That way we have until Feb. 1 to integrate them.”

Three types of MPAs could be established on the North Coast.

The three levels of protection are primarily based on the severity of the take limit. From least restrictive to most, they include marine conservation areas, marine parks, and marine reserves (which would be no-take areas).

The prospect of no-take areas is what most worries some people.

Del Norte’s 22 member work group, responsible for submitting a regional proposal, contains representatives from local government, fishermen and local tribes and it seeks to protect areas of economic and cultural importance by placing MPA’s outside of fishing grounds and traditional harvesting areas.

“We’ve only have one meeting left before we have to submit our proposal to the tri-county group,” Larson said. “But that’s not the end of everything. Then reps from each community group will get together and integrate them into one external proposal. Our goal is to have only one external proposal for the North Coast region.”

Who Runs the MLPAI?

2010-01-06T10:42:00.001-08:00

By John Lewallen, Public Ocean Access Network, Philo
December 31, 2009

The memorandum of understanding (MOU) setting up the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPAI) at is essential reading for anyone dealing with the MLPAI “external array” process.

This MOU is a major document in California history. In exchange for partial funding of the MLPAI process, the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation is given total control. It is the first step in the privatization of ocean resource management of California’s public ocean waters and intertidal zone.

The MLPAI process is run by employees of the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, controlled by a secret group of corporate foundations. Any party to the Memorandum of Understanding--the Foundation, the California Resources Agency, or the California Department of Fish and Game--can withdraw from the MOU on forty days’ notice.

Perhaps the cruelest distortion of the 1999 Marine Life Protection Act in the MOU is its setup of a Blue Ribbon Task Force to present a set of alternative plans for permanent closure of public ocean access to the Fish and Game Commission. The Act mandates a single MLPA process, run lawfully by the state, directed by biologists familiar with Northcoast fisheries, involving all affected parties. Here on the Northcoast, well-meaning citizens are set against each other in a fear-driven “external array” process rife with misinformation and rushed deadlines.

The sooner Californians unite to cancel this Memorandum of Understanding, the easier it will be to end this crazy, suicidal attack on public access to sustainable food from the ocean, essential food.

Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman recently said that the State of California will never have enough public money to pay wardens to guard the new Marine Protected Areas. We should not be allowing private interests, with their many private plans for our clean ocean waters, cut us off with private guards from access to California’s public ocean waters and intertidal zone.

State denies extension for MLPA proposal

2009-12-31T09:32:00.001-08:00

By John Driscoll, Eureka Times-Standard
December 29, 2009

The secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency has turned down a request by a tri-county group for more time to draft a proposal for marine reserves along the North Coast.

Secretary Mike Chrisman said that he is denying the request, made by Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Commissioner Pat Higgins on behalf of the North Coast Local Interest MPA Workgroup. He said that an extension is unnecessary for the group to submit a good-quality first-draft of a network of marine protected areas.

In a Dec. 24 letter, Chrisman said that the North Coast community has more scientific data available at this time than any of the other three regions had at this point in the process. He said that the previous six-week extension, which expires on Feb. 1, gave ample opportunity to draw up the proposal.

The Marine Life Protection Act Initiative aims to protect different habitats along the California coast using a set of marine reserves. The controversial process has drawn serious concern from the North Coast study area, in which essentially every elected body in Humboldt, Del Norte and Mendocino counties has cautioned against potential harm to the region's economy and way of life.

It is early in the process on the North Coast, and the tri-county group had asked for the extension because bottom topography data was not yet available and many commercial fishermen were at sea for the Dungeness crab season.

Higgins said that he isn't surprised that Chrisman denied the extension, and said that the group would have a “scientifically robust and economically sound” proposal ready by Feb. 1.

Higgins said that he hopes the science panel that will review the proposal will understand that the formation of marine reserves on the North Coast should be substantially different than in other parts of the state.

”I think we have made a case that has merit,” Higgins said.

Scientists, Anglers' Views Cloud The Route Towards a Marine Reserve

2009-12-31T09:28:00.000-08:00

Laguna resident Bill Shedd with a 51-pound white seabass he caught about a quarter mile off of Woods Cove in May.

By Ted Reckas, Laguna Beach Independent
December 25, 2009

Bill Shedd paddled his kayak along the reefs just off of Woods Cove, where he lives and fishes 30 days per year. Nearby in a small boat a father was fishing with his three-year-old daughter and eightyear old son.

“They were giggling and laughing and catching mackerel,” said Shedd, “I told them they are going to close fishing in Laguna and the man said, ‘What? Why would they want to do that? I had no idea that was happening.’”

The process by which new marine protection laws are written is in the late stages, and though there are five proposals under consideration by the state Department of Fish and Game, the one favored by a review panel that seems most likely to become law would close most of Laguna Beach’s coastline to fishing.

Efforts to increase marine protections are driven largely by researchers, whose findings demonstrate many species in the world’s oceans are being over fished. Unchecked fishing can devastate populations, as in the case of abalone, where the black, white and pink species have collapsed, and significant restrictions remain on the red abalone, the only species still fished.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch, which assigns sustainability ratings to commercially fished species, says on its homepage, “Despite our best efforts, the global catch of wild fish leveled off over 20 years ago and 70 percent of the world’s fisheries are being harvested at capacity or are in decline.”

The National Marine Fisheries Service, in its 2008 annual report to Congress, says at least 46 species are overfished, while 280 stocks have undefined overfishing thresholds, which means there is no way to know how many of those are overfished.

Landings of popular fish – a main indicator of population levels – such as white seabass and halibut in Southern California peaked decades ago and have never reached the same levels, according to DFG reports. The annual catch of white seabass peaked at 3.5 million pounds in 1959, and checked in at only a quarter of that, or 900,000 pounds, in 2000. Halibut, perhaps a more sought after fish, peaked at 4.7 million pounds in 1919 and fell off a cliff, spiking up over 2 million only once in the late 1940s, then hovering between a quarter and 1.5 million pounds ever since.

When the Laguna Beach City Council asked the state for a citywide fishing ban, then council member Elizabeth Pearson, crystallized the sentiments of some who are too frustrated to look at the science, saying, “I don’t know that we’re over fished. I don’t know that we need replenishment. There’s no science in front of me to tell me that. But I do know I have seen some disgusting things happening at Shaw’s Cove over the last 20 years. I’ve seen people coming with spears and taking little starfish. And that is the reason I’m coming at it from the angle of preventing abuse. I think that’s where a lot are coming from. There’s been abuse after abuse after abuse. We keep educating and giving people tickets and putting people on staff and empowering the lifeguards and we can’t seem to stop it.”

Therein lies the rub. Scientific arguments aside, recreational fishermen have been labeled as one of the main culprits in the degradation of marine ecosystems, something that frustrates fishermen like Shedd and Bryan Menne, a Laguna Beach resident who has been spear fishing here for over 30 years and sees himself as a steward of the ocean. Menne primarily hunts for halibut and only shoots fish 26 inches or larger, even though the legal requirement is only 22 inches, saying he wants to give them a chance to mature. He takes about one or two per month during halibut season. His biggest ever was a 42-inch, 31-pound fish he caught in 1992. He caught four halibut this year; the largest was 9.5 pounds.

While reserve proponents claim the local waters are overfished, Menne says, "what ocean are you swimming in? I can go and see all the reef fish I want any time,” adding, “Halibut takes more time because you have to hunt for them. That’s the beauty of it. Hunt for it and only take what you eat.”

The halibut fishery illustrates the complexity at work in marine ecosystems; it’s actually several fisheries, with sub-species and various methods of fishing. The Environmental Defense Fund, which publishes sustainability and health information on fisheries, gives Atlantic halibut an “eco-worst” rating, saying, “Atlantic halibut are so depleted from overfishing, the species is off-limits to commercial fishing in U.S. waters.”

At the same time Pacific halibut, a different species caught off Alaska and Canada, gets an “eco-best” rating because it comes from a well-managed fishery that uses the hook and line method, which has relatively little environmental impact. California halibut, a third species, gets a moderate sustainability rating from Seafood Watch when caught with hook and line or bottom trawl, and the worst rating when caught with a set gill net.

Hook and line has low rates of bycatch, referring to catch besides the target fish. For every 1,000 pounds of California halibut caught by bottom trawl, 700 pounds of other fish are caught unintentionally, most of which are thrown back often injured or dead, according to Seafood Watch. The 70 percent bycatch is considered moderate, and only gets a critical rating if it is over 100 percent and regularly includes “species of special concern” like dolphins, seals, other marine mammals or sea birds, according to Seafood Watch criteria. This is the case with set gillnets, which gives that fishery the critical rating.

By comparison, recreational spear fishing done responsibly has a vastly lower impact: there is no exhaust or oil leaks from an engine, there is no habitat damage from dragging a trawl across the sea floor, and there is little or no bycatch, as the speafisherman swims through the water and literally hand picks the animal he wants to consume.

Shedd, president of Irvine-based fishing gear maker AFTCO and chairman of the Hubbs SeaWorld Research Institute, says that sport fishermen are not at fault for the decline in white seabass landings, insisting that landings are lower because there are more regulations now than in the past.

White seabass researcher Larry Allen, of Cal State Northridge, and a member of the Science Advisory Team guiding the Department of Fish and Game’s Marine Life Protection Act proposals, said sea bass catch hit a peak in 1959 when there were fewer restrictions and fishermen were having a free for all, gill netting in the spawning grounds.

While commercial gill netters harvested at will, recreational catch of white seabass flat lined to around 1,000 pounds per year for 30 years, until the nets were outlawed in California by Proposition 132 in 1994. Subsequently, recreational landings jumped to well over 10,000 fish per year in the late 1990’s, according to one DFG database, based on catch logs from commercial passenger fishing vessels.

The average weight of white seabass caught is up as well, from 8.4 pounds in 1990 to 18.5 pounds in 1999, according to the most recent Seafood Watch report.

While Seafood Watch gives white seabass a “best choice” sustainability rating, the report also admits no recent formal assessment of the population exists.

Shedd conceded that lack of data means he can no more claim a healthy white seabass fishery exists than an environmentalist can claim an unhealthy one.

Allen who recently read the yet unpublished, newest version Seafood Watch’s report as a member of their external peer review process, adds, “Probably between 80- 90 percent of the fishery stock of white seabass occurs in Mexico. Since Mexico stopped American vessel landings in 1982 we don’t have any idea what’s going on down there.”

Anecdotally, local fishermen point to the resurgence of the white seabass as a testament to the resilience of marine ecosystems.

If only it were that simple.

Managing fisheries around a single species overlooks its potential impact on the larger ecosystem, said Steve Murray, dean of Cal State Fullerton’s natural sciences and mathematics department and a member of the MLPA science advisory team. “What are fishery managers trying to achieve? How much can we take out of the system and hold the biomass at a somewhat constant sustainable level? If that amount you are taking out is 60-70 percent of the biomass that was there if it wasn’t fished, what does that mean to the rest of the ecosystem?”

Prominent Biologist Challenges MLPA Science Panel Assumptions and Data

2009-12-31T09:14:00.000-08:00

By Dan Bacher, IndyBay
December 23, 2009

Patrick Higgins, Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Commissioner and a well respected fishery biologist, is questioning the assumptions and poor data that the "science" behind Governor Arnold Schwarzengger's fast-track Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process is based on.

In a December 20 letter to a biologist on the MLPA Science Advisory Team, Higgins challenged the spacing guidelines and fundamental assumptions regarding the larval drift model, a model in which ocean groundfish populations are supposedly replenished by the larval fish that drift outside of marine reserves by means of ocean currents.

"The lengthy theoretical discussion of larval drift at your Eureka December 17 SAT meeting had absolutely no foundation," said Higgins. "As pointed out by one of the SAT members, the currents of the North Coast are strong and unique and the linear distance model has no basis here."

He also says that Marine Protected Area (MPA) size guidelines used previously in the MLPA process are "not appropriate" for the North Coast.

"We in the North Coast region prefer fewer large MPAs and believe they are more likely to achieve the conservation objectives of the MLPA," said Higgins. "Small preserves would not succeed in protecting fish populations because of migration of adults out of the MPA and fishing edge effects."

Higgins also points out the failure of the MLPA process to "consider the ecosystem benefits of existing fishery management" and the failure "to integrate existing fishery regulations and restrictions into its MPA size and spacing guidelines and analysis of MPA proposals," as noted by Dr. Ray Hilborn. This failure to consider de-facto MPAs such as the Rockfish Conservation Area, a massive zone closed to groundfish fishing that extends the entire length of California's Continental Shelf, has plagued the MLPA Initiative since Governor Schwarzenegger fast-tracked and privatized the process with funding from the Resource Legacy Foundation beginning in 2004.

"North Coast MPAs need to be considered in conjunction with the Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA)," said Higgins. "That is, if large preserves run out to the 3 mile limit of State waters, conservation benefits of closure to rockfish take from the 120 foot contour depth line to the 200 mile limit of the U.S. waters protect needs to be considered. Therefore, all conservation needs for water depths greater than 120 feet are already covered by the existing RCA and there is no other activity that jeopardizes the natural balance in waters of those depths."

Higgins added, "We hope the North Coast SAT will be open to this argument because the RCA closure is based on species that have rebuilding programs that span several decades into the future. Future adaptive management studies could help decide whether more protection is needed after RCAs are discontinued."

Higgins warned the scientific advisory team that "In the event that we feel there are fatal scientific flaws in the adopted North Coast SAT guidelines, and their imposition may create unknown biological consequences and potentially substantial economic harm, you can expect the North Coast region to challenge the outcome by every means possible."

Higgins' letter was sent as North Coast environmentalists, fishermen, Indian Tribes and seaweed harvesters are criticizing the MLPA process for being rife with conflicts of interests, questionable "science," mission creep and corruption of the democratic process.

In a previous letter Higgins sent on December 18, he asked Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman to extend the deadline for the submittal of North Coast external array proposals for MPAs to March 15. "We need the additional time because the bottom topography data used to conduct a scientifically valid MPA array won't be available until January 15 at the earliest," said Higgins.

Higgins sent his letter on behalf of the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District, as well as governments, harbor districts and tribes of the North Coast region.

Chrisman hasn't responded to the letter yet. However, MLPA Initiative Director Ken Wiseman said he will recommend that Chrisman not grant the extension, according to an article by John Driscoll in the Eureka Times Standard on December 22.

"Ken Wiseman said that the North Coast region already has more information available than other regions did at this point in the process. The initiative has time and budget constraints, Wiseman said, and the legislation is clear that the program use the best available science," the Times Standard stated.

Wiseman's statement to the newspaper appears to be at odds with his 9/28/09 editorial in Times Standard.

"Over the next year, the north coast community is invited to participate in redesigning California's marine protected areas," said Wiseman. "Therefore, at the foundation of the planning process is community involvement, where all members of the public are encouraged to participate and each has the opportunity to influence the outcome."

If Wiseman is so concerned about encouraging "all members of the public to participate" and providing them with the opportunity to "influence the outcome," why is he recommending to Chrisman that Higgins' request for an extension of time be rejected? And why are Wiseman, Chrisman and Schwarzenegger so adamant about ram rodding the MLPA process over North Coast fishermen, tribes and communities even though the science behind the process is highly questionable, as Higgins so eloquently points out?

Below is Higgins' letter:

Patrick Higgins
Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Commissioner
4649 Aster Avenue
McKinleyville, CA 95519

December 20, 2009
Jason Vasques, Associate Marine Biologist
MLPA Science Advisory Team Staff Support
350 Harbor Blvd.
Belmont, CA 94002

Re: North Coast Science Advisory Team Deliberations on Size and Spacing of Marine Protected Areas and Habitat Replication Requirements

Dear Mr. Vasques,

I am writing to you as an individual for expediency, but I assure you that the questions I am posing are on behalf of the governments and concerned community members of the North Coast. I request that this letter be circulated to all individuals on Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) appointed North Coast Science Advisory Team (SAT) and that issues herein be specifically discussed at their next public meeting. The concerns I will address below are regarding larval drift theories and spacing requirements, size of MPAs and the need for following replication guidelines similar to those previously adopted in other regions.

Spacing Guidelines and Larval Drift

The lengthy theoretical discussion of larval drift at your Eureka December 17 SAT meeting had absolutely no foundation. As pointed out by one of the SAT members, the currents of the North Coast are strong and unique and the linear distance model has no basis here. Figure 1 is CenCOOS oceanographic data from between Shelter Cove and Point Arena showing a large circular current or gyre. Gyres are fairly stable features that oscillate and can shift somewhat seasonally. Longshore currents along much of the length of the North Coast reverse from southerly to northerly with seasons. Ekman spirals also develop seasonally that can cause larvae to be moved perpendicular to the coast (Hilborn et al. 2006).

I question other more fundamental assumptions regarding the larval drift model: 1) that larvae must land in an MPA to recruit or 2) that there must be an MPA for larvae to be generated; both assumptions are unmet. For the sake of discussion, let us consider a larvae drifting north linearly from an MPA sited south of the Mattole River. If it were to settle near Cape Mendocino and successfully recruit to the juvenile fish stage, under current fishing pressure it would not likely be harvested until after it spawned, possibly several times. Also, millions of larvae are currently generated along our wild coast without benefit of MPAs, which undermines the corollary assumption. We believe that the statement of Hilborn et al. (2006) that “there is now no evidence that current fishing practices upset the ‘natural’ biological diversity of the marine ecosystem” applies to the North Coast region.

MPA Size Guidelines Used Previously Not Appropriate for North Coast

I strongly favor the arguments of Dr. Ray Hilborn, Professor of Fisheries at the University of Washington, and Hilborn et al. (2006) provide the following insight regarding the size and spacing of MPAs under the California MLPAI:

“The MLPA statute provided no explicit guidance to address the ‘SLOSS’ (single large or several small) MPA debate, but suggested that decisions on size and placement be made by a master plan team and regulatory agencies, with the involvement of stakeholders. The science guidance provided by the MLPA Initiative Science Advisory
Team (SAT) clearly favored the SS (several small) approach in its interpretation of the law. The SAT advice produced a very extensive network of MPAs in each of the MPA network proposals, with a heavy emphasis on nearshore rocky habitat protected in marine reserves.”

We in the North Coast region prefer fewer large MPAs and believe they are more likely to achieve the conservation objectives of the MLPA. Small preserves would not succeed in protecting fish populations because of migration of adults out of the MPA and fishing edge effects. Effort shift further complicates impact analysis and needs consideration. There may be a few North Coast areas of special biological significance that should be protected at a smaller scale, but a few well placed large preserves away from ports along remote sections of our coast will serve all aspects of the MLPA mission better than numerous small preserves; and it protects our economy and way of life.

Hilborn et al. (2006) noted that previous SATs had “failed to consider the ecosystem benefits of existing fishery management and failed to integrate existing fishery regulations and restrictions into its MPA size and spacing guidelines and analysis of MPA proposals.” North Coast MPAs need to be considered in conjunction with the Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA). That is, if large preserves run out to the 3 mile limit of State waters, conservation benefits of closure to rockfish take from the 120 foot contour depth line to the 200 mile limit of the U.S. waters protect needs to be considered. Therefore, all conservation needs for water depths greater than 120 feet are already covered by the existing RCA and there is no other activity that jeopardizes the natural balance in waters of those depths. We hope the North Coast SAT will be open to this argument because the RCA closure is based on species that have rebuilding programs that span several decades into the future. Future adaptive management studies could help decide whether more protection is needed after RCAs are discontinued.

Replication of Habitat Requirements

If North Coast residents come up with a workable strategy for fewer large conservation areas, then the area of habitat types protected should be the criteria for judgment of sufficiency, not that habitats have to be in numerous small preserves. The SAT seemed perplexed on December 17 about the possibility of allowing most significant protection to occur in fewer, larger MPAs. I do not think that the theoretical basis of the need for replication can be validated and hope the SAT will also reconsider this convention and its requirement for application on the North Coast.

The SAT process as manifest in your recent Eureka meeting gave me concern because of the pressure to adopt previously formulated guidelines rapidly, but I was relieved that size and spacing decision were delayed. The MLPA has been a major source of controversy and angst in our community, but it has caused us to focus on nearshore ocean conservation needs. We think we will meet these needs through the reserve design we will offer as an External MPA Array proposal. We will provide a scientific framework and a workable plan founded on local knowledge and data and hope the SAT will not constrain itself arbitrarily in judging it.

In the event that we feel there are fatal scientific flaws in the adopted North Coast SAT guidelines, and their imposition may create unknown biological consequences and potentially substantial economic harm, you can expect the North Coast region to challenge the outcome by every means possible.

Sincerely,
Patrick Higgins

Fish and Game Commission Supports ‘Blue Ribbon Task Force’ Closure Plan

2009-12-23T15:19:00.000-08:00

By Ambrosia Sarabia, The Log
December 22, 2009

Many sport anglers who had encouraged members of the California Fish and Game Commission to select the best of four alternative maps for Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) sanctuary areas left the meeting unsatisfied when the commission selected an alternative that closed prime fishing waters off Laguna Beach and Point Dume.

Closures to Come— Marina Life Protection Act (MLPA) closures will have a major impact on anglers who currently fish off Laguna Beach, if the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s proposed no-take zones map is approved in 2010.

The widely criticized closures are the ones recommended by the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force last month. The plan, cobbled together from both environmentalist and fishing stakeholder group recommendations, would close nearly 400 square miles of ocean off the Southern California coastline to fishing.

Speakers both for and against selected closures outlined in four plans -- three proposals recommended by stakeholders after months of discussion and one designed by the Blue Ribbon Task Force -- packed the conference room and addressed the commission, one by one. Many displayed their chosen map, holding bright-colored signs.

“This is a professional event, and I ask that those attempting to get on camera such as at a sports event refrain from doing so,” Fish and Game Commission chairman Richard Rogers said at one point during the meeting.

In a 3-1 vote, the commission moved to send the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s selected map through the environmental impact review process. The other three plans will serve as alternatives.

“It was no surprise, actually,” said Paul Romanowski, a recreational fisherman and a member of the California Fisheries Coalition. “It is definitely a mix of all three proposals -- and there are some things on it that we don’t like, but some are things that we developed during the first round a year ago.”

Last month, the Blue Ribbon Task Force reviewed three alternatives, which were proposed by environmentalists, anglers and other stakeholders. The task force decided to develop its own Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA) plan and recommended it to the commission.

The action upset many anglers and boaters.

For the past several months, rallies have been held throughout Southern California where those in favor of retaining open-take areas joined to show their support for Proposal 2, which had the fewest closures when compared to Proposals 1 and 3.

Three groups were created to oversee specific elements of the Marine Life Protection Act: the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force, the Science Advisory Team and the South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group.

For many anglers, such as Romanowski, the shape of the Laguna no-take zone has been the most unsettling piece of the current plan. Under the current outline, a ban will be placed on fishing along 6 miles of the Laguna Beach coastline.

The decision also places restrictions on the Bolsa Chica area.

“It is unfeasible and unreasonable, and it would be a devastating blow to all coastal users in Laguna, if it were to go through as it is drawn,” Romanowski said. “It shuts off 30-35 public access points in Laguna, and there would be no handicap access for fishing.”

Other changes that Romanowski would like see addressed include safety, feasibility and legal issues concerning Point Dume and Scripps Pier.

The San Diego region will not have a protected area off Del Mar, but a protected zone off south La Jolla will be created.

In Los Angeles County, areas off the back side of Catalina Island would remain open to sportfishing for yellowtail and swordfish, but other species such as sea urchin and sea cucumber will not be allowed to be removed from the area. The kelp forest and rocky reef habitats off Palos Verdes Peninsula would also remain open to anglers.

Leslie Page, of Redondo Beach Marina, asked commissioners to help her select which employees to terminate if Proposal 2 is not selected.

“It breaks my heart,” Page said. “My harbor and marina will not be able to support them.”

Once a review of the closure plan is, the commission will vote to establish the new fishing regulations. The report is not expected to be completed until late 2010.

Local group asks for more time on MPAs

2009-12-23T15:15:00.000-08:00

By John Driscoll, Eureka Times-Standard
December 22, 2009

The group of governments, harbor districts, tribes and fishermen working to develop a set of proposed marine reserves on the North Coast is again asking the state for more time because it doesn't have enough information to do the job.

In a letter to California Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman last week, the North Coast Local Interest MPA Work Group asked that the deadline to produce the proposal be extended to March 15, six weeks after the deadline that was recently extended to Feb. 1.

Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Commissioner Pat Higgins wrote that bottom topography data needed for mapping in the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative is not likely to be available until after Jan. 15. Many commercial fishermen are also in the height of Dungeness crab season, Higgins wrote, and an extension would allow them to be better able to participate.

Chrisman agreed to extend the deadline from Dec. 15 to Feb. 1 back in October after Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata, and Sen. Patricia Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa, appealed to him.

The MLPA aims to set up a network of marine reserves meant to protect different habitats along the California coast, such as rocky areas and kelp forests, and the species that live in them. The process has been controversial in other areas of the state, and in the North Coast study area essentially every elected body has expressed concerns about the potential for the process to harm the region's economy and way of life.

MLPA Initiative Executive Director Ken Wiseman said that the North Coast region already has more information available than other regions did at this point in the process. The initiative has time and budget constraints, Wiseman said, and the legislation is clear that the program use the best available science.

He also said that there are several more stages of the process that will allow additional information to be added and considered. Wiseman said he'll recommend Chrisman not grant the extension.

”There will be lots of time over the year to refine it,” Wiseman said.

The Whalegate Scandal: State Lands Commission Finds MLPA Habitat Data Acquired Illegally

2009-12-21T15:13:00.000-08:00

Local fishermen and environmentalists are wondering: if Fugro Pelagos was cutting corners by illegally failing to pay for marine wildlife observers, what other corners did they cut in obtaining the habitat data?

By Dan Bacher, IndyBay
December 21, 2009

In the latest episode in the long, sordid saga of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's widely-contested Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process, the California State Lands Commission (SLC) at its meeting in San Diego on December 17 voted not to revoke the permit for Fugro Pelagos research vessel activity on the condition that the company abide by the terms of the permit in the future. Commission staff found that Fugro Pelagos violated the terms of its permit when it struck and killed a blue whale in October, 2009 off Fort Bragg when its contract vessel was mapping the sea floor for the MLPA Initiative.

The finding that the MLPA habitat data was acquired illegally comes at a time when a broad coalition of North Coast environmentalists, fishermen, Native Americans and seaweed harvesters is criticizing the MLPA process for being rife with conflicts of interests, mission creep, environmental injustice and corruption of the democratic process.

Staff found that the company:
-Did not notify the State Lands Commission prior to its survey activity
-Did not have marine wildlife observers on board.

Commission staff cited California Coastal Conservancy Executive Director Sam Schuchat's belief that the killing of the whale was "an accident and even if the observers were on board, the whale would have been killed." No supporting evidence was provided, according to Jim Martin, West Coast Regional Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance.

Staff recommended that the permit be revoked until Jan. 17, 2010 and then returned - if the company pays for SLC costs of investigating the incident and preparing the report. The cost is 70 staff hours amounting to $13,000.

David Millar, President of Fugro Pelagos, testified. He told the Commission that the company did not violate its permit. He stated the company felt "bad about the large mammal being killed."

Millar said his company did not ignore the conditions of its permit - they argued they do not believe their operations were subject to the permit.

The Commission offered a deal to the company that it could keep its permit if it followed the staff's recommendations - payment of costs to the SLC to investigate the incident, and to have observers on board when operating and to notify SLC before conducting operations, according to Martin.

Mr. Millar objected to the conditions only applying to his company, putting him in a competitive disadvantage. He asked that other companies (8 approximately) be required to follow the same terms. The Commissioners said they would look into that issue, but meanwhile, did Miller agree to the terms or did he want his permit revoked? Miller agreed to the terms.

Steve Sullivan, owner of a company that does similar work on hydrographic surveys, called on Fugro Pelagos to reimburse the state for $16 million in public funding for the joint NOAA/California Coastal Conservancy project to map northern California's sea floor in state waters. Sullivan stated that the habitat data collected for the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative was obtained illegally, according to the findings of the State Lands Commission. Sullivan called into question the data being used in the MLPA process.

Today Sullivan praised the State Lands Commission decision about Fugro's illegal surveys conducted for MLPA designation.

"I am very pleased that the State Lands Commission has finally required the multi-billion dollar international firm, Fugro, to abide by the same regulations to protect marine mammals that us small California survey companies have complied with for years," said Sullivan. "At their meeting on 17 December, the State Lands Commission disclosed that Fugro and a new permit applicant, the California State University at Monterey Bay (CSUMB), have for years been conducting marine surveys illegally, without compliance with regulations to protect marine mammals.

"The illegal surveys conducted for Marine Life Protected Area (MLPA) designation by Fugro and CSUMB, which ultimately resulted in the death of a blue whale, has severely tarnished the image of the Ocean Protection Council (OPC)," Sullivan emphasized. "The State cannot be allowed to use illegally-obtained survey data to designate Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that restrict the rights of fishermen and Native Americans. Imposing severe restrictions on the use of our State’s marine resources requires the full faith and confidence of the public; unfortunately the actions of the OPC and its survey contractors have shaken that trust."

Sullivan said the illegal surveys conducted for the OPC by Professor Rikk Kvitek of the CSUMB casts a pall over the legitimacy of the MLPA-designations, similar to the concerns about the legitimacy of diesel emission regulations after the California Air Resources Board ignored warnings that their statistician, Hien Tran, had mis-represented his credentials

"The OPC ignored warnings issued years ago that Rikk Kvitek, the primary scientist associated with designating MLPAs, was conducting illegal surveys without the required State-permit," stated Sullivan. "The OPC was publicly warned only 32 days before the blue whale was killed that their survey contractor, Fugro, was not in compliance with State regulations that protect marine mammals. The OPC has failed its charter to protect California’s marine resources."

He urged the OPC to delay designation of the Marine Protected Areas until the doubts associated with the legitimacy of the survey data are resolved, and said the State "should demand to be reimbursed by Fugro and the CSUMB for the $16 million of funding they received for conducting the illegal surveys."

On October 18, 2009, a vessel under contract for mapping sea floor habitat data for the MLPA process in California struck and killed a rare female blue whale off the coast south of Fort Bragg, in Mendocino County. The vessel, "Pacific Star," ceased operations after the whale strike. The killing of the whale outraged local environmentalists and fishermen now fighting the privately-funded MLPA process.

"Local fishermen are already pointing out data gaps in the MLPA science process as they struggle to meet a February 1, 2010 deadline for initial proposals for marine protected areas on the north coast," said Jim Martin. "Fishermen are wondering: if Fugro Pelagos was cutting corners by illegally failing to pay for marine wildlife observers, what other corners did they cut in obtaining the habitat data? The viability of sustainable fisheries on the north coast depend on the accuracy and integrity of this data."

Increasing numbers of individuals and organizations from a variety of political perspectives have criticized the MLPA initiative for being an unjust process, overseen by oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corporate interests, that has no respect for the rights of sustainable fishermen, seaweed harvesters and Indian Tribal members. The National Congress of American Indians, at their annual session from October 11-16 in Palm Springs, passed a strongly worded resolution blasting Schwarzenegger's MLPA process for failing to recognize the subsistence, ceremonial and cultural rights of California Indian Tribes.

"While the tribes support the State's goal of developing marine protection, they are concerned that the State's MLPA process does not address their sovereign standing or interests," according to the resolution. "To date there have been no government to government consultations by the State with any tribe in California in the MLPA implementation process, nor is there a mention of the sovereign status of the tribes in the MLPA Master Plan or legislation."

The killing of a rare blue whale by a boat, contracted by the Ocean Protection Council, to conduct what turned out to be an illegally conducted mapping survey of the seafloor for the MLPA process, an initiative supposedly designed to "protect" marine life, could only happen in Schwarzenegger's California. This bizarre incident is akin to the fire department burning the firehouse down!

Fearing a take-away

2009-12-16T09:55:00.001-08:00

1,000-plus pounds of seafood sold at anti-MLPA event

Cindy Hensel wears her sentiments on her T-shirt in the kitchen. (The Daily Triplicate/Bryant Anderson)

By Kurt Madar, The Daily Triplicate
December 15, 2009

The battle to prevent further fishing restrictions along the North Coast was feeding Crescent City well Sunday.

Local fishermen hosted an all-you-can-eat crab feed at the Del Norte County Fairgrounds to raise money for fighting a statewide initiative that could close important areas for local fishing.

It was well attended.

Organizers said that after the three-hour affair was over they had sold nearly 1,000 pounds of crab donated from local boats.

“We had between 15 and 20 boats that donated crab for the feed,” said organizer Kenyon Hensel. “By the end we only had about 60 or 70 pounds left.”

The meal started at 3 p.m. Sunday, and for $10 people got plates heaped with crab, a cup of melted butter, a bowl of coleslaw, a roll and pink lemonade.

And they could go back for more as often as they wanted.

Not only were they selling crab dinners, organizers also offered whole live and cooked crabs for $6 apiece.

“It’s absolutely fantastic,” said Brookings resident Carolyn Gimby. “Not only is the food excellent and totally worth the trip, it’s for a good cause. Local fishermen support the community, so the community should support them back.”

Gimby clearly was not alone in enjoying the spread, because unlike most full dining rooms, the sound of conversation was drowned out by the sound of eating.

Cracking shells overwhelmed the quiet murmuring of voices, and many diners went back in line for seconds, all to the succulent sweet smell of cooking crab.

Gimby wasn’t the only lover of crab who felt the dinner was important for more than just filling up on fresh seafood.

“I grew up here,” said Gasquet resident Tom Stewart, who was with his wife buying two bags of whole cooked crab to take home. “We’ve got the most accessible port in Northern California and it needs our support. Things like this may be history if they take away fishing areas.”

The crab feed was the second fundraiser held at the fairgrounds to raise money to fight the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative.

The MLPA is a state-driven initiative that designs marine protected areas along the California coast, and the North Coast is the fourth region in California to begin the process.

Three types of MPAs could be established here.

The three levels of protection are primarily based on the severity of the take limit. From least restrictive to most, they include marine conservation areas, marine parks, and marine reserves (which would be no-take areas).

“We used funds from the fish feed (the first fundraiser) to retain a lawyer to investigate whether it’s legal for private parties to be funding a state-driven initiative,” Hensel said. “The funds from the crab feed will go to sustain him for the next six months while we go through the process.”

“This really is a community-based effort, not only from the fishermen that donated the crab, but also from the community members that came out to buy and eat it,” Hensel said. “We didn’t expect it, but the individual crab sales were much higher than the dinners.”

The entire affair was not only supported by donated crab, but also run by volunteers from the fishing community.

Bruce Miller, a local fishermen since 1984, spent the afternoon standing tall over two boilers filled with crab, pickling seasoning and salt.

“I’ve been cooking crab for a long time,” Miller said as he noted the time a batch was put in the roiling water. “And they want to take this away,” he said, pointing to the heaps of Dungeness crab locked pincher to pincher.

Another volunteer and member of the local fishing community, Pat Wilson, put it more directly.

“We are having a great crab season,” Wilson said. “And considering that these things usually run in cycles, it would be a crime if we lost crucial fishing grounds right before things started getting better.”

Wilson is referring to the fact that recent crab seasons have been so abysmal that fishermen have been tightening their belts for years now.

He is worried that just as things start to get good again, just as local fishermen start making up for the bad years, it could all get taken away.

If the fight against the MLPA is unsuccessful, “this won’t be the first time the community has lost something important,” Miller said, referring to the logging industry. “And probably not the last.”

California Fish and Game Commission Weighs in on South Coast Region Marine Protected Areas

2009-12-11T10:43:00.001-08:00

December 10, 2009

On Wednesday, December 9, California's Fish and Game Commission heard reports and recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) regarding the establishment of new marine protected areas (MPAs) along California's South Coast from Point Conception to the Mexican border in accordance with the state's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA).

The commission is responsible for determining which one of four MPA proposals submitted by the BRTF will be selected for the South Coast. The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO), a broad-based coalition of companies and associations representing recreational fishing and boating interests, is advocating for Proposal 2 because it provides a balanced approach based upon reliable science and a continuation of sound fisheries management policies which have resulted in the return of healthy fish populations and renewed ocean habitat off the California coastline. The BRTF submitted its own Integrated Preferred Alternative proposal.

Commission Vice President Richard Rogers, acting as chairperson in the absence of commission President Jim Kellogg, said, "The Commission takes the MLPA process very seriously. We have a multitude of things to consider and we will not rush this process. We're committed to being fully informed on all the issues which includes ample opportunity for the public to comment. I think it is safe to say that this deliberation process will extend well into the latter part of 2010."

The PSO supports Proposal 2 which provides significant additional conservation for California's ocean resources while minimizing the economic impact of lost fishing opportunity. The proposal was created by stakeholders who worked for 14 months through the Regional Stakeholder Group (RSG) process. Bob Fletcher, a PSO and RSG member and advisor to the Sportfishing Association of California said, "Proposal 2 is the real winner receiving strong cross-interest support in the RSG workgroup. We are all aware of the fiscal crisis facing California, and the reality is that Proposal 2 is the only MPA proposal that makes conservation and economic sense." Fletcher further said, "Anglers have always been on the forefront of recognizing when there are issues affecting the fisheries. A draconian system of MPAs penalizes conservation efforts and honest fishermen. The BRTF's Integrated Preferred Alternative proposal is a political deal. Proposal 2 is the real deal."

Patty Doerr, Ocean Resource Policy Director for the American Sportfishing Association, also a PSO member said, "At the end of this process, we hope that common sense, balanced with a concern for the potential economic impact on California's fragile economy and double-digit unemployment rate, will prevail."

California's Fish and Game Commission is scheduled for February 3-4, 2010, in Sacramento at the Resources Building Auditorium, 1416 Ninth Street.

Go to www.keepamericafishing.org for additional MLPA updates, sign-up for alerts and additional information about how to contact appropriate representatives.

Fletcher concluded, "I ask everyone to get involved and help save Southern California from unnecessary fishing closures and restricted public access."

Editorial: Devil in the details

2009-12-11T10:40:00.000-08:00

Laguna Beach Coastline Pilot
December 10, 2009

And so we wait.

The future of the coast off of Laguna Beach has moved behind the scenes with the completion of a public process for the Marine Life Protection Act. The state Fish and Game Commission received testimony Wednesday on the Blue Ribbon Task Force-approved proposal for a partial “no-take” zone in Laguna, but did not make a final decision.

While the gears of government turn, we want to make it clear: A sweeping ban off Laguna — when even Crystal Cove would remain open — is clearly inappropriate. For some, fishing is a treasured recreational activity, and for many locals it is a livelihood.

The MLPA process has been rife with controversy in Laguna Beach, after recreational fishermen and commercial lobstermen realized they were about to lose the long-held right to fish in the coves and reef points off of the city.

The process has been a winding one, with multiple stakeholder proposals, a political lobbying campaign on all sides, and a lot of heat but very little light on the subject of what measures will really help the marine environment.

Of three stakeholder proposals put before the Blue Ribbon Task Force in October, the most restrictive — a citywide no-take zone — was the one that had the backing of most elected officials here. Early support from the Laguna Beach City Council for a citywide ban on fishing was prompted by a coalition of groups organized under the name Laguna Bluebelt, including environmental groups and Village Laguna.

In June, the council voted 4 to 1 to support a citywide no-take zone, before the first public meeting on the MLPA was even held. This preemptive strike by the council majority did not sit well with many who were not privy to the rationale behind such a drastic proposal.

Then-Mayor Kelly Boyd, who grew up on the ocean and often goes out fishing locally, refused to sign the council-supported letter on the matter and began organizing the opposition.

The argument got so out of hand that the issue of name-calling became an amusing sidelight as letter-writers debated whether the mayor was or was not called a “fish slaughterer” by one marine reserve proponent, and what indeed would be meant by such a term. It was all great sport for those on the sidelines, but this comedic relief belies the seriousness of what is at stake.

Since then, the pro-fishing community has gotten its message out loud and clear, and a “compromise” no-take zone was hammered out by the Blue Ribbon Task Force leaving open a relatively inaccessible portion of South Laguna coastline including the private beach of Three Arch Bay. That is the one that Fish and Game will evidently be putting through the California Environmental Quality Act test.

The devil is in the details, and the details won’t be forthcoming for quite some time.

In the meantime, one can still go and cast a line off Laguna.

Fish and Game panel hears views on Marine Life Protection proposal

2009-12-11T10:26:00.000-08:00

By Dave Schwab, La Jolla Light
December 10, 2009

More than 160 speakers had a minute each on Dec. 9 to tell the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force and state Fish and Game Commission what they think about proposals for Marine Protected Areas off limits to fishing along the Southern California coast including La Jolla and coastal North County.

At the onset of the meeting, which included two hours of public comment, Richard Rogers, vice president of the California Fish and Game Commission board said, "What we're here to do today is hear the alternatives from the Blue Ribbon Task Force. We're not here to make a decision on, or adopt, any of those packages."

Rogers said formal adoption of an alternative marine protected area package would play out over three different public meetings to be held in 2010.

"A final decision will probably be late fall or early winter (2010)," he added.

Last month, the five-member state Blue Ribbon Task Force, walking a tightrope between marine conservation and preserving ocean access, chose a hybrid preferred alternative to protect San Diego's coastline that lies between what fishing interests and environmentalists desired.

Proposed for protection is a seven-mile, no-take zone from south La Jolla near WindanSea to Crystal Pier in Pacific Beach, which fishermen warn could "herd" users together into tightly compacted areas. But the panel opted not to create a larger, nine-mile, no-take area straddling La Jolla and Pacific Beach, which scientists had sought as a way to repopulate dwindling fish species.

They also recommended that an area along Swami's beach in Encinitas be designated a State Marine Conservation Area, allowing some types of fishing. The Del Mar-Solana Beach coastline is not included in the designated area and the San Dieguito Lagoon is already designated as a Marine State Park.

Recreational Boaters of California Support MLPA Proposal #2

2009-12-11T10:22:00.000-08:00

Recreational Boaters of California MLPA 12-8-09

New Southern California underwater marine habitats approved

2009-12-11T10:15:00.001-08:00

By Kristopher Hanson, Contra Costa Times
12/09/2009

State authorities approved new underwater marine habitats off Southern California's coast Wednesday, restricting fishing and diving in areas where stocks have been severely depleted in recent decades.

The move by the California Dept. of Fish and Game Commission comes after months of wrangling over details of the plan, which establishes new, protected marine habitats around the Channel Islands, Palos Verdes Peninsula and near the Bolsa Chica wetlands, among other areas.

Perhaps most controversial for local recreational anglers is the inclusion in the plan of fishing restrictions near Rocky Point - a popular spot off the Palos Verdes Peninsula. While some areas near Point Vicente will fall under protection, large swaths will remain open for fishing and lobster diving.

Scientists have long promoted the creation of underwater marine reserves as a way to protect wildlife and submerged environments - much like national and state parks do on land.

The development of the new zones - or marine protected areas - is the result of a 1999 law known as the Marine Life Protection Act, which established the need for protected wildlife preserves off California's 1,100 miles of coastline.

Biologists believe that by protecting critical breeding and feeding areas, fish and other sea creatures will eventually return to healthy population levels, creating a "spillover" effect that will ultimately benefit commercial and recreational anglers.

But drawing up the boundaries of those zones has been the subject of a long, heated debate involving marine biologists, commercial fishermen, recreational anglers and business owners for the past year.

In the end, the network of protected areas approved by the Fish and Game Commission during Wednesday's hearing in Los Angeles combined a mix of commercial and environmental priorities.

"It doesn't scratch everybody's itch...but we think it's the best possible approach to lead us into a sustainable future," said Cathy Reheis-Boyd, chairwoman of the Fish and Game task force that drew up the map.

The new rules begin phasing in around late 2010.

Coast protection plans move to Calif. commission

2009-12-11T10:11:00.000-08:00

By JOHN ANTCZAK, Associated Press
December 9, 2009

The California Fish and Game Commission has begun hearing a hotly debated proposal for protecting ocean life and habitat along the state's south coast.

A task force on Wednesday presented the commission the preferred alternative it developed after 18 months of listening to diverse interests including fishermen, marina operators, environmentalists and scientists.

The commissioners have also heard passionate testimony from ocean users who believe some of the proposed reserves and conservation areas will harm business and put people out of work.

Commission Vice President Richard Rogers says a decision is months away.

California's 1999 Marine Life Protection Act requires development of science-based protected areas but the task force says it has taken socioeconomic factors into consideration.

Supervisors back marine life protection funding request

2009-12-11T10:07:00.000-08:00

By John Driscoll, Eureka Times-Standard
December 9, 2009

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday chose to support a Humboldt Bay Harbor, Conservation and Recreation District request for funds to develop a single marine reserve proposal for the state's Marine Life Protection Act Initiative.

Supervisors heard from several involved in the controversial process about the importance of maintaining a united effort on the North Coast. The Harbor District is looking for $50,000 from the Resources Legacy Foundation, the organization that is part of the public-private partnership with the state.

”We have stuck together,” said local fishing advocate Dennis Mayo. “We are going to stick together.”

Mayo said that getting local representation on the initiative's Blue Ribbon Task Force -- 1st District Supervisor Jimmy Smith was appointed last month -- was key, and the result of substantial efforts on the part of the community.

The Marine Life Protection Act looks to protect different habitats along the California coast, such as rocky areas and kelp forests, as well as the species that live in them. Expected to work like a network, Marine Protected Areas limit or eliminate fishing and other activities in state waters out to 3 miles.

The potential economic impacts to the area from additional regulations have raised major concerns in Humboldt, Del Norte and Mendocino counties. Jacque Hostler with the Trinidad Rancheria showed supervisors a recently developed map of all the areas closed to fishing in the region.

Only a small sliver of state waters has no specific closures for Dungeness crab, salmon and rockfish, and many closures also extend farther out to sea.

”We have huge regulations already,” Hostler said. “This is all we have left to regulate.”

Harbor District Conservation Director Adam Wagschal said that the broad coalition of interests that has formed locally would do best to offer the MLPA initiative a single proposal for a set of marine protected areas.

The funds the district is seeking would help coordinate stakeholder meetings, provide a marine science report and contribute to the district's coordination and GIS efforts, Wagschal said.

Enlarged marine sanctuaries lack funding for enforcement

2009-12-11T09:56:00.000-08:00

Fish and Game at a loss for monitoring new areas

By Mike Lee, San Diego Union-Tribune
December 9, 2009

The millions of dollars spent on a decade-long effort to create or enlarge coastal sanctuaries could fail to enhance protection for marine life because the state lacks funding to enforce or manage the project.

In the face of California’s $20 billion budget deficit, it’s unclear how the Department of Fish and Game will pay for programs to educate the public about marine protected areas, where seafood harvesting is banned or restricted; for more wardens to catch poachers; and for long-term studies on whether expanding the zones results in better conservation.

The department’s wardens said they don’t have the resources to patrol more marine protected areas along California’s 1,100-mile coastline, including new or enlarged sites off Encinitas, Imperial Beach, La Jolla and Point Loma.

“We can’t keep people out of them, so what good is the science if you can’t be assured that those areas are completely protected?” said Todd Tognazzini, president of the California Fish and Game Wardens Association, which advocates for wildlife agents.

The Legislature mandated remapping of marine protected areas in 1999, but that effort has taken years to develop partly because of the state’s financial problems. In regions that have been revamped for the new network, the zones are from two to six times their former size.

Managing the whole system is projected to cost an average of $24 million a year, although it could top $42 million, Fish and Game officials said. In contrast, the agency’s current annual budget for planning and implementing the network is $4.4 million.

The shortfall is best exemplified by game wardens, whose ranks remain about the same as 30 years ago even though the state’s population has risen more than 60 percent. California’s budget cuts in recent years have worsened the staffing problem by forcing wardens to take furloughs that roughly amount to a 14 percent reduction in force.

The state’s wildlife enforcement chief, Nancy Foley at the Department of Fish and Game, acknowledged that California has the lowest ratio of wardens to residents in the nation — one warden to about 175,000 residents. California has about 220 game wardens. Florida, with half of California’s population, has three times as many wildlife enforcement officers.

California doesn’t record how many citations are issued in marine protected areas, but more than two-thirds of the violations reported by Fish and Game wardens since at least 2005 involved illegal sportfishing.

Foley said more and bigger marine protected areas would add to her wardens’ workload.

“We see that it’s going to present some significant challenges,” she said. “We will certainly provide the level of enforcement that we have available to us.”

Some supporters of the Marine Life Protection Act of 1999 minimize the financial uncertainties; they said the new zones will succeed with contributions from residents, nonprofit groups and government leaders.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has made ocean recovery a top priority, and foundations have poured millions of dollars into the remapping. That partnership provides hope for good management of the marine zones despite the state’s budget crisis, said Kate Hanley, a marine expert for the environmental group San Diego Coastkeeper.

“Solutions emerge, especially with something as important as this,” Hanley said.

Hanley expects fishermen, divers, kayakers and others who frequent the coast to report problems such as rogue anglers when game wardens aren’t around.

“We’ll have a lot of eyes and ears on the water who will certainly take offense to anyone violating the laws,” she said.

Tognazzini said such help is of little value when California doesn’t have enough wildlife agents to investigate complaints and write citations that will hold up in court.

He said enforcement is complicated by the lack of adequate public notices about where protected areas begin and end.

“They are well-defined in the law, but I am unaware of signs on the shore or signs on the ocean,” Tognazzini said, adding that it is a fisherman’s duty to know the map coordinates of protected areas.

Anglers such as Bob Fletcher of San Diego expect poachers to take advantage of spotty law enforcement.

“It is a central issue, and it raises what I consider a fatal flaw in this whole process,” Fletcher said. “If there isn’t the kind of protection to allow the development of a more abundant and complex ecosystem, then you have done nothing but penalize honest fishermen.”

The management-resources issue has been overshadowed by interest groups sparring over how much to enlarge marine protected areas. Fishermen often want to maintain full access to spots that conservationists aim to make off-limits.

State-sponsored panels have held meeting after meeting, including a high-profile one today in Los Angeles, to refine the expansion strategy for each region — from San Diego to Del Norte counties. They painstakingly try to balance the views of fishermen, environmentalists, scientists, recreationalists and others.

Southern California is the third of five sections to be remapped. At today’s meeting, the state Fish and Game Commission will review expansion proposals for that region and set a course for rendering a final decision next year.

The statewide system is supposed to be in place by 2012, a feat that probably wouldn’t be possible without private donors.

In 2004, the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation stepped up with money to jump-start the remapping process, which had been stalled by California’s financial shortfalls. To date, the foundation has pledged more than $20 million for redesigning the protected areas and nearly $3 million to develop a scientific monitoring program for them.

More recently, the state’s Ocean Protection Council set aside $12 million for baseline ecological analysis of the network over the next few years.

It’s uncertain whether donations will continue to flow and how much money the Legislature and governor can afford to spend amid budget downsizing.

Susan Golding, a former San Diego mayor who now serves on the Ocean Protection Council board, is concerned about California’s weak enforcement capability and the possibility that it won’t pay for research needed to guide management of marine protected areas.

“Without good, strong monitoring, all of these efforts will be in vain,” Golding said. “With good, strong monitoring based on science and enough money to do it right, it will be a historic effort because we will actually know whether the decisions made were the right ones.”

Supervisors take on MLPA

2009-12-08T10:05:00.001-08:00

By Donna Tam, Eureka Times-Standard
December 8, 2009

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors will consider supporting the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District's grant application to develop alternatives to the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) today.

The board is scheduled to hear a presentation on the MLPA application at 10 a.m.

The Marine Life Protection Act calls for designating some areas off limits to fishing and other extractive activities. The North Coast is the last region being addressed by the initiative, which has proved particularly controversial.

According to a staff report, the Harbor District's workgroup -- comprised of tribes, sport and commercial fishermen, conservationists and other interest groups -- is looking to develop alternatives.

Jacque Hostler from the Trinidad Rancheria -- as well as other workgroup members -- will be on hand for the presentation.

Also on the supervisors' agenda is a request to identify qualified developers for a supportive housing program for adults with severe mental illness who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. A state housing program created by the Mental Health Services Act has allotted about $1.9 million to the county to develop permanent supportive housing.

The county Department of Health and Human Services' Mental Health Branch is looking for developers with which it can form partnerships.

In another matter, the District Attorney's Office is asking for the formation of a trust fund for a Titlow Hill property related to an ongoing case concerning illegal subdivisions.
As a part of a plea bargain that the District Attorney's Office is offering local lawyer Kenneth Bareilles -- who has pleaded guilty to a felony of unlawful land sales transactions -- the trust would be funded by a $283,000 settlement. Bareilles has not yet accepted the plea deal and is scheduled to appear for a sentencing hearing at the end of January, District Attorney Paul Gallegos said.

The trust funds would be reserved for the correction of the land's ownership issues. Bareilles illegally subdivided his property about 20 years ago. The county has since collected taxes on those parcels.

Gallegos said he is asking the board to approve of the fund in case Bareilles accepts the plea bargain.

”We're asking them to set up the account so that if that happens there's a place for that check to go,” he said.

In closed session, the board will consider the appointment for the personnel director position.

Rocky Point fishing plan slated for discussion

2009-12-08T10:00:00.000-08:00

By Melissa Pamer, Torrance Daily Breeze
December 7, 2009

A plan to halt or restrict fishing in 387 square miles of ocean - but leave open the rich, popular waters off the Palos Verdes Peninsula's western face - will be up for a public discussion Wednesday.

The state Fish and Game Commission will receive public comment and officials' reports on a compromise plan that closes some Southern California fishing grounds and leaves others open.

The plan was approved last month at a meeting of the Blue Ribbon Task Force, a panel that is overseeing the lengthy implementation the Marine Life Protection Act. The controversial, 10-year-old law was designed to create a network of marine preserves with the intent of protecting habitat and helping fish populations recover from overfishing.

The commission has final approval over the plan, but no vote is scheduled for Wednesday.

Instead, the panel is expected to ask for an extensive environmental review of the proposed closures. That resulting report and the new regulations will be subject to a final vote sometime next summer at the earliest, a commission official said.

Public comment will be taken from 10:15 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.; speaker cards must be submitted by 10:10 a.m.

The meeting will be held at the Radisson Hotel at Los Angeles Airport, 6225 W. Century Blvd., Los Angeles.

Monterey Peninsula fishermen worry about impact of national marine policies on livelihood

2009-12-07T11:13:00.000-08:00

By Gwyneth Dickey, Monterey County Herald
December 7, 2009

Times are tough for Monterey fisherman Pete Bruno. For over a decade, tighter and tighter fishing regulations have slowed his charter fishing boat business to a trickle.
"First, they started lowering our catch limits," Bruno said. "Now, they restrict how deep we can fish."

He says many of his customers no longer want to pay to catch a few little fish, especially in these tough economic times. He's now offering whale-watching tours to pay the bills, but his business is faltering.

"It's devastating," said Bruno, whose grandfather came from Sicily and was a Monterey fisherman. "It's a livelihood taken away."

Fishermen, who already have a fear and loathing for regulation, may now face more. In June, President Barack Obama appointed a 24-member Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force to develop recommendations for a new national policy that aims to improve the management of U.S. waters.

Early next week, the task force will propose a process to help sustain ocean health in the face of a growing number of ocean uses, such as alternative energy, aquaculture, fisheries, oil and gas and recreation — a concept called marine spatial planning.

The goal "is to maximize the economic benefits we get from the oceans in a way that protects ecosystem health," said Aimee David, ocean conservation policy manager at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. "If we allow the marine environment to continue to degrade, we will see a loss of services we get from oceans."

Fishermen aren't sure what marine spatial planning will mean for the Monterey Bay, said Monterey Harbormaster Steve Scheiblauer. And they won't know until a specific proposal is put forth. But he hopes it will create some new fishing opportunities for California fisherman.

"There is a bit of trepidation about it because this poses yet another bunch of significant changes," Scheiblauer said. "There has been such change in the last 15 years or so, and we wince a bit wondering whether this is a new change to try to absorb."

Shrinking fishing territory

It has been a miserable 15 years for both sport and commercial fishermen.

Overfishing of rockfish in the 1980s and '90s led the federal government to establish Rockfish Conservation Areas, temporarily shutting down huge chunks of prime fishing territory on the West Coast so populations could recover. They have been closed for almost 10 years and they are likely to be closed for another 20, Scheiblauer said.

In 1999, the Marine Life Protection Act in California led to the roping off of more rich fishing territory on the Central Coast, restricting or banning fishing in many rocky habitat areas — each the size of the Peninsula — designating them marine protected areas.

With the salmon season closed for the second straight year because of low fish numbers, fishermen are hurting even more.

But fishermen are not to blame for the fish problems, Scheiblauer said.

"This was a management problem," he said. "The scientists and the managers had been telling them they could take more than they really could throughout the 1990s, and they took it."

Some scientific studies show California's fisheries are some of the best managed in the world, added Scheiblauer, who says that the fish are coming back and fishermen want to get back to fishing. He hopes the new marine policy will recognize this and reopen California fisheries for sustainable fishing.

Some area scientists disagree, however. Mark Carr, a marine biologist at Long Marine Lab in Santa Cruz, said fish still need protection for populations to fully recover. He said evidence shows that offshore fish species are returning, but not enough data exists to prove that inshore species, such as kelp greenling and California sheephead, have made a comeback.

"It's not to say they're not managed well," Carr said. "But you can't say that we're managing fisheries well if you don't know how many fish are out there."

Fishermen and scientists don't always agree how much additional data are needed, but they have the same goal — to get fishermen fishing again. In many cases, they're working together to count fish, allowing fishermen to lend their expertise and pick up some extra income.

"One of the most exciting parts is to include the fishermen in that effort," Carr said. "They have developed ways of fishing that allow you to take the fish, measure them, identify them and return them alive into the ocean."

Signs that regulations help

Carr studies the ecosystem effects of marine protected areas, a form of spatial planning. A new, wide-ranging marine spatial planning process could use tools, such as marine protected areas to restore and sustain ecosystem health.

Half of a protected area is open to some fishing, while the adjacent half is closed completely. In that way, scientists can compare fished areas with preserved areas and study the effects of fishing on ecosystems.

Marine Protected Areas "should enhance the rate at which the fisheries come back," Carr said, though he said he knows fishermen are going through a "terrible bottleneck" right now. "The fish populations have got to get back up to a size where these guys can fish them sustainably again."

A new study from Carr's lab shows that protected areas in Mexico successfully restocked surrounding fished areas with shellfish, and the science applies to most finfish as well.

"If you safeguard species in there, they become bigger and there are more of them," said Pete Raimondi, who conducted the research in the northern Gulf of California. "Bigger fish have more babies, so if we give the fish enough protection, we'll see enhanced larval numbers throughout the region and replenish depleted stocks."

But Scheiblauer says that while we're protecting our waters here, Californians are taking and eating fish from other nations that don't fish their waters sustainably.

"We're exporting our issues and exploiting the resources of other nations," he said. "We really missed the mark about careful utilization of the resources we have."

Already, he said, 85 percent of the fish Californians eat is brought in from other countries that may be fishing irresponsibly.

"At some point, the public is going to be surprised that there is so little local caught seafood here for them to eat on the West Coast," Scheiblauer said. "We are in a path of destroying the infrastructure of fishing."

Time is running out

Many fishermen are going out of business, selling their boats and moving out of town. That means less fishing in the Monterey Bay and the possible loss of a long fishing heritage.

"The way it is now, they're family-owned businesses," said Kathy Fosmark, former member of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, a federal organization that manages federal fisheries in Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California. "Fishermen learn to fish from their fathers before them."

Fosmark, who fishes with her husband out of Moss Landing, fears the fishing culture will be further damaged if the new national policy implements more "catch shares," the practice of divvying up the ocean's harvestable fish into buyable, tradable shares.

She said wealthy stockholders, not fishermen, could buy up these shares and lease them to fishermen at a high cost, taking fishing out of the community.

"You cannot run a fishing business from a boardroom" because stockholders don't understand the nature of fishing, Fosmark said. The shares, she said, need to be kept in the fishing community.

As they face even more regulation, West Coast fishermen are fast becoming a dying breed. Young people can't afford to buy into the business, and won't if there's no money in it, while the older fishermen are retiring.

"What would Monterey be without its fishing culture and heritage?" Scheiblauer asked. "It would wipe out the sense of community, and all the efforts we've had to protect the culture of fishing."

But he doesn't think all hope is lost. New efforts, like off-the-boat fish sales are bringing fishing to the community and increasing public support for local family fishermen, Scheiblauer said.

"I do hope that with increased public and institutional awareness that we can preserve and actually grow the fishing infrastructure, with the emphasis on keeping it sustainable," Scheiblauer said.

North Coast counties are working together on the MLPA

2009-12-07T11:07:00.000-08:00

By Patricia Wiggins, Redwood Times
Guest Editorial

The Marine Life Protection Act, passed in 1999, mandates a comprehensive review of existing marine reserves, and, when necessary, allows for the creation of new reserves for marine ecosystem protection. This was a good idea for our state, as well as for the marine life along the nearly 1,100 miles of California coastline.

Now we find ourselves with fast-approaching deadlines for the creation of Marine Protected Areas, and some people are awaiting the outcome with trepidation. They fear the end of their livelihoods, the end of cultural practices, or the hand of “big brother.” And they worry that the largest share of the resource will be set aside for conservation, driven by big environmental groups who seek to protect our coast - whether we want it or not.

The planning process for the North Central Coast Region (Alder Creek near Point Arena to Pigeon Point) is now winding down, while the North Coast Region (Pt. Arena to Oregon border) process is just getting started. And what has been the North Coast Region’s initial response? Rejection, by virtually all stakeholders, of any and all processes controlled from outside the region, particularly from Sacramento. Nothing brings people together like the hand of the state.

I believe there is a strong link between our environmental interests and our commercial and recreational fishing interests, as well as our Native American coastal tribes - we all depend on a clean and well-managed ocean for success. And If the MLPA serves to bring together old antagonists, then surely that’s a good thing.

I am pleased to see indications that our three counties which make up the North Coast Region - Humboldt, Del Norte and Mendocino - are moving in the direction of working together with other key stakeholder groups to develop a science-based “external proposal” specifying the designation of Marine Protected Areas for the coast. The Tri County MLPA working group is the first of its kind to be formed as a response to the implementation of the MLPA process. Hopefully, the counties and their collaborators will be well represented on the regional stakeholder group, so that the external proposal is an on-ramp to a functional process for the whole region.

From the onset of the MLPA process for the coastal regions in the 2nd Senate District, I have been concerned about the people who make their living from, and have long-term cultural ties to, the ocean. Both Native Americans, who are recognized as sovereign nations, and people who fish for their families’ livelihoods, deserve proper recognition in this process. I am adamant that subsistence practices and cultural access to the ocean’s marine resources must be recognized and honored by the MLPA process.

Finally, I think it is very important that any ocean “zoning” recognize other actions in the region. As we determine protected areas, let us also discuss wave energy sites, lease lands for ocean drilling, and the impacts of pipelines and subsurface disturbance, including noise. Any planning efforts for the ocean would be shortsighted if they do not acknowledge current, parallel efforts.

There are a host of wonderful and intelligent people who have volunteered for the MLPA process. Local folks from the coast, including David Hankin from the Humboldt State University Fisheries Department and former Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin, will be representing us in this process on the science advisory team and blue ribbon task force, respectively. Humboldt County Supervisor Jimmy Smith will also serve on the task force.

The outcome of the MLPA is designed to be ecosystem driven. It is those ecosystems that support the communities of the coast and ocean. I have faith that the counties, the tribes, the scientists and your representatives can create something that protects the marine ecosystems, and respects the rights and ways of life of the people of the diverse, wonderful North Coast.

Patricia Wiggins is State Senator for California’s 2nd District, which includes Humboldt and Mendocino Counties.

VAN ZANT: Support Proposal 2 to hinder closures

2009-12-04T11:32:00.000-08:00

By George Van Zant, Long Beach Press-Telegram
December 2, 2009

The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) will present its preferred alternative for the creation of marine protected areas (MPAs) in Southern California to the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) at a joint meeting next Wednesday.

Disregarding the impact that its decision will have on Southern California's coastal communities, the Blue Ribbon Task Force's (BRTF) Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA) will unnecessarily close vast areas of the South Coast region to recreational fishing.

The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO), comprised of recreational fishing and boating groups, supports Proposal 2 as the preferred alternative for the South Coast. Proposal 2 places MPAs in locations with a high level of conservation while minimizing the economic impact on local communities and recreational anglers and boaters.

To protect as much recreational fishing opportunity as possible, please send e-mails to the California Fish and Game Commission in support of Proposal 2.

The meeting will be held at: Radisson Hotel - LAX, ABC Ballroom, 6225 W. Century Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90045.

Schwarzenegger's MLPA: Marine Life Guardians or Corporate Privateers?

2009-12-04T11:31:00.000-08:00

By Dan Bacher
December 3, 2009

Tom Stienstra, outdoor columnist for the S.F. Chronicle, recently pointed out the absurdity of many of the people that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently appointed to the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) for the North Coast by listing the appointees and their "qualifications."

"Sometimes people take issue with political appointments to committees charged with overseeing the state's conservation management," said Stienstra in his column on November 29. "The Department of Fish and Game provided this list of committee members who will implement the Marine Life Protection Act for the Northern California coast.

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, chief operating officer and chief of staff, Western States Petroleum Association; Gregory Schem, president and chief executive officer, Harbor Real Estate Group; Jimmy Smith, chair, Humboldt County Board of Supervisors; Virginia Strom-Martin, advocate, Los Angeles Unified School District; William Anderson, president, Westrec Marina Management; Meg Caldwell, director and senior lecturer on law, Stanford Law School Environment and Natural Resources Law and Policy Program; Roberta Cordero, lawyer, co-founder Chumash Maritime Association; Cindy Gustafson, district general manager, Tahoe City Public Utility District."

I'm one of those people who takes strong issue "with political appointments to committees charged with overseeing the state's conservation management." Upon announcing the appointment of the task force, Mike Chrisman, Natural Resources Secretary, claimed, "This diverse and knowledgeable group, that includes local public leaders, will ensure that all interests are heard as the MLPA planning process moves to the north coast."

However, the exception of Jimmy Smith, a well respected Humboldt County Supervisor, all of the members of this "August body" are people from outside of the region.

Reheis-Boyd is the most controversial of the appointments, since she was on the MLPA panel for the North Coast, in addition to being the chair of the panel for the South Coast MLPA process. She was part of the panel that decided to ban the Kashia Pomo Indian Tribe and other tribes from their traditional areas off Stewarts Point and Point Arena where they have sustainably harvested seaweed, mussels and abalone for centuries. The "oil industry superstar" will become the president of the Western States Petroleum Association in January.

What the heck is an oil industry lobbyist doing on the task force? Political insiders believe that she has been chosen for this position so she can protect the oil industry's interests on the California coast. The oil industry is seeking to open up new areas to oil drilling off the California coast, particularly in the Point Arena Basin. She is apparently on the North Central Coast, North Coast and South Coast Task Forces to make sure that marine protected areas don't impinge upon existing or planned future oil drilling operations off the coast.

Schwarzenegger's choice of William Anderson, president, Westrec Marina Management, is also quite curious. "Focusing on the service side of the marina industry, Westrec is the most comprehensive and authoritative source of marina operating information in the business; handling fuel docks, ship's stores, boat repair and maintenance, commercial leasing, restaurants, campgrounds and lodging facilities," according to Westrec's website, http://www.westrec.com.

Just like having an oil industry official on a task force designed to create marine protected areas is an obvious conflict of interest, isn't having a marina operation executive on the panel a conflict of interest? Could Anderson be on the task force to make sure that marine reserves don't impede on marina operation and expansion plans now in the works?

The appointment of Gregory Schem, president and chief executive officer, Harbor Real Estate Group, is also bizarre. Why should a real estate corporation officer be presiding over a supposedly "environmental process? What background does he have in fisheries or "marine protection? to justify his appointment?

A broad coalition of North Coast environmentalists, fishermen, Indian Tribes and seaweed harvesters fear that these corporate officials and political hacks are being appointed to the MLPA Task Force to remove the strongest protectors of fish and the oceans and most ardent opponents of oil drilling from the water to clear the path to the development of offshore oil rigs, marina projects, corporate aquaculture and wave energy projects off the North Coast.

The Governor and Secretary Mike Chrisman excluded California Indian Tribes and environmental justice communities from the MLPA initiative since Schwarzenegger initiated his fast-track MLPA process in 2004. Fortunately, under pressure from the tribes, the Governor finally appointed a member of a California Tribe to the north coast panel, Roberta Cordero from the Chumash Maritime Commission in southern California.

Roberta Cordero is strongly supported by the Yurok Tribe, as well as other North Coast Tribes in sitting on the BRTF. Given her profession, her involvement in the MLPA process in the South Coast, understanding of the role of the BRTF, and the support of her by many Tribal members in the North Coast, the Yurok Tribe backs her appointment and is happy to have her involved as an advocate for Tribes.

The BRTF held its first meeting on Wednesday, Nov. 18 and Thursday, Nov. 19 at the Red Lion Hotel in Eureka. Members of the Yurok Tribe, Wiyot Tribe, Hoopa Valley Tribe, Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria and other North Coast tribes showed in force to criticize the MLPA initiative, a process to date that has not engaged the tribes in government-to-government relations as they are required to do under state and federal law.

The participants in the California Water Tribal Water Summit on November 3-4 took aim at the exclusion of the tribes from the MLPA. “The ocean is the same water; in the Marine Life Protection Act, the California Department of Fish and Game has made an explicit policy decision not to consult with the Tribes,” according to one tribal representative.

Before the summit, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) at their annual session from October 11-16 in Palm Springs passed a strongly worded resolution blasting the MLPA process for failing to recognize the tribal subsistence, ceremonial and cultural rights of California Indian Tribes.

"The NCAI does hereby support the demand of the tribes of Northern California that the State of California enter into government to government consultations with these tribes; and that the State of California ensure the protection of subsistence, ceremonial and cultural rights in the implementation of the state of Marine Life Protection Act," the resolution stated.

The MLPA, passed by the Legislature in 1999, has under Schwarzenegger become an surrealistic parody of "marine protection." The MLPA has done nothing to stop pollution and habitat destruction on the ocean, but only aims to further restrict sustainable fishermen and seaweed harvesters on the most heavily restricted stretch of ocean waters on the entire planet, even though a June 31 study in Science magazine revealed that the California current features the least exploited and most restored marine ecosystem population of any place studied!

"These MPAs do nothing to keep the ocean healthy, they do nothing to improve water quality," summed up Vern Goehring of the California Fisheries Coalition.

Even worse, the corrupt MLPA process under Schwarzenegger is funded by the Resource Legacy Fund Foundation (RLFF), a shadowy organization supplied with millions and millions of dollars every year through the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, David and Lucille Packard Foundation and other corporate entities. The foundation heavily funds the corporate environmental NGOs that are pushing so hard for their way in the MLPA process.

At the same time, many of these NGOs backed the water policy/bond package that clears the path to the construction of a peripheral canal and more dams that will result in the destruction of the California Delta ecosystem. While MLPA proponents are pushing for more redundant restrictions on North Coast coastal fishing communities, they apparently made a deal with the Governor and Legislators to back legislation that will seal the doom of collapsing Central Valley salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, striped bass and other fish populations. What is going on here?

The conflicts of interest and corruption of the democratic process that run rampant in the MLPA initiative, the California legislative process and the Governor's campaign to build a peripheral canal and more dams were prophesized by Thomas Jefferson in 1782.

"We should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when corruption in this as in the country from which we derive our origin will have seized the heads of government and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people and make them pay the price," said Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia.

Marine Protection Option for South Coast Finally Goes to DFG

2009-12-04T11:29:00.001-08:00

Task Force Recommendations Are Usually Followed But Contentiousness Is Anticipated

By Suzanne Guldimann, Malibu Surfside News
December 3, 2009

After months of discussion and debate and an unexpected extra session in November, the Marine Life Protection Act South Coast Region Blue Ribbon Task Force will present its final proposal next week for a series of Marine Protected Areas planned for the Southern California Coast to the California Department of Fish and Game, the agency overseeing the state-mandated MPA process. Time for public input has been scheduled for the Dec. 8 meeting.

On Nov. 10, the BRTF unanimously approved a motion to forward the MLPA South Coast Integrated Preferred Alternative marine protected area proposal as the selection for the study region. The preferred alternative includes both a State Marine Reserve and a State Conservation Area in west Malibu. The SMR, an area with the highest level of protection that would prohibit all fishing activities, would extend from the western end of Paradise Cove to the outflow of Zuma Creek.

“This stretch of coast encompasses some of the most diverse habitats in Los Angeles County, including an upwelling zone, submarine canyon habitat, unique spur and groove reef structures, extensive kelp, and diverse understory algal habitat,” states the Marine Protected Area description. “This is also an area of high species diversity. There is long-term monitoring and research opportunities in this area.”

The proposed SMCA would extend from Zuma Creek to the western end of El Matador Beach. This area would allow the recreational take of pelagic finfish, Pacific bonito and white sea bass, as well as commercial take of coastal pelagic finfish, market squid and swordfish. All other fishing would be prohibited.

A Chumash co-managed SMCA proposed for Nicholas Beach, where the Wishtoyo Foundation’s Chumash Demonstration Village is located, was tabled earlier in the process, but the preferred alternative leaves the door open for Chumash participation at the Point Dume MPA.

“This is also an area that plays a significant role in Chumash maritime culture, it is ideally suited for tribal co-management to promote education and outreach, marine stewardship, and Chumash maritime cultural preservation and revitalization,” the report states.

The preferred alternative includes a recommendation made by the stakeholders group that “DFG explore establishing Chumash co- management for this SMCA/SMR complex. Chumash government and non- government entities will seek to formulate [memos of understanding] with appropriate State departments, e.g., Fish and Game and Parks and Recreation for education and outreach, marine stewardship, and Chumash cultural preservation.”

The preferred alternative also includes a recommendation encouraging “a formal naming process, which both the parks commission and the fish and game commission have for exploring the use of Native American names…” although it concludes that “it is beyond the mission of the BRTF to engage in that naming process.”

According to Chumash representative and Wishtoyo Foundation founder and executive director Mati Waiya, Point Dume was once an important shrine site for the Chumash. Although the Chumash name is lost, the area still yields archeological evidence of thousands of years of Chumash presence.

The BRTF is also recommending that MOUs be used “among the various enforcement and managerial agencies, both those that are already exist in this entire region, with the departments of Fish and Game and State Parks; there is incredible potential there. It has been shown to work in the Channel Islands and there is good will and experience here in this region.”

In addition to the preferred alternative, the final three stakeholder proposals will also be submitted to the DFG, although in the two previous regions to undergo the MPLA process, the DFG accepted the BRTF recommendations with few changes.

The meeting will take place on Dec. 8, at the Radisson Hotel at Los Angeles Airport 6225 West Century Blvd. Public comment will commence at 10 a.m. More information is available at www.dfg.ca.gov.

Fish and Game to cast final vote on marine protected areas

2009-12-04T11:26:00.000-08:00

The proposal calls for a State Marine Reserve designation for the ocean from Malibu's Westward Beach to just outside Paradise Cove.

By Jonathan Friedman, The Malibu Times
December 2, 2009

Conservationists and fishing advocates are gearing up for next Wednesday's California Department of Fish and Game Commission hearing on a proposal to ban fishing off various parts of the Southern California coast, including Point Dume. Rallying cries for both sides of the argument can be found throughout cyberspace.

The five-member commission will vote on a controversial proposal approved last month by the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force. The proposal called for the designation of various Marine Protection Areas, or MPAs, for portions of the ocean from Point Conception in Santa Barbara to the Mexican border. Commercial and recreational fishing advocates blasted the recommendation as too restrictive. Various environmental groups gave the proposal partial praise, although they criticized portions of the decision for not being restrictive enough.

The proposal calls for a State Marine Reserve, or SMR, designation for the ocean from Malibu's Westward Beach to just outside Paradise Cove. A SMR is a “no take zone” in which fishing of all kinds is prohibited. Recreational activities such as boating, swimming, diving or kayaking are allowed. Also, boats with caught fish onboard can pass through the area.

A less restrictive State Marine Conservation Area, or SMCA, has been proposed for the stretch of ocean from Westward Beach to Lechuza Beach. This allows for the recreational take of pelagic finfish, Pacific bonito and White Sea bass. Commercial fishermen could take coastal pelagic finfish, market squid and swordfish.

Other proposed SMRs include Laguna Beach and Point Conception. No fishing restrictions were proposed for the Palos Verdes Peninsula and most of Catalina Island. A complete list of the proposed SMR and SMCA designations and other information can be found online at www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/southcoastipa.asp.

Heal the Bay, which has been a strong advocate for fishing restrictions because of evidence it says exists regarding species population decline, has a posting on its Web site encouraging people to attend the hearing. The site also has a form letter advocates can send to the commissioners. The letter states support for the portions of the recommendation designating SMRs and SMCAs, while the writer is “extremely disappointed” that other areas are not protected.

“Please attend this final hearing to show your support for MPAs that are effective, based on science, and good for fishing,” Heal the Bay states on its Web site.

Meanwhile, various commercial and recreational fishing advocacy Web sites instruct people to attend the hearing and lobby the commission to oppose the task force's recommendation.

“The final decision is up to the Fish and Game Commission-and this is where every angler and boater can make a difference,” a statement reads on Thelog.com, which calls itself “California's boating and fishing and news.”

The statement continues, “Make YOUR voice heard by sending an e-mail NOW, to ensure that the commission acts to represent the needs and wants of sport anglers and boaters-and not just environmental activists who seek a major curtailment of fishing in the entire region.”

Next week's hearing should be a colorful event if last month's task force hearing is any indication. At that session, people wore T-shirts and held signs stating their viewpoints. Two men got into a shoving match and had to be escorted outside by security.

The hearing will take place at the ABC Ballroom in the Radisson Hotel - LAX, located at 6225 West Century Blvd. It is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Viewers can view a live Web cast of the hearing at www.fgc.ca.gov. Shortly after the conclusion of the session, an archived video of the hearing will appear on the site.

MLPA's Proposed Closures Anger Local Fishermen

2009-12-02T16:24:00.001-08:00

By Jonathan Volzke & Andrea Swayne, San Clemente Times
November 26-December 2, 2009

Local fishing-industry representatives are expressing disappointment with a recommendation to close part of South Orange County’s coast to fishing under the Marine Life Protection Act. The boundaries for the recommended closures were developed during an 18-month process that included panels of scientists and local stakeholders.

The BRTF proposal does not restrict public access or recreational enjoyment, such as boating, swimming, diving or kayaking. The plan allows existing commercial and recreational fishing to continue in the majority of the region, including at Rocky Point along the Palos Verdes Peninsula, while strengthening ecosystem protection at a number of key geographies such as Point Dume in Malibu and the Laguna Beach coastline.

But members of the fishing industry say the recommendation goes too far.

“If this decision if adopted will hurt our local 100-year-old lobster fishing legacy that has been healthy and sustainable,” said Rodger Healy, California Lobster and Fishermen’s Association President which represents approximately 230 individual commercial lobstermen. He said it will displace 50 percent of his traps.

Donna Kalez of Dana Wharf Sportfishing, said the recommendation is disappointing. “We will work around any closure but of course we are disappointed with this 5-mile closure from Laguna Lido north to Irvine Point. It will impact our choices on where we, and other local fishing vessels, fish. This impact will be felt financially in Dana Point Harbor and across the fishing industry at a time where we cannot take much more.”

The recommendations will be presented to the California Fish and Game Commission on December 9 in Los Angeles. The commission’s regulatory process to adopt south coast protection areas is expected to take about one year and includes numerous opportunities for public input.

Maps and descriptions of the specific Marine Protection Areas included in the recommendation were due to be posted on the MLPA Web site last week. See www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa.

Viewpoint: Good intentions, bad result

2009-12-02T16:19:00.000-08:00

By Alan Alward, San Luis Obispo Tribune
November 12, 2009

Sylvia Earle’s commentary (“A needed sea change for Southern California,” Oct. 22) does a great job of romanticizing the Marine Life Protection Act.

Unfortunately, the actual MLPA concept and implementation are a great example of the paradox of the “do-gooder”; in other words, good intentions, combining with ignorance, arrogance and prejudice, leading to a bad result.

I have been a commercial fisherman since 1973, fishing albacore, diving for sea urchins and most recently adding open access ground fishing (i.e. black cod) to my means of livelihood. Over the years I have seen commercial fishing demonized regularly in the media. Almost all the publicity about fishing has been negative. We see the same tired film clips of methods of fishing that have been severely curtailed or wrongly interpreted. Over and over we are hit with the message that fishing is wrong and fishermen are greedy, shortsighted sub-humans.

Most people continue to have the impression that fish stocks here in California are overfished. This simply is not the case. There is a federal law called the Magnuson-Stevens Act that mandates that every fishery must have a management plan that either achieves a sustainable level of harvest based on scientific information, or when there is insufficient information, adopts a conservative level of harvest to ensure that stocks are not depleted before they can be studied. We have had a series of increasingly drastic measures imposed on us, which have resulted, along with some hardship, in rebounding stocks in many fisheries that were formerly in trouble.

Fishing grounds closed

So what is wrong with the MLPA? In San Luis Obispo County, the governor’s blue-ribbon task force asked fishermen to cooperate and identify their most productive areas ostensibly to minimize the impact of closures on fishermen.

I spoke with a local fisherman coming out of the meeting where they announced that the blue-ribbon task force had decided to adopt the most restrictive plan. He told me that they were closing 80 percent of the areas he had identified as being productive in his fishery.

The bottom line is that they closed 17 percent of the coast in our county, but because the blue-ribbon task force was concerned with preserving the “most productive” areas, the effect was to permanently close 80 percent of what fishermen call the fishing grounds.

This is a travesty. It is a classic example of good intentions gone wrong because of ignorance, arrogance and prejudice. Ignorance because I can’t believe they realized what the effect will be on fishermen, arrogance because they are unwilling to compromise or listen to fishermen, and prejudice because they seem to feel that because they are out to do good their logic is unassailable, while because fishermen have a financial stake in the outcome their experience and logic are automatically discredited.

The results of the MLPA are analogous to the state deciding to create preserves from farmland and going on to close the Salinas, San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys permanently to farming. Do you suppose that would fly? It would never even be proposed because it would be politically impossible as well as stupid.

Achievable goals

In my opinion the goals of the MLPA could be entirely achieved without confiscating the majority of the fishing grounds.

Indeed, an upper limit should be placed on how much of the identified fishing grounds can be closed and this limit should be 10 percent or less.

It is public record that at the same time the California Department of Fish and Game was deliberating on what plan to accept, the proponents of the most restrictive plan were dangling millions of dollars for boats and personnel to enforce the new preserves in front of them to encourage them to choose the most restrictive plan. The department should have known better, but what underfunded government agency can ignore huge sums of money, especially when they can pat themselves on the back for being extra “green” afterward?

Despite all the indoctrination we have received to the contrary, the ocean is a bounteous producer of fish. The sun keeps shining; the kelp and other photosynthesizing organisms grow, sustaining an array of diverse creatures.

The overfishing of the past is not to be confused with the effective, often overly conservative, regulation online today. We don’t need closed areas to prevent decimation of fish populations. This can and should be achieved by effective management, so that we can have access to the bounty that naturally occurs. Reduce fishing if stocks decline, but leave room to increase it again when stocks rebound. By permanently closing off access to the best fishing grounds you deny fishermen their occupation, and you deny the population the benefit of abundant wild fish to eat.

The rights of fishermen and the true interests of society have been trampled. Injustice has been done. The only hope for redress is an investigation by some impartial government body to sift the actual facts of what state the fisheries are in and what impact closing off access to so much of the fishing grounds will have. And impartial means a body run by and composed of people not vetted for their environmental purity; people who will seek out and listen to both sides of the story.

Is this too much to ask?

Atascadero resident Alan Alward is a member of the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization.

MLPA panel decision due Nov. 10

2009-11-09T12:29:00.001-08:00

Del Mar Times
November 6, 2009

A Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force that delayed a final decision Oct. 22 on choosing among three proposals for creating marine protected areas along the Southern California coast, is expected to render its decision Nov. 10 following a hearing in Los Angeles.

The state panel requested further scientific analysis of habitat maps for coastal areas including La Jolla, Del Mar, Solana Beach and other areas in San Diego County, which could be designated as protected areas. There are now four options for San Diego County. All, to varying degrees, would make marine protected areas that are created off-limits to fishing.

The panel's recommendation ultimately will go to the state Fish and Game Commission.

Close Laguna coast to fishing? Big decision expected Tuesday

2009-11-09T12:26:00.001-08:00

By Pat Brennan, Orange County Register
November 9, 2009

A major decision on new protections for ocean life that could include banning fishing off Laguna Beach is expected Tuesday in Los Angeles.

A blue-ribbon task force that is part of the state-sponsored Marine Life Protection Act Initiative will resume its discussion of possible new protected areas off Southern California.

After hearing more public comments – there have been more than 10,000 written comments and six hours of verbal comments since a stakeholder group produced its final three proposals last month – the panel is expected to choose, or create, a “preferred alternative” that it will recommend for final approval to the state Fish and Game Commission.

The effort to create new marine protected areas off Southern California has ignited controversy, especially among fishing interests. In Orange County, sportfishing enthusiasts and operators of recreational fishing boats have expressed strong opposition to some of the leading proposals.

Joining with local commercial lobster fishermen, they say such restrictions could harm the local economy — not just the operators of fishing party boats, but the restaurants, gas stations, shops and other businesses that rely on the sportfishing industry.
Proponents, including environmental and conservation groups, say the new marine protected areas are needed to ensure the survival of fish and other marine life, and to preserve marine habitat.

Last month, the stakeholders produced three complex maps outlining areas off the Southern California coast, from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border, that would receive a range of protections, from some limits on fishing to outright bans.

All three — one produced by a group dominated by environmental groups, one by fishing interests and one by mixed interests — identified a large area off the Laguna coast as closed to fishing.

Once the Fish and Game Commission receives a final recommendation, it could take months, or even as long as a year, to give final approval.

The blue-ribbon panel had been expected to make a decision Oct. 22 in Long Beach, but postponed it to Nov. 10. The meeting begins at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday at the Sheraton Gateway Hotel in Los Angeles.

Laguna Beach residents choose local economy over marine closures

2009-11-09T12:23:00.000-08:00

BYM Marine & Maritime News
November 8, 2009

Because of continuing concerns about closures of California's coastal fishing areas, California's recreational fishing community decided to examine the City of Laguna Beach residents' attitudes towards ocean closures. The intent was to take a reading of public opinion on the issues surrounding the non-binding measure passed 4-1 by the City Council on June 16, 2009 to endorse the establishment of a marine reserve along the Laguna shoreline. The reserve would prohibit recreational fishing along Laguna Beach's shoreline under California's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA).

As part of that process, a city-wide survey of active voters sponsored by the American Sportfishing Association on behalf of the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO) was conducted by California-based Research Analytics & Strategy.

When respondents were asked their opinion about increasing regulation and protection of the Laguna Beach shoreline versus the potential negative impact to local businesses, respondents chose to reject increased shoreline protection in support of local businesses by nearly 20 percentage points.

Beyond their support of the local economy, and above increased coastal protections, respondents in even greater percentages supported the continuation of recreational fishing along the Laguna Beach shoreline, and in all cases rejected eliminated recreational fishing.

The survey executive summary is posted online http://www.keepamericanfishing.org/documents/laguna_beach_survey.pdf for public review.

"California's recreational fishing community has expressed concern that while the MLPA initiative process may have laudable objectives, precedent suggests that for practical purposes, closures are permanent with few if any opportunities to re-open debate and that closure does not necessarily equal increased protection," said Patty Doerr, Ocean Resource Policy Director for the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), a PSO member. "The public and recreational fishermen are skeptical that marine reserves and marine protected areas are necessary tools for protecting California's ocean health. In fact, recent studies have shown that California's fisheries are some of the least exploited in the world. California's fishery management policies and habitat protection measures are working."

Conclusions

Independent of each other, respondents rank Laguna Beach's local economy, and the environment very high.

The majority of respondents consider themselves strong to very strong environmentalists.

In relationship to each other, concerns for local jobs and local businesses far outweigh concerns for expanding marine and habitat protections along the Laguna Beach coastline.

Respondents are willing to accept the minor impacts from recreational fishing along the Laguna Beach shoreline.

Respondents overwhelmingly reject the proposed elimination of recreational fishing in order to expand the protections for marine habitat.

History of the MLPA
The 1999 Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) mandated that the state of California design and manage an improved network of marine protected areas to, among other things; protect marine life and habitats, marine ecosystems, and marine natural heritage. Marine protected areas include marine reserves, marine parks and marine conservation areas.

To implement the original legislation the state created the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, with its Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF), Scientific Advisory Team (SAT), and Regional Stakeholder Groups (RSG) to make recommendations to the California Fish and Game Commission. The commission will decide which coastal areas are placed off limits to fishermen and the general public.

Currently, the BRTF is considering proposals for the South California coast. The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans supports Proposal 2 because it balances additional ocean conservation while minimizing adverse economic impacts. The BRTF is scheduled to meet on November 10, in Los Angeles to finalize a preferred alternative which would then be sent to the California Fish and Game Commission for consideration.

About the Survey
A survey of active voters in Laguna Beach, Ca., was conducted on behalf of the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) by Research Analytics & Strategy. The overall objective of the survey was to take a reading of public opinion on the issues surrounding the non-binding measure passed 4-1 by the City Council on June 16 to endorse the establishment of a marine reserve, which would prohibit recreational fishing under the MLPA.

California-based Research Analytics & Strategy is the public opinion and survey research company founded by Media & Associates. The company has been conducting survey research and creating survey models throughout California for over fifteen years. Contact Kevin Reikes, Research Analytics & Strategy, 916-448-1995, for more information.

The American Sportfishing Association, based in Alexandria, Virginia, is a national trade association working to ensure the future of fisheries resources and to promote recreational and sportfishing to the American public.

The MLPA Process and Peripheral Canal: One Ugly, Environmentally Injust Process

2009-11-09T11:44:00.000-08:00

Arnold Schwarzenegger leaned on the Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg to ramrod a peripheral canal/bonds package through the Legislature early Wednesday morning that will likely result in the destruction of collapsing Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations.

By Dan Bacher, IndyBay
November 6, 2009

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) and peripheral canal boondoggles, although they may be at first appear to be different issues, are effectively one and the same process. The Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, the League of Conservation Voters, the Nature Conservancy, NRDC and their corporate buddies have collaborated with Schwarzenegger to engineer both processes with no regard for local communities or environmental justice.

Mike Carpenter, a sea urchin diver and organizer of a recent fundraiser for the California Fisheries Coalition in Albion on the Mendocino coast, made the vital connection between the MLPA process and Scharzenegger's campaign to build a peripheral canal. Carpenter emphasized that the MLPA is just a "cover-up" for the Governor's plans to build a peripheral canal around the California Delta, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas, through the Delta Vision and Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process.

The peripheral canal and MLPA process are intimately linked by:

(1) Leadership: Phil Isenberg presided over both the Central Coast MLPA and the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Forces - and did an equally atrocious job of "leading" both processes.

(2) Funding: The Resources Legacy Fund Foundation has funded both the MLPA process and the Delta Vision Foundation, along with giving millions of dollars to the "environmental" NGO's that are slavishly supporting both processes.

(3) Greenwashing: Desperately needed actions to restore our ocean, bay and Delta waters have been substituted under the MLPA process with the imposition of new, redundant fishing closures on the most heavily regulated ocean waters on the planet to further the Governor's "green" facade. In the case of the Delta Vision and BDCP processes, the dire need to restore the Delta by decreasing water exports and retiring drainage impaired land on the San Joaquin Valley's west side has been substituted with plans to build a peripheral canal and increase water exports to corporate agribusiness and southern California while taking Delta family farms out of production and converting them to salt marsh.

(4) Racism and Environmental Elitism: Tribal and environmental justice communities in both processes have been excluded in an egregious, disgusting example of environmental racism.

The racism of the current MLPA process become apparent when the Kashia Pomo Tribe was banned from harvesting abalone, mussels and seaweed off Stewarts Point Reservation, as they have done for hundreds of years, by the California Fish and Game Commission at their meeting in August.

“What you are doing to us is taking the food out of our mouths,” said Lester Pinola, the past chairman of the Kashia Rancheria in a public hearing prior to the contentious vote. “When the first settlers came to the coast, they didn’t how to feed themselves. Our people showed them how to eat out of the ocean. In my opinion, this was a big mistake.”

While corporate environmentalists and the Schwarzenegger administration are pushing for further "no take" marine reserves in a largely recovered groundfish fishery, Central Valley salmon, delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, southern resident killer whales, herring and other species have collapsed to record low population levels in recent years, due to massive exports of water to corporate agribusiness by the state and federal governments. These are species that are nearing extinction!

Yet the same Packard Foundation and Resource Legacy Fund Foundation-funded NGOs that are so fervent about supporting the corrupt MLPA process and praising Schwarzenegger for his "green" leadership supported the water package, passed by the Legislature early Wednesday morning, that will result in the construction of the canal, an enormously costly project that would seal the doom of collapsing salmon and Delta fish populations.

Fortunately, North Coast grassroots environmentalists, Indian Tribes, commercial fishermen and recreational anglers and are now united with southern California fishermen, surfers and kayakers in opposing the current unjust implementation of the MLPA and Schwarzenegger's attempt to greenwash his failed environmental policies. They realize that there is nothing "green" about Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the worst Governor for fish and the environment in California history.

To oppose the peripheral canal is to oppose the corrupt MLPA process and to oppose the MLPA process is to oppose the peripheral canal.

Poll: Support for commercial fishing, oppose total bans

2009-11-04T13:10:00.000-08:00

POLL: Public Doesn’t Support Total Ocean Bans, Believes in Reasonable Regulation to Accommodate Fishing and Also Protect Species

By Alliance for Communities of Sustainable Fisheries, Natural Resources Report
November 4, 2009

National Study Highlights:

- An overwhelming majority of U.S. residents support legal recreational fishing (90%) with most of that being strong support. Additionally large majority of U.S. residents support legal recreational fishing in National Forests (80%) and National Parks (78%) and wilderness areas (72%).

- An overwhelming majority of U.S. residents support legal commercial fishing and shellfish fishing in U.S. waters (86%)

- 95% support protecting U.S. ocean waters and ocean life; 78% strongly support doing so and another 17% moderately support doing so. Among US residents.

- Posed as an open ended question, respondents were then asked what “protect” means, as in “we should protect ocean waters and ocean life”. The most common responses regarding the meaning of “protect” pertains to managing for sustainable use (29%), protecting rare and fragile habitats or sea life (21%), and protecting the environment against oil spills, pollution, dumping etc. (20%) No other category response received more than 14%, including responses of “full protection—no human use” (8%), protecting “some ocean waters” (3%), protecting a “percentage of ocean waters” (1%)

The Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries (ACSF) has released the results of a national public opinion poll revealing the public’s attitudes about ocean conservation which found that the public strongly wants the ocean to be protected, but not with total marine closures.

Respondents expressed a reluctance to place the ocean off limits to human use if those areas and the resources can be used sustainably. The public does support placing areas off limits to all human use, but only if it is to protect rare and fragile habitats, where no sustainable use is possible. And researchers found that the level of support for both commercial and recreational fishing remains strong.

“The public doesn’t support laws or regulations that hurt the nation’s small, independent fishermen or recreational fishing activities,” said Vern Goehring, manager of the California Fisheries Coalition. “They want smart management of marine ecosystems, not total ocean closures that hurt local economies.”

“That’s good news for fishermen and other ocean users, but it also shows that many state and federal officials are out of touch with public opinion as they attempt to close areas of the ocean to human use,” added Kathy Fosmark, Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries Co-Chair. “People just don’t want to be shut out from using the ocean.”

The poll also found that people are concerned about how much seafood is imported into the U.S. for human consumption.

Most (89%) of those surveyed consider it important to provide U.S. caught fish. “I believe that most people would be shocked to discover that over 85% of the seafood we consume comes from foreign sources, many of which have no ocean protective measures in place whatsoever” said Monterey commercial fisherman Mike Ricketts. “I hope that this results in more support from our political leaders for the nation’s fishing men and women”.

“Had this survey been taken BEFORE implementation of the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), perhaps many long-time fishing families and businesses would not have been harmed or destroyed,” said Janice Peters, mayor of Morro Bay. “My hope is that with this information, positive changes will be made to the MLPA process that recognize and support the importance of our fishing industry. A balanced, sustainable solution is possible if all stakeholders work together respectfully to achieve it.”

“This public opinion poll offers relevant information to elected officials and other decision-makers when they are considering broad strategies for the management of our marine resources. The Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries sponsored poll has asked important questions about core public values” stated Steve Scheiblauer, Monterey Harbormaster. “Conservation versus Preservation… it’s good to hear the public’s opinion.”

In addition, the poll showed that the public is willing to accept some change in the ocean’s natural biodiversity in exchange for food production – not clear on what this means?

The nationwide survey results are directly relevant to the new interest in spatial management, the Federal system of Marine Protected Areas, the upcoming Congressional reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the ongoing California Marine Life Protection Act process, as well as the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s Marine Protected Area process for Federal waters.

The public opinion polls reached 729 people nationally, representing proportionally every state, and were conducted by Responsive Management of Harrisonburg, Virginia, an internationally known polling firm specializing in natural resource issues. The margin of error is 3.63%.

Study and regional spokespersons are available, details of the study are below and the entire study can be viewed at http://www.alliancefisheries.com/pub_html/html/Reports.html.

National Study Highlights

An overwhelming majority of U.S. residents support legal recreational fishing (90%) with most of that being strong support. Additionally large majority of U.S. residents support legal recreational fishing in National Forests (80%) and National Parks (78%) and wilderness areas (72%).

An overwhelming majority of U.S. residents support legal commercial fishing and shellfish fishing in U.S. waters (86%)

Among U.S. residents, 95% support protecting U.S. ocean waters and ocean life; 78% strongly support doing so and another 17% moderately support doing so

Posed as an open ended question, respondents were then asked what “protect” means, as in “we should protect ocean waters and ocean life”. The most common responses regarding the meaning of “protect” pertains to managing for sustainable use (29%), protecting rare and fragile habitats or sea life (21%), and protecting the environment against oil spills, pollution, dumping etc. (20%) No other category response received more than 14%, including responses of “full protection—no human use” (8%), protecting “some ocean waters” (3%), protecting a “percentage of ocean waters” (1%)

The public’s interest in fully protecting (no human use at all) some U.S. ocean waters is qualified by the public’s sentiment that the areas to be protected in such a manner should be those which have rare and fragile habitats or species.

The survey asked respondents if they agree or disagree that some change to the natural biodiversity in U.S. ocean waters is acceptable in exchange for a continued food supply through fishing and shellfish fishing…agreement (71%) far exceeds disagreement (20%).

The survey, after informing respondents that approximately 85% of seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported, asked U.S. residents how important it is to them that the U.S. maintain its ability to supply seafood to U.S. residents rather than depend entirely on imported seafood. U.S. residents rated this quite high…89% said it is important to them, with most of them saying it is very important (70%).

Supervisors' plan would keep Rocky Point open, close Point Dume for fishing

2009-11-04T13:03:00.000-08:00

Torrance Daily Breeze
11/03/2009

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors moved Tuesday to support a hybrid plan that would prohibit fishing off Malibu's Point Dume while keeping a favorite Palos Verdes Peninsula fishing ground open.

The board voted in favor of creating a state marine reserve off Malibu but against offering the same protections to Rocky Point, a destination for South Bay commercial and recreational fishermen.

The vote was seen as a compromise between positions taken by conservationists and fishing interests.

Dozens of environmental activists and residents who fish, boat, kayak and dive off the coast argued before the board about which parts of the coastline should be protected or left open.

The board's action is intended to influence the decision of a state task force that will make a final recommendation as to which areas throughout the state should be protected under the Marine Life Protection Act. The California Fish and Game Commission has final say over protections under the 10-year-old law.

The Marine Life Protection Act was adopted in 1999 in response to extreme overfishing of coastal waters. Fish stocks remain depressed, according to data offered by the state Department of Fish and Game.

Under an initiative that has divided the state coastline into five sections with the goal of implementing the act, dozens of stakeholders have created three competing plans for closures in an area stretching from Santa Barbara County to the Mexico border.

The three plans - drafted by fishing interests, conservationists and a compromise group - each specified areas where fishing would be prohibited or curtailed.

State marine reserves prohibit all fishing. Another designation, state marine conservation area, allows for limited fishing.

Tuesday's action by the board reflects support for the compromise position in Malibu and the plan favored by fishing interests for areas off the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

The most environmentally friendly plan in Malibu would extend the reserve to Zuma Beach and add fishing restrictions off Broad Beach.

The most aggressive plan excluded Point Dume and instead protected areas near Malibu Lagoon State Beach and Big Sycamore Canyon.

In addition to hurting those who fish, the compromise plan "will be a death knell for kayakers," one resident warned.

But many, including Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and representatives from nonprofit Heal the Bay, supported the compromise.

"I would have preferred (the most protective plan) myself, personally," Yaroslavsky said. But he backed limiting the protection to Point Dume, saying it would "support a diversity of marine life while leaving areas east and west open for fishing."

"Reaching this compromise was not easy," said Sarah Sikich of Heal the Bay, apparently referencing the Malibu plan specifically.

Yaroslavsky's proposal was offered together with Supervisor Don Knabe and excluded Rocky Point based on "its unique character as a critical socioeconomic and cultural resource," according to documentation the two supervisors provided to their colleagues.

The Rocky Point area has long been a battleground between sport and commercial fisherman and conservationists. The fishermen's economic arguments have gained resonance in today's difficult economic climate.

The unanimous 5-0 vote directs staff to send a letter to the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force detailing the board's position. Having been unable to craft a final recommendation at a lengthy meeting last month, the task force is expected to select its preferred alternative Tuesday.

The Fish and Game Commission is expected to make a final decision in December.

Fish and game commissioners have accepted the task force's proposals for other parts of the state with few modifications, according to published reports.

Want to go?

What: The Blue Ribbon Task Force is set to vote on a proposal to close fishing areas in Southern California.

Where: Sheraton Gateway Hotel, 6101 West Century Blvd., Westchester

When: 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, Nov. 10

California Assembly: Stop Funding MLPAI Process

2009-11-04T12:57:00.000-08:00

In this superb commentary, John and Barbara Stephens-Lewallen urge the California Assembly to stop the private takeover of California's public trust ocean resources by the Resource Legacy Foundation.

By John & Barbara Stephens-Lewallen, Mendocino Sea Vegetable Company
November 3, 2009

The tragic consequences of the private-foundation takeover of the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPAI) are spreading from California’s coastal communities to people dependent on ocean food for health. All ocean food providers in California are stressed by MLPAI permanent area closures either declared or threatened by the MLPAI process.

In August, 2004, the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation gained total control of the process of setting up Marine Protected Areas in California’s public ocean waters and intertidal zone under the Marine Life Protection Act of 1999, by signing a Memorandum of Understanding with Resources Secretary Michael Chrisman. This Memorandum of Understanding is unprecedented in California history: private foundations are given total control over making fisheries regulations.

We’re asking Californians to educate yourselves, and your Assembly member, about this private takeover of public fisheries regulatory process. Please demand that the Assembly put a stop to it by using their power to deny state funding for the MLPAI process.

Today the State of California has no money to review the work done by the the private MLPAI process, which Barbara and I have found to be cruel, unaccountable, and determined to close key ocean access areas and fisheries on a tight schedule. Nor is there state money to finance California State Wardens to patrol the new Marine Protected Areas.

Is California headed for privately-funded guards for the new Marine Protected Areas? Resources Secretary Chrisman is sure that private funding for California’s fish and game wardens always will be necessary.

“The truth of the matter is that we do not and never will have adequate funding to alone manage all of California’s natural resources in the most effective manner, which makes public-private partnerships like the MLPA Initiative so important, not only for planning purposes , but also for long-term management,” Secretary Chrisman wrote in the October, 2009, Executive Director’s Message in the MLPA Initiative South Coast News.

The big MLPAI lie is that they have been directed by the Assembly through the Marine Life Protection Act of 1999 to do what they are doing. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. The private foundations controlling the MLPAI have many motives, but all are focused on ending public access to sustainable seafood in California’s public intertidal zone and ocean waters.
When the California State Assembly halts appropriations for the MLPAI, it will stop. We should stop this private takeover of California’s vital public fisheries in its early stages.

Don Koch Appoints North Coast 'Science' Panel for Corrupt MLPA Process

2009-11-04T12:52:00.001-08:00

By Dan Bacher, IndyBay
November 3, 2009

Donald Koch, California Department of Fish and Game Director, announced on October 27 the appointment of a panel of science advisors to assist in "redesigning marine protected areas" along the northern California coast. The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Master Plan Science Advisory Team (SAT) will provide "scientific support" for the MLPA Initiative, apparently just like the Bechtel-funded Delta report issued by the Public Policy Institute of California provided the "scientific" justification for the peripheral canal.

"The scientists I have appointed to the advisory team are each uniquely qualified for this important task," Koch gushed. "Their experience and expertise in marine resources conservation make them well suited to provide accurate, insightful advice and will help ensure that all decisions made in the coming months will be firmly rooted in the best available science."

Koch made the announcement prior to resigning from his position as Director on November 1. Koch had earned the reputation for being a "yes man" to whatever Governor was in power, having presided over massive fish kills on the Scott and Shasta rivers in 2001 when he was a regional director under the Davis administration.

Most recently, Koch approved a plan by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to issue a blanket permit for agricultural practices that kill salmon or destroy habitat in the Shasta and Scott, two of the Klamath’s key salmon spawning tributaries. A coalition of tribes, conservationists, and commercial fishing groups, represented by Earthjustice, filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court to block Koch's precedent-setting proposal to strip endangered species protections from threatened coho salmon in northern California’s Klamath River watershed.

“These proposed permits are essentially licenses to kill salmon,” said Erica Terence of Klamath Riverkeeper, lead plaintiff on the case. “With conditions deteriorating for fish every year on the Scott and Shasta, CDFG should be proposing programs that expand protections for fish, not destroy them as these watershed-wide permits would do.”

The MLPA process takes place in the larger context of Schwarzenegger's war against endangered salmon and steelhead populations in the Scott and Shasta rivers and his campaign to build a peripheral canal and more dams to increase water exports from the California Delta. Rather than appointing a "science advisory team" to justify the corrupt MLPA process, Koch should have had the courage to ask for a suspension of the process, since the state of California does not have enough game wardens to patrol existing Marine Protection Areas (MPAs) on the Central Coast.

The California Fish and Game Wardens have asked for a suspension of the process, due to lack of funding for wardens. A broad coalition of North Coast environmentalists, fishermen, seaweed harvesters and Indian Tribes have also asked for a suspension of the initiative, a process rife with conflicts of interest, mission creep, racism and corruption of the democratic process.

Koch also should have shown some integrity by strongly opposing Schwarzenegger's support of the peripheral canal and more dams, a plan that will only exacerbate the collapse of Central Valley salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, striped bass, green sturgeon and the southern resident population of killer whales.

Finally, he should have shown some integrity by standing up for endangered coho and chinook salmon on the Shasta and Scott rivers, rather than approving a license to kill by irrigators.

Rather than taking long needed actions that would actually help restore California's fish populations, Koch perpetuates the lie that the MLPA process is guided by "science" by appointing a panel that will give "scientific" cover to MLPA corporate greenwashing.

The first of the five study regions to be redesigned under the MLPA fiasco was the Central Coast. The California Fish and Game Commission adopted a final package of MPAs for this region in April 2007, in spite of strong opposition from fishermen, Indian tribal members and environmental justice advocates.

The next study region to be redesigned was the North-central Coast, for which regulations were adopted on August 5, 2009. In a grotesque parody of justice, the Kashia Tribe and other Indian Nations will be banned from the traditional areas off Stewarts Point in Sonoma County and Point Arena in Mendocino County where they have sustainably harvested seaweed, abalone and mussels for centuries. Recreational fishermen, seaweed harvesters, commercial fishermen and recreational divers, who have stood up against pollution, clearcutting forests and offshore oil drilling for decades, will also be removed from the ocean in key areas.

The South Coast is nearing the end of the process as the North Coast begins the process. The San Francisco Bay will be the last region to be studied.

In an classic example of egregious conflicts of interests under the Schwarzenegger administration, the Governor recently appointed Kathy Reheis-Boyd, the executive director of the Western States Petroleum Association, to be the chair of the South Coast Blue Ribbon Task Force. How can anybody claim that having an oil company lobbyist heading a so-called "marine protection" panel is anything but corporate greenwashing, especially when the oil companies are trying to install more oil drilling rigs off the northern and southern California coast?

Real environmentalists don't support Schwarzenegger's corrupt MLPA process, just like they don't support the peripheral canal, more dams and killing off endangered salmon on the Scott and Shasta rivers.

On the Waterfront: Panel to look at no-fishing zones again

2009-11-04T12:35:00.000-08:00

By Kristopher Hanson, Long Beach Press-Telegram
11/02/2009

A state panel will reconvene Nov. 10 in Los Angeles to consider a controversial plan expanding no-fishing zones off the Southern California coast.

During hearings Oct. 20-22 in Long Beach, a blue-ribbon panel declined to pick among three proposed fishing restricted zones following hours of heated debate between anglers, biologists and environmentalists. Instead, the panel voted to continue deliberations through early November before forwarding their recommendation to the California Fish and Game Commission, which votes on a final plan in December.

The most aggressive proposal, which supporters contend would ultimately revitalize declining fish and marine life populations off Southern California's coast, expands restrictions on popular commercial and recreational angling spots off the Palos Verdes Peninsula and around the Channel Islands.

Opponents, who include much of the commercial and recreational angling community in Long Beach, San Pedro and the South Bay, favor a less restrictive proposal that would allow many of the fishing zones to remain largely intact.

The Marine Life Protection Act of 1999 is designed to protect for future generations marine life within three miles of California's roughly 1,000 miles of coastline. The act divided the state into five regions, with a blue-ribbon panel designated for each area and consisting of environmentalists, commercial fishermen, biologists and others whose recommendations are forwarded to the five-member Fish and Game commission, which carries ultimate authority on the various plans.

In recent months, the commission has accepted, without change, proposals forwarded by similar panels in Northern and Central California.

The panel responsible for adopting local MLPA zones meets at 9:30 a.m. Nov. 10 at the Sheraton Gateway Hotel, 6101 W. Century Blvd. in Los Angeles for further deliberations and possible changes to the three proposals debated during the Long Beach hearings. The public is welcome to attend or watch a live feed of the hearing www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings_sc.asp.

They have also posted maps online of the three proposals - and possible alterations to the proposals - at www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa and at www.marinemap.org/marinemap.

Proponents of the strictest proposal, known as Map 3, which expands restricted areas surrounding the Channel Islands and Palos Verdes Peninsula, contend recent scientific study of the area shows it has been overly exploited, leaving fish stocks depleted and wreaking havoc on the underwater ecosystem.

They contend a more managed approach to underwater ecosystems will ultimately increase fishing opportunities by allowing depleted stocks to replenish and eventually expand beyond restricted zones.

"When you look at areas where commercial fishing has been banned or restricted for periods in the past - the northern Channel Islands is a good recent example - the scientific evidence shows that within a few years the fish populations return, the environment heals, the fish actually return bigger and healthier and the fishing industry turns out more of a profit, so it makes sense in the long-term to adopt these policies," said Charlotte Stevenson, a marine biologist with Heal the Bay.

Opponents, however, contend further restrictions could decimate an ailing local fishing industry, which they contend already suffers from the effects of existing environmental restrictions.

They prefer a less restrictive approach as outlined in Map 2 on the MLPA Web site, which they say supports the ecosystem without destroying opportunities for fishermen and recreational anglers.

Representatives of several South Bay cities with large commercial fishing industries, including Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach, have urged adoption of Map 2, which largely leaves fishing areas near the Peninsula's popular Rocky Point open. The group created a Web site, www.keeprockypointopen.com, to support their plan.

The blue-ribbon panel is accepting written comments through Nov. 4. Interested parties are encouraged to contact panel members, whose names and contact information are available at www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/scproject.asp#members.

Locals turn out to voice MLPA frustration

2009-11-02T12:07:00.001-08:00

By Steve Chittock, The Daily Triplicate
November 2, 2009

More than 70 people showed up Thursday night to talk to officials involved with the effort to create marine protected areas along California’s coast.
A frank discussion focused on the fact that some North Coast residents, including fishermen, harbor commissioners and county supervisors, feel left out of the process.

And while many of the attendees left still frustrated, Marine Life Protection Act Initiative officials felt the session was a good step in developing communication with the community.

“We had a good mix,” said MLPA Initiative Executive Director Ken Wiseman. “There were both first-time attendees and people for whom this was their third meeting. It meant we had to get through the basics, but I think there was a lot of communication.”

The MLPA Initiative is tasked with forming marine protected areas along the entire coast, which has been separated into five regions. The North Coast is the fourth region to begin the process.

The three possible levels of marine protection are primarily based on the severity of the take limit. From least restrictive to most, they include marine conservation areas, marine parks, and marine reserves (which would be no-take areas).

The second half of Thursday’s meeting was supposed to be devoted to a training workshop that covered the key components of so-called external MPA proposals — including science and feasibility guidelines and training in MarineMap, the MLPA Initiative’s online mapping tool.
But due to technical difficulties, those training sessions will be held as webinars — Internet-based seminars — Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week.

External proposals would be developed by people or groups outside of the official process, which involves a recently chosen Science Advisory Team (SAT) and a regional stakeholders group.

Because of the technical difficulties, Thursday’s meeting became more of a question-and-answer session than a workshop.

Crescent City Harbor Commissioner Scott Feller expressed the audience’s general frustration by questioning not only the science behind the MLPA, but also the public outreach effort.

The sentiment was echoed by people all across the room.

“It would be nice if you guys showed us where the sand and rock bottoms are,” a local fishermen said. “How can we submit an external proposal without knowing what’s going on?”

Local fishermen Bill DeBacker put it more directly.

“We should be involved in every step of the process,” DeBacker said. “That’s fairness, we’re the ones out there every day.”

MLPA Initiative Principal Planner Evan Fox agreed with DeBacker that fishermen should be a part of the process.

“That is one of the reasons that we are meeting tonight,” Fox said. “We want as much community input as possible, especially from you guys. It’s in fishermen’s best interest to get in touch with Eco-Trust, to show them where fishing areas are, the grounds that are the most important.”

Eco-Trust is a non-profit firm in Portland that has been contracted to collect economic impact information about MPAs.

“Eco-Trust has collected economic impact information in the last three regions,” said MLPA Initiative Executive Director Ken Wiseman. “It lets us know where the most impact is going to be felt.”

Fox’s assertion that the most important thing fishermen can do is to communicate where the best fishing grounds are was met with quiet distrust in the audience.

During an intermission, one fishermen who preferred to remain anonymous expressed doubt that telling the officials anything would be beneficial.

“We helped when they wanted us to keep track of salmon,” he said. “But all that got us was no more salmon fishing.”

Harbormaster Richard Young felt that overall the meeting provided a good resource for community members who haven’t been following the process closely.

“I feel that a lot of people got to air their feelings and concerns and that it moved down the road a ways,” Young said. “Ultimately I don’t think it altered anybody’s opinions of the process. But unfortunately it’s the law. It’s like the speed limit, I may not like driving 55 miles an hour, but I still do because I have too.”

The webinars are being held from 7 to 8 p.m. Tuesday and Wednesday, and from noon to 1 p.m. Thursday, and they are available online or by teleconference.

To participant in teleconference calls on any of the days, dial (877) 662-7634 at the appropriate time and enter passcode 6379063.

To make a reservation for the online seminar, go to the GoToWebinar Web site at http://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/129313777.

According to MLPA officials, using GoToWebinar allows participants to view the presentations and submit questions.

Steve Scheiblauer: State's ocean protection areas won't work

2009-11-02T12:01:00.000-08:00

By Steve Scheiblauer, Santa Cruz Sentinel
November 1, 2009

Will the State's Marine Protected Areas be a model for dealing with threats from over-fishing, climate change and habitat destruction? No, and here's why.

A report by 21 international scientists studied the status of 10 large eco-systems. They found our California current eco-system to be the best managed. The likelihood of having sustainable fisheries here was 95 percent, confirming what NOAA says: West Coast fisheries are sustainable.

These results were through 2006, before the new California MPAs were created. The lead author of the report, Dr. Ray Hilborn, stated that the California MPAs do not significantly contribute to overall eco-system health, and, the California MPA network creates only "the illusion of protection." By the state auditor's own calculation, this illusion of protection will cost taxpayers between $35 million and $55 million per year for enforcement and monitoring.

It is true that in the state's network of small MPAs there may be more and larger fish, and biodiversity may increase. However, the MPAs won't protect against other forces, including global warming, ocean acidification, natural oceanographic changes, and the degree to which other predators move into the MPAs to take advantage of increased abundance.

According to sanctuary information, only five of 11 fished species were more abundant inside two long established state MPAs in Central California than outside. The difference in abundance with these five species was also quite small. It will be impossible to measure the effects of these MPAs on the eco-system as there are too many variables.

Modern eco-system based management takes into account all the dynamics of nature, and all human management and uses. Humans and human needs are part of the eco-system, and must be accounted for in eco-system based management.

The state refused to consider the existing fisheries management measures, including the very large federal MPAs already in place off Central California. The state told its science team to design a network that could stand alone, as if no other management existed. This is not eco-system based management.

Also, the socio-economic analysis on the effects of the MPAs was inadequate. A significant shortcoming was the failure to acknowledge the effects of displaced effort. Remember, MPAs don't reduce the number of fish caught, they merely dictate where they are caught. When fishermen are displaced by an MPA, they will concentrate their effort into the remaining open areas. The Central Coast MPAs took 45 percent of the prime habitat where the fish live, and focused the remaining fishing effort into open areas. The likely outcome is that the MPAs create areas where there are fish, but also create areas that may be overfished. This is hardly an example of eco-system based management.

Last, state MPAs were put into place with essentially no support from a primary stakeholder group, fishermen. This was not merely because of the economic impacts, but because experienced fishermen were aware that there was little eco-system benefit to the MPAs. There is widespread scientific agreement that community and stakeholder support are needed for MPAs to succeed.

An MPA network that truly had eco-system benefits could have been created, but the state made this process highly political, rushing and biasing the science. Don't you think the ocean and the public deserve better than this?

Steve Scheiblauer is the Monterey harbor master, and has been a representative in the state's efforts to implement the Marine Life Protection Act. He has lived in Santa Cruz for 38 years.

Blue whale's death incites local emotions, interest and research

2009-10-30T10:21:00.000-07:00

By TONY REED, Fort Bragg Advocate-News
10/29/2009

The news that a 73-foot-long female blue whale had washed ashore Oct. 19 after colliding with a research vessel has resulted in dozens of calls, comments and emails to the newspaper office.

Comments vary from demands for a full investigation into the whale's death, to speculation about the ship's purpose and requests for directions to the whale's location. Online, news of the incident has circulated the globe, generating a lot of speculation, allegations and curiosity.

According to National Marine Fisheries Service reports, the crew of the Pacific Star reported that they had felt a shudder in the 78-foot vessel before spotting a surfacing whale nearby. Hours later, the whale drifted ashore south of Fort Bragg, still bleeding from wounds to its back. The Pacific Star is currently mapping the ocean floor to update the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's navigational maps. The information will also be available to the public and will be used for Marine Life Protection Act mandates.

Neighboring property owner Larry Wagner contacted media representative soon after the whale washed into a narrow cove. Wagner's whale photos have appeared on news websites around the world.

Humboldt State University researcher Thor Holmes brought a team to Fort Bragg soon afterward to collect samples, measurements and photos. He reported that the whale likely bled to death from two large cuts into its vertebrae about 25 feet from its fluke. He also said the female had recently given birth, and appeared to be in good health prior to the collision.

A time and place for research

"As a marine scientist I can appreciate the value of highly detailed bathymetric mapping, but I think the Pacific Star's research cruise is clearly ill-timed," College of the Redwoods Marine Science Professor Greg Grantham said in an email to the newspaper. "The Pacific Star is currently conducting research in the heart of the migratory corridors of both the blue whale and Humpback whale at the time of year (September and October) when they are commonly found here in their greatest numbers."

Joe Cordaro, a wildlife biologist at the National Marine Fisheries Service in Long Beach, had a somewhat different take on the question of migration and research areas.

"We do not know a lot about the blue whale's migratory path as opposed to the gray whale. We do know that blue whales migrate between Central America and California, Oregon, and Washington, and use the West Coast areas as feeding grounds," he said by email. "They start appearing in our waters in early summer and start heading south between September and December. But they do not migrate in an orderly fashion as do gray whales and they occur farther offshore than gray whales. To the best of my knowledge, the area where this whale was hit is not known to be a major congregating area for blue whales."

"Seismic surveys of this intensity are known to disorient whales, and there is credible scientific evidence that their hearing may be permanently damaged by close exposure to seismic survey devices," said Grantham. "Both of these species are protected by the Endangered Species Act and The Marine Mammal Protection Act, and at a minimum there should have been an observer onboard the Pacific Star to ensure that seismic surveying was halted when whales were sighted in the vicinity."

"It is important to emphasize that we were not performing a seismic survey, when this incident occurred. We were conducting a hydrographic survey, which is very different than a seismic survey," said James Hailstones, operations manager at Fugro Pelagos, the company NMFS contracted to do the mapping research. "The latter uses a high energy seismic source to penetrate the seafloor, while a hydrographic survey uses a low energy sound source (at a relatively high frequency) to measure the depth to the seafloor."

Grantham suggested that if no observers were present on the ship at the time, the crew was "clearly negligent."

When asked, Hailstones said a lookout was on duty at the time of the collision, and that commercial vessels always have one.

"Blue whales are not deep- or prolonged-divers like sperm whales, and if a blue whale was in the area an observer should have had ample opportunity to sight the individual," Grantham said. "A fundamental understanding of the behavior of this species should make it apparent that the disruption of their feeding and migration was inevitable."

What they were doing

Hailstones commented on the concern that sonar instruments may injure or disorient whales and dolphins. He said that while he is not a marine biologist, the vessel uses systems with similar power as many commercial fish finders, bottom detectors and echosounders.

"I can tell you the instrument we use is high frequency at 400 kilohertz," he said. "It's very low power, about the same as most vessel's depthfinders." Calling the Pacific Star's instruments, "off-the-shelf," Hailstones said they are very different from the Navy's higher-power sonar systems.

What happened

Hailstones described the incident by saying the vessel was moving in a straight line at 5.5 nautical miles per hour (6.5 miles per hour) in broad daylight when the crew felt "a shudder."

"We didn't hit it straight on," he said. "It surfaced under the stern."

He said the ship's hydrographic equipment also didn't detect any movement, because it's designed to survey the ocean floor in "a very narrow cone."

Moments later, the whale appeared at the stern, causing the vessel to stop and move a safe distance away, he said. After observing it for some time, the crew decided there was nothing they could do to help and carried on, Hailstones said.

"I can honestly say that, not only were the people on the vessel very distressed, but the office here and the management company tells us it's a very sad incident," he said. "We can't think of anything we could have done differently for a different outcome. This is a very, very sad incident."

Asked if mapping is restricted during migration seasons, Hailstones said, "We do have a standing order that if we see whale activity, everything stops, but there is nothing in place for migration areas."

"The scientific research is being conducted under a grant from the Hydrographic Survey Division of the National Ocean Service in partnership with the California Ocean Protection Council," said Cordaro. "No permit was issued as there was no expectation that the survey work would be a threat to large whales, as we have never before documented a ship strike between a hydrographic survey vessel and a large whale of any species."

Addressing a local rumor that the Pacific Star is a fishing vessel, Hailstones said it's currently serving as a platform for mapping. At the suggestion of a reader, Hailstones was asked if a cage could be built around ship's propellers.

"Anything is possible," he said, "but a cage would cut the propeller's power output tremendously."

Asked if the vessel was mapping for offshore oil drilling exploration, Hailstones chuckled.

"That's a complete negative," he said, noting that the equipment for locating oil is very different from surface-mapping hydrography and requires special permits. "To do that, you need geophysical equipment that maps the strata under the sea floor."

He said that anyone applying for permits to use geophysical instruments to locate oil would not be approved.

"It'll never happen," he said. "We've been collecting data for two years. We're not looking for anything."

The Pacific Star crew is made up of nine operating crewmembers and nine hydrographers.

The National Marine Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement in Santa Rosa is conducting an investigation into the circumstances regarding the incident and has not released any findings or determinations.

Fugro Pelagos performs hydrographic and airborne laser mapping services. More information about the firm can be found online at www.fugro-pelagos.com.

"We [NMFS] routinely partner with the U.S. Coast Guard to issue a Notice to Mariners to be aware of the presence of whales in areas where blue whales tend to congregate, such as in the Santa Barbara Channel. There are no immediate plans to issue a NTM in the Fort Bragg area or along the Mendocino coast," Cordaro said.

Property, onlooker issues

In the nearby Mendocino Coast Botanical Gardens store on Oct. 23, employee Cynthia Lambie fielded dozens of questions from visitors wanting to know how to get to the whale. She repeatedly told them that it was bordered by private property and that it could not be seen from the Gardens, which are located south of Fort Bragg.

A letter to Chamber of Commerce members, Executive Director Debra De Graw wrote that, if asked, business operators should say "the whale is not accessible by foot to the public, as there are no public trails to this area."

"As you know, the Chamber has a great respect and appreciation for the whales that migrate and feed off our shores, and each year we celebrate the Gray Whale Migration through our Whale Festivals," DeGraw's letter to chamber members stated. "Our staff is saddened by the death of this gentle giant and hope that people will respect the fact that it is not accessible and let it rest in peace."

Southeast of the location on Ocean Drive, several motorists parked at the Belinda Point easement and trekked about a half-mile to the bluffs but found nothing. Several who passed this reporter asked for better directions to its location.

"We drove from Santa Rosa to see the whale," one woman said, after being told the area was surrounded by private property. She then approached a landscaping crew on Ocean Drive to ask the same questions.

Jerry and Wilma Zari own the house and property less than 200 feet from the whale's location, and have had to contact the Sheriff's Office repeatedly to deal with trespassers.

"We've had about a dozen calls," said Sheriff's Lt. Dennis Bushnell. "When our deputies get down there, they usually find more people arriving."

The property, along with several others, is accessible through a private gate at Schoeffer Lane and Ocean Drive. The steel gate can only be opened with a digital keypad. However, Zari said it didn't stop some people.

He said that two unnamed kids had set up a card table near the Belinda Point over the weekend and were selling maps to the whale's location.

"They were telling people that they could get to it through the gate, [and] if they waited, someone would open it," Zari said. "People pushed on the gate until they bent it. We've had flocks of people in here, it's just been a zoo."

Zari noted that neighboring property owners are concerned for people's safety, along with their own liability.

"It's a dangerous location," he said, noting that they have allowed some people on the property to conduct research, take photos, and film video for publication.

Asked if high ocean swells had moved the whale Friday, neighboring property owner Larry Wagner said he hoped it would wash out to sea.

"We really don't want it rotting in front of our house," he said by phone.

As of Tuesday Oct. 27, Humboldt State University students, locals and others had pulled the bloated whale onshore and began segmenting it and removing the parts.

According to City Manager Linda Ruffing, the group plans to bring the whale up the bluffs in segments so that it can be buried to allow microorganisms to clean to bones. The idea is that the skeleton will be reassembled for display locally.

Part three of this series will detail that effort and plans for the skeletal remains. In the interests of documenting the historic data, the newspaper has photographed and will publish images of the process some may find to be graphic in nature.

MLPA process worries locals

2009-10-30T10:19:00.001-07:00

Timeline for public input questioned on eve of workshop

By Kurt Madar, Daily Triplicate
October 29, 2009

A change in the process for creating marine protected areas on the North Coast has opponents of additional protections feeling sidelined.

But representatives of the Marine Life Protection Act, the legislation responsible for crafting MPAs, claim the change was intended to allow those same critics more access to the process.

The change pushes to the front end the opportunity for interested parties to create their own protection proposals.

The North Coast is the fourth of five regions where MPAs are being created. In the first three, the so-called external-proposal process was not started first, instead happening in conjunction with the rest of the process.

Part of the Marine Life Protection Act process is forming a Science Advisory Team (SAT) and a Regional Stakeholder Group, both of which will be responsible for developing a proposal for the location and types of MPAs along the North Coast.

Those MPAs could go so far as to impose no-take zones.

External proposals for potential MPAs are developed by individuals and groups outside of the SAT or stakeholder groups.

“We are starting the external process first, which we haven’t done before,” said MLPA Initiative Representative Annelore Reisewitz.
Responding to critics who said they were faced with premature deadlines for external proposals, North Coast legislators intervened, resulting in a postponement of the deadline from from December to Feb, 1, 2010.

Assembleyman Wesley Chesbro and state Sen. Patricia Wiggins said they were working to ensure that North Coast groups have enough time to provide input on the process.

The extension was announced by California Secretary for Natural Resources Mike Chrisman on Monday.

“I’ve had several conversations with Secretary Chrisman encouraging him to extend the process to give North Coast fishermen, conservation groups and tribes more time to prepare proposals,” Chesbro said. “I would have preferred a longer extension, but this is certainly an improvement.

“I remain concerned about the North Coast community having full input in this process.”

While MLPA officials tout starting the external process first as an effort to get local groups more involved than in previous study regions, those same local groups feel it actually works to marginalize their input.

“It seems unusual to require the external arrays to be submitted so early in the process,” said Crescent City Harbormaster Richard Young. “I think starting early in the process is good, but closing early is problematic because not all the info is available to all the players.”

“We need more info, we need to know the bottom topography, we need to know where people fish. The question is, how are people going to develop proposals without knowing what the constraints on the system are?”

As part of the MLPA process, the SAT advises the regional stakeholder group on what the requirements for size, distance and location of MPAs are.

Locals worry that without that information, any external proposals will be unacceptable.

Young also pointed out that crab season is fast approaching, and the need for fishermen to be out at sea makes it hard for them to participate in a process that directly affects their livelihood.

Local near-shore fishermen Kenyon Hensel, who has been intimately involved in the MLPA process, feels front-loading the external proposal process is an attempt to get it over with quicker, and not an effort to involve local interests.

“They just don’t seem to care,” Hensel said. “It’s a ploy to get this over as soon as possible. Once again it just shows that they care more about the southern part of the state than the North Coast.”

“External proposals have no effect on the final product,” Hensel said. “It is simply window-dressing to show that they care about public input.”

Three types of MPAs could be established on the North Coast.

The three levels of protection are primarily based on the severity of the take limit. From least restrictive to most, they include marine conservation areas, marine parks, and marine reserves (which would be no-take areas).

The MLPA Initiative is holding a workshop today from 4:30-8:30 p.m. at the Flynn Center in the Board of Supervisors Chamber, 981 H St.

The training workshop will cover development of the key components of possible external MPA proposals — including science and feasibility guidelines — and training in MarineMap, the MLPA Initiative’s online mapping tool.

MLPA Initiative officials not only announced the deadline extension for external proposals this week, they also released the names of those who will serve on the North Coast SAT.

The only member from Crescent City is Craig Strong of Crescent Coastal Research, a wildlife consulting business.

Strong could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

The rest of the SAT hails from all along the West Coast, with members coming from other North Coast communities and as far away as Seattle and Santa Cruz.

Young, who had applied to be an SAT member, thinks it’s rather strange that only one person from Crescent City was chosen to be part of a group that will ultimately have a major effect on the area.

“I guess they could only find one qualified scientist in the entire community,” Young said sarcastically. “Maybe other folks didn’t come forward.”

California Department of Fish and Game Director Donald Koch feels that the appointees are eminently qualified.

“The scientists I have appointed to the advisory team are each uniquely qualified for this important task,” Koch said in a statement. “Their experience and expertise in marine resources conservation make them well-suited to provide accurate, insightful advice and will help ensure that all decisions made in the coming months will be firmly rooted in the best available science.”

The North Coast SAT’s first meeting will be Friday in Eureka. According to Reisewitz, it will be a joint meeting of the North and South Coast SATs.

“The combined meeting is so that the South Coast team can provide insight to the process for the newly formed North Coast SAT,” Reisewitz said.

More information and an agenda for the Friday meeting may be found at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings_n.asp.

State lobster fishery in a pinch for help

2009-10-30T10:16:00.000-07:00

By Ed Zieralski, San Diego Union-Tribune
October 30, 2009

If you're interested in the lobster fishery in California, the Department of Fish & Game has a deal for you.

Because of budget cutbacks and lack of funds, the DFG is looking for “resources and partners” to help develop a spiny lobster Fisheries Management Plan. The DFG considers the California spiny lobster to be a key species because it supports recreational (divers and hoop netters) and commercial fisheries in the state.

Any Fisheries Management Plan will integrate new marine-protected areas that are formed from the South Coast Region of the Marine Life Protection Act. The DFG doesn't have money to pay for that process, either, and has relied on funds from the environmental community to keep that blueprint up and running. Just like the marine protected area closures, any lobster plan would be voted on by the state's Fish and Game Commission.

The difference between the MLPA and the lobster plan is the DFG wants to maintain control and not let it get hijacked by environmentalists the way the MLPA process has.

“When it comes to the lobster Fisheries Management Plan, the DFG is into conservation, not preservation,” said Kristine Barsky, senior biologist in charge of developing the plan.

“We're interested in a sustainable resource that is available to all — recreational fishermen and commercial fishermen and to those who like to photograph it in its environment.”

Barsky said, thus far, the main organization that has stepped forward to help has been the Environmental Defense Fund. That should raise the pinchers of every lobster fisherman, be they recreational divers, hoop netters or commercial fishermen.

The California Lobster and Trap Fishermen's Association tried to get $300 added to their lobster permits to raise money for the Fisheries Management Plan, but after both houses of the state Legislature passed AB 571, the bill was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Barsky said diving groups have come forward with input and have pledged to help, but hoop netters have been missing in action.

“With hoop netters, it's not like we can go to one group and and say this is what we're doing,” Barsky said.

So, if you or your organization care to get involved with the DFG on the important matter of the lobster fishery, contact Kristine Barsky, senior biologist, 2419 Harbor Blvd., No. 149, Ventura, CA 93001 or kbarsky@dfg.ca.gov or call her at (805) 985-3114.

Third Division Bay District race a clash of enviro-titans – October 28, 2009

2009-10-30T10:13:00.000-07:00

By Kevin L. Hoover, Arcata Eye
October 28, 2009

The hotly contested race for the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Board pits two Arcatans with unassailable environmental credentials against each other, stressing longstanding friendships and laying bare generational divisions.

For Third Division voters, the race is a referendum on two very different philosophies for Humboldt Bay’s future.

Dan Hauser, former state assemblymember and Arcata city manager, is challenging incumbent environmental engineer Mike Wilson for the Bay District seat.

As anyone who’s kept up with current events knows, Hauser advocates for development of a shipping port on the bay, which would work with a restored rail line. Hauser contends that port/rail development can be done without compromise to the environment, and that restoration of the shipping infrastructure is the best bet for long-term job creation and retention. That platform has won him strong support from conservatives, labor and some business interests.

Wilson believes that environmental restoration and trail development are more stable underpinnings for long-term economic stability. He is skeptical of both the environmental and economic viability of any large-scale port/rail development. His emphasis on natural values has earned him the backing of most of the environmental community, alternative transportation advocates and many in the health care field.

Dan Hauser

Having followed Bay District business for years, Dan Hauser’s sense of duty has led him to interrupt his idyllic Arcata existence with a return to public service.

Once on the Bay District commission, Hauser said, he’d work with bay-neighboring communities to scope out opportunities for creation of living-wage jobs.
Vast, untapped potential is waiting to be exploited, Hauser said. “Our bay is one of the last possible resources for economic development in our area,” he said. “I see opportunities for coastal-dependent industries, shipping, safety and certainly the environment and natural values. It’s an extension of the restoration of the creation of the Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary. That can be expanded greatly around the bay.”

Hauser thinks he’s the kind of environmentalist who the pro-development commission majority could work with. “I’ve had long experience with putting together coalitions of people with diverse backgrounds and interests,” he said.

“Getting people to work together rather than against each other, especially in Sacramento.”

Hauser isn’t willing to take a back seat to Wilson in trail advocacy. But he thinks the idea of co-locating rail and a trail on U.S. Highway 101’s west side is impractical for both. “You’d have to fill wetlands, and that’s something that’s extremely difficult and inappropriate to do,” he said.

He’d flop the trail over to the spacious east side of 101. “The east side has much more opportunities for a transportation trail, but helping people access the vast amount of territory we’ve purchased for wildlife habitat and wildlife viewing opportunities along that east side,” he said.

The trail route would take a left turn where Janes Creek meets Samoa Boulevard, and utilize the improvements to that street as part of the long-planned Gateway Project. It would pass over the freeway bridge, which is slated for sidewalk widening, then head south through City- and Caltrans-owned lands, and continue to Eureka.

Hauser wants to hold the proposed Redwood Marine Terminal up for critical analysis, while being mindful of the economic potential of a “scaled-down” version. “In the same way that we just improved the airport, I think we can include the shipping opportunities on Humboldt Bay.”

He doesn’t foresee the Bay District being able to use much of the excess water capacity suddenly available from the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District. “That’s going to be a very difficult thing,” he said, and aquaculture – farming of marine life – creates limited demand. “Ninety-nine percent of the aquaculture opportunities use salt water, not fresh water. I don’t believe we’re going to be raising trout or catfish, and those would be the only real fresh water opportunities.”

He does believe saltwater aquaculture should be pursued, but is clearly more enthused about brawnier industries.

Short-sea shipping, he said, is a “great idea as a start towards long-term shipping.”
The Marine Life Protection Act is heavily flawed in several ways, Hauser said. Besides lacking enforcement provisions and buy-in from user groups, “I really don’t like to see something like this being pushed by a private organization with state backing,” he said. He predicts possible blocking by court action until the MLPA can be revised to improve community participation.

Hauser says he’ll capitalize on his contacts with influential state and federal policymakers to maximize Humboldt Bay’s economic and environmental potential. “I have a tremendous number of contacts in Sacramento and in Washington,” he said. These include “the various agencies as well as legislators that I believe can help us on the North Coast.”

His decades of experience on issues now relevant to the bay will well-serve the district, he said. Co-creation of the Marsh and Arcata’s successful Aldergrove Industrial Park are only part of the story. Largely forgotten is Hauser’s key role in preventing development of Bayside’s bottomlands via the ATOPAK development in the 1970s. That would have consisted of a Holiday Inn, mobile home park, shopping center and apartments.

He thinks his opponent’s emphasis on development of light industry is laudable, but beyond the scope of the Bay District’s charter. “The Harbor District has certain tools and cities and counties have certain tools,” he said. “Development of light industry, non harbor-related, is something that we took advantage of in creating Aldergrove Industrial Park. But the Harbor District can’t do zoning. It doesn’t have a redevelopment agency.”

It can, he said, work to assist neighboring communities, but not to the extent advertised by Wilson. “The Harbor District has to use the tools that it has,” he said.
Hauser holds that industrialization of the bay can be accomplished without imperiling sensitive ecosystems by enforcement of protective regulations to prevent introduction of non-native species which he helped create as a state assemblymember.

“Those are already in state law, in fact I was instrumental in getting that into state and federal law, that you can no longer dump bilge water in the enclosed bays of any of our western ports,” he said. Invasive species aren’t only introduced by shipping, he noted, and he’s all for aggressive prevention and eradication strategies.

He's stoic aboutsome of his longtime associats, such as Jim Test, Alex Stillman and others having endorsed Wilson. "Some were a surprise, some weren't," he said, not naming names. He doesn't want to discuss specifics so as not to complicate ongoing relationships.

All in all, Hauser thinks that between his clarity of vision, track record and legislative skills, he’s the prime choice for the job. “I believe I have an obligation to use my experience, contacts and expertise to improve job opportunities, economic development and the environment of the bay region,” he said.

Mike Wilson

His first four years as a bay commissioner are just a start, according to Mike Wilson. Asked about his accomplishments over the past four years, his first response has to do with broadening the scope of economic development via the district’s Economic Development Committee. That body’s focus is encouraging existing business and infrastructure around the bay.

That includes short-sea shipping, with the bay district administering a regional program executed by Humboldt Maritime Logistics, LLC. The existing Schneider Dock could handle the business, which might infuse $20 million a year into the district for further infrastructure development.

That scale of shipping, using barges, is do-able, Wilson says, as opposed to the much grander Redwood Marine Terminal the district’s pro-development majority has approved. While he’s on the committee to review consultants for an EIR, “we don’t have any money to do the study and there’s no customers identified for it,” Wilson said. “I would say it’s very tenuous.” He regrets that the district hasn’t expanded its investigation into uses of the terminal site for genuinely sustainable and productive enterprises such as light manufacturing, aquaculture or a business park.

Aquaculture is poised to grow on the bay, with good-paying, low-impact jobs. “That’s where I would focus my energies,” Wilson said, “on things we do well and can do better.”

Unfortunately, the opportunity presented by the 60 million gallons of fresh water per day that the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District has to find a use for is not one the Bay District can readily capitalize on. “There’s not a lot of industries that use that much water,” he said.

Wilson becomes animated when discussing progress on establishing the Humboldt Bay Trail. The multi-group task force’s work has already jiggled loose grant funding for the Arcata section, and Wilson is eager to move forward with the extension to Bracut.

Plans for water trails are moving forward as well, with a new dock to be installed at the Marsh. Studies of the bay’s tide gates will both help protect sensitive areas during oil spills and prioritize the gates for upgrades, improving fish passage. “We can re-connect the bay to the watersheds and expand wetland and estuary restoration,” Wilson said. “That provides more employment as well as natural resources.”

Apart from specific projects, Wilson is proud to have shaken up the district’s insular culture. “I’ve worked hard to bring more transparency to the district,” he said. “We know more about the functions of the district than we did in the four years prior and even the 30 years prior.”

Fiscal responsibility is still lacking, he said. “The direction the district has been going in has cost the public a lot of money and has produced relatively little,” he said. The vaunted rail and container-port favored by the board’s majority is a dead end, Wilson believes, and will collapse of its own preposterousness sooner or later, he believes, and he’d like it to be sooner.

“We don’t have a budget that will last more than a few years if we continue down this track,” he said. “That’s the reality.”

He thinks the Bay District commission has been so focused on the mammoth port/rail dream that it has failed to deliver on smaller, more attainable features that would genuinely serve bay residents. “They forget that ultimately, we need to provide services for the communities that pay for us.”

Because of the lack of realistic direction, big budget cuts loom, and a major refocusing ought to be undertaken. “The realities are going to necessitate a different plan,” he said.

He’d like to repurpose the Maritime Commerce Director position toward cultivating grassroots economic development. “We need to build the businesses around the bay that will necessitate shipping, not the ‘build it and they’ll come model,’ which hasn’t worked.”
On the environmental side, Wilson doesn’t think the district is doing enough to plan for climate change and sea level rise. The community, he says, has outpaced the district in awareness of the coming challenge, and he’d like to tap into that.

Repairing dilapidated levees may be a waste of resources. “We have to ask ourselves, ‘Is this really a good strategy for the long term, and should we be considering a retreat strategy for sea level rise?’”

But therein lies opportunity, too, as near-bay landowners might cultivate peat to lock up carbon, then sell the credits. It’s just one idea. But the real bonanza, he said, will be the multi-modal trail, which scores as practical infrastructure and a huge quality-of-life factor in attracting and retaining new business.

He thinks the Marine Life Protection Act can work as long as it’s based on science and has buy-in from fishermen and others who derive their livelihood from the ocean.

The 3–2 split on controversial items, with him and Pat Higgins in the minority, might change pending the results of the Fourth Division race. Nonetheless, he sees the commission majority reluctantly migrating closer to his view of bay development out of practical necessity. “All three of them are more open to a new direction than my opponent is,” he said. “I think we’re going to see a shift.”

While Wilson respects Hauser’s accomplishments, he sees them as part of the past and thinks his skill set and vision reflects the future. And he doesn’t feel outgunned by Hauser’s Sacramento connections. “I believe that my experience is more relevant because of the time frame,” he said. “It’s current. I’ve worked with all of the funding agencies, all of the regulatory agencies and all of state agencies that have brought tens of millions of dollars into this community,” he said. “They’re peers of mine.

The question is, ‘What’s the relevant experience?’”

Panel delays habitat decision

2009-10-30T10:10:00.000-07:00

Task force to gather more data on coastal areas

By Dave Schwab, La Jolla Light
October 28, 2009

Saying it didn't have enough information to pick one of three proposals for marine protected areas along the Southern California coast, a state panel will gather more data before making a decision on Nov. 10.

After a year of public inquiry and three days of testimony, the five-member Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force on Oct. 22 requested further scientific analysis of habitat maps for coastal areas including La Jolla, Del Mar, Solana Beach and other areas in San Diego County.

The panel, an advisory group appointed by the governor which met in Long Beach, had been expected to choose a preferred alternative from three offered that would establish protected areas along Southern California's coastline from Santa Barbara to Mexico. All three choices, to varying degrees, would create marine protected areas, making them off-limits to fishing.

Their recommendation ultimately will go to the state Fish and Game Commission.

Joe Exline of Oceanside Anglers Club represented San Diego fishing interests at the meeting, said task force members are mixing and matching, selectively choosing components from all three plans to come up with an integrated preferred alternative that strikes a balance between ocean conservation and fishing interests.

"They are in the middle of negotiations and discussions on how to come up with that," he said.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography research scientist Ed Parnell feels its important the ocean habitat in south La Jolla, which would be preserved in proposals 1 and 3 but not in Proposal 2 favored by fishermen, be protected. "South La Jolla has the best habitat, that's where you get more conservation bang for your buck protecting ground fish species that really need it," he said. "If you're going to set aside a network of marine reserves, you have to protect habitat for these animals."

Seal advocate and civil engineer Katheryn Rhodes hopes the MLPA panel enacts Proposal 3 because it straightens the boundaries of La Jolla Cove Underwater Reserve creating a nearly 90-degree angle from La Jolla Point north and east to Scripps Pier making buoys marking the preserve "less confusing."

Chairwoman Catherine Reheis-Boyd noted the difficulty of her blue-ribbon group's task at last week's MLPA hearing.

"We've got three really good proposals," she said. "We know what the law is: But we also understand the human side of this: You've got people's livelihoods at stake."

"What we have here is a very substantial economic effect on a lot of people," agreed task force member Gregory Schem. "Balance is what we're really seeking to achieve here."

Task force member Meg Caldwell noted it is incumbent for the group to "move forward with marine protected areas that can be managed and enforced."

The Marine Life Protection Act was signed into law in 1999 to establish a series of underwater parks along the California coastline for the protection of sea life. For more than a year, environmentalists, fishermen and other ocean users have debated how to enact the MLPA in Southern California from Point Conception to the U.S.-Mexico border including La Jolla and its high-profile kelp beds.

The three options before the task force:

Proposal 1 would put three miles of Del Mar's shoreline, the San Dieguito and San Elijo lagoons in a Marine Protected Area, meaning there would be no fishing or taking of marine habitat allowed.

Proposal 2 keeps fishing open in La Jolla - with the exception of La Jolla Cove - with protected areas off parts of Point Loma and including most of Del Mar and the San Dieguito Lagoon. This has the support of commercial fishing interests and recreational anglers.

Proposal 3 would have a protected area from Crystal Pier in Pacific Beach to Neptune Park in WindanSea and from La Jolla Cove to Scripps Pier extending three miles out into the Pacific Ocean. It would shift the protected region to an area north of Del Mar. Seal proponents and Coastkeeper are asking that the Children's Pool be included.

A major point of contention among stakeholders centers on the question of just how badly depleted California fish species really are.

Environmentalists insist many fish stocks are dangerously low and want as much San Diego coastline protected as possible to replenish populations. Commercial and recreational fishermen dispute that interpretation, arguing the status quo on fish species populations isn't nearly that bad, and that there are other equally important considerations; namely the economic livelihoods of commercial fishermen and the public's right to ocean access.

MLPAs back on agenda

2009-10-28T14:53:00.000-07:00

Marine life meeting slated for Thursday, October 29

By Kurt Madar, The Daily Triplicate
October 27, 2009

The process for creating marine protected areas along the North Coast will once again be discussed in Crescent City on Thursday.

The Marine Life Protection Act Initiative is holding three open house workshops this week, one of them here.

The MLPA process designs marine protected areas along the California coast.

The North Coast is the fourth region in California to go through the MLPA process.

Due to a significant amount of interest from local groups, the MLPA Initiative has extended the deadline for external proposals, officials announced last week.

Part of the process is forming a Scientific Advisory Team (SAT) and Regional Stakeholder Group, both of which will be responsible for developing a proposal as to where marine protected areas (MPAs) should be placed.

If You Go

■ WHAT: Marine Life Protection Act Initiative open house/workshop

■ WHEN: Thursday October 29, 4:30-8:30 p.m.

■ WHERE: Board of Supervisors Chamber, Flynn Center, 981 H St., Crescent City

“After the open house where people will be able to ask questions; there will be a workshop,” said MLPA Initiative representative Annelore Reisewitz. “The workshop will provide training for individuals and groups interested in developing external proposals.”

The training workshop will cover development of the key components of possible external MPA proposals — including science and feasibility guidelines — and training in MarineMap, the MLPA Initiative’s online mapping tool.
External proposals would be developed by individuals and groups outside of the SAT or stakeholder group.

“The extension of the deadline till February 1, 2010, is completely new for this study region,” Reisewitz said. “We are starting the external process first, which we haven’t done before.”

Three types of MPAs could be established on the North Coast.

The three levels of protection are primarily based on the severity of the take limit. From least restrictive to most, they include marine conservation areas, marine parks, and marine reserves (which would be no-take areas).

All three of the open-house workshop meetings run from 4:30 to 8:30 p.m. in three different locations along the North Coast study region.

The local meeting will be at the Board of Supervisors Chamber in the Flynn Center, 981 H St.

A Fort Bragg meeting will be held Tuesday and a Eureka meeting is Wednesday at the Red Lion Inn, 1929 Fourth St.

In response to the ongoing MLPA Initiative process, local near-shore fishermen had a well-attended fish feed at the fairgrounds Sunday to raise money.

The event was a fundraising effort to raise money for retaining a lawyer to ensure that local near-shore fishermen are adequately represented in the MLPA process.

“I’m really happy with the turnout,” said organizer and local fishermen Kenyon Hensel. “It’s good to see so much community support.”

Fish and Game announces MLPA science panel

2009-10-28T14:50:00.000-07:00

The Times-Standard
10/28/2009

California Department of Fish and Game Director Donald Koch has announced a panel of science advisors to help develop marine protected areas along the North Coast.

The Marine Life Protection Act Master Plan Science Advisory Team will provide scientific support for the MLPA Initiative, Koch said in a statement.

”The scientists I have appointed to the advisory team are each uniquely qualified for this important task,” Koch said. “Their experience and expertise in marine resources conservation make them well-suited to provide accurate, insightful advice and will help ensure that all decisions made in the coming months will be firmly rooted in the best available science.”

The MLPA aims to protect different habitats along the California coast, such as rocky areas and kelp forests, as well as the species that live in them. The areas, which limit or eliminate fishing and other activities, are expected to work as a network.

The appointed members of the SAT include:

*Larry Allen, California State University Northridge, Department of Biology (Terminal Island);

*Eric Bjorkstedt, National Marine Fisheries Service (Trinidad);

*Mark Carr, University of California, Santa Cruz, Long Marine Lab (Santa Cruz);

*Chris Costello, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management (Santa Barbara);

*Kevin Fleming, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources Division (Sacramento);

*Steve Gaines, Marine Science Institute (Santa Barbara);

*Dominic Gregorio, State Water Resources Control Board (Sacramento);

*Dawn Goley, Humboldt State University, Marine Mammal Education and Research Program (Arcata);

*David Hankin, Humboldt State University, Fisheries Biology Department (Arcata);

*John Largier, University of California, Davis, Bodega Marine Laboratory (Bodega Bay);

*Ron LeValley, Mad River Biologists (Eureka);

*Phillip Levin, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Fisheries (Seattle, Wash.);

*Steven Morgan, University of California, Davis, Bodega Marine Laboratory (Bodega Bay);

*Steven Murray, California State University Fullerton, College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics (Fullerton);

*Karina Nielsen, Sonoma State University, Department Of Biology (Rohnert Park);

*Peter Raimondi, University of California, Santa Cruz, Long Marine Lab (Santa Cruz);

*Steven Rumrill, South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve (Charleston, Ore.);

*Astrid Scholz, Ecotrust, Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center (Portland, Ore.);

*Craig Strong, Crescent Coastal Research (Crescent City);

*Stephen Wertz, California Department of Fish and Game (Los Alamitos); and

*Will White, University of California, Davis, Bodega Marine Laboratory (Bodega Bay).

The science team's first meeting -- a joint meeting of the North Coast and South Coast teams -- will be on Oct. 30 in Eureka. More information and an agenda may be found at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings_n.asp.

Science team members provide scientific advice to a regional stakeholder group on issues like where, and how large marine protect areas should be. The team members will also work closely with the stakeholder group to guide development of draft proposals.

ABC Ch. 7 in LA Features Long Beach MLPA Rally, CFC

2009-10-26T16:00:00.000-07:00

NOAA Contract Boat Kills Blue Whale Off Fort Bragg

2009-10-26T13:46:00.001-07:00

By Dan Bacher, IndyBay
October 24, 2009

Environmentalists and fishermen on California’s North Coast are calling for an independent investigation into the killing of an endangered blue whale off Fort Bragg by a mapping survey boat contracted by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The 72-foot female blue whale, a new mother, perished on Monday, October 19, after being hit by the 78-foot Pacific Star, under contract to NOAA to update maps of the ocean floor

Jim Milbury, spokesman for NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, said the boat was doing multi-beam echo sounder surveys to update marine charts and to determine the habitat to be used in state and federal marine protected area designations.

“We know that the whale’s death was caused by the collision with the boat because the boat crew called us to report the collision,” said Milbury. “After the collision, the dead whale washed up on the beach off Fort Bragg.”

Multibeam echo sounders (MBES), like other sonar systems, transmit sound energy and analyze the return signal (echo) that has bounced off the seafloor or other objects, according to NOAA's Office of Coast Survey. Multibeam sonars emit sound waves from directly beneath a ship's hull to produce fan-shaped coverage of the seafloor.

Collisions with boats are relatively infrequent, but the Fort Bragg blue whale was the second to perish from a collision with a boat this fall and the fifth to die off the California coast this fall. On October 12, a 50-foot blue whale was found floating in a kelp bed off Big Sur along the Monterey County coast after an undetermined vessel hit it.

Three other whales washed up on southern California beaches in September. As biologists investigate the deaths, ocean advocates blame the U.S. Navy for conducting tests of high-powered sonar devices believed to cause unbearable pain to whales and other ocean mammals.

The National Geographic and other media outlets gushed that the Fort Bragg blue whale’s death provided a unique opportunity for scientists to study a whale.

“Though unable to move the blue whale, scientists and students are leaping at the research opportunity, scrambling down rock faces to take tissue samples and eventually one of the 11-foot-long (3.5-meter-long) flippers,” according to “Blue Whale Beached – Flipper to Be Amputated by Ted Chamberlain (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091022-blue-whale-washed-ashore-picture-california.html).

However, fishermen, environmentalists and seaweed harvesters are outraged that the vessel, conducting surveys designed to designate habitat to be included in no-fishing zones that will kick Indian Tribes, fishermen and seaweed harvesters off their traditional areas, was negligent in trying to avoid a collision with the whale. Many believe that the sonar beams coming from the boat may have disoriented the whale, causing it to collide with the boat.

Beth Mitchell, Fort Bragg resident and the FERC coordinator of Fishermen Interested in Safe Hydrokinetics (FISH), said the recent collision by the NOAA contract boat was “almost unbelievable to me.”

“The whale was essentially the same size as the boat,” she stated. “Whales are pretty easy to see when you're out on the water, and even much smaller ones are easily seen. This one was huge.”

Blue whales are the largest mammals on Earth and possibly the largest animals ever, according to the American Cetacean Society Web site, http://www.acsonline.org.

Fearing the endangered animals could soon become extinct, the International Whaling Commission banned all hunting of blue whales in 1966. There are now an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 blue whales in the Northern Hemisphere. The longest known blue whale measured 106 feet long and 200 tons. Whales are an average life span of 80 to 90 years.

David Gurney, in his article on the Ocean Protection Coalition website (http://www.oceanprotection.org), demanded a full and independent investigation of the incident.

“Only the captain and crew of the Pacific Star know the truth of what they were doing out there that day,” said Gurney. “But according to Joe Cordaro of NOAA, the chartered vessel for the MLPA will be investigated by the Enforcement Division of, you guessed it, NOAA. Unless the public demands a full inquiry and investigation, we may never know.”

Local environmentalists and fishermen have decided to name the dead whale "Jane" after Jane Lubchenko, the NOAA administrator who is running the federal fishery “management” scheme that resulted in the whale's death.

“The NOAA vessel was mapping both federal and state waters, and part of that data will be used in the MLPA process,” said Jim Martin, West Coast Regional Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance. “I guarantee you she wants to have a federal MPA process to close large chunks of the ocean out to 200 miles. The state MLPA process is just the beginning.”

The RFA, Ocean Protection Coalition and other conservation groups have asked for a suspension of Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's fast-track MLPA process, due to lack of dedicated funding, numerous conflicts of interests by MLPA decision makers and the lack of clarity about what type of activities are allowed in reserves. This tragic incident only highlights the urgent need to suspend the corrupt and out-of-control MLPA corporate greenwashing process that is opposed by the vast majority of North Coast residents.

“How many blue whales must be killed in the name of so-called ‘ocean protection,’” asked Martin. “How many of these beautiful and magnificent animals must be sacrificed at the altar of corporate-funded marine 'protection'?”

Martin emphasized, “The whale is a metaphor for North Coast communities who have been run over by NOAA, an agency on auto pilot. The Department of Fish and Game is riding their coattails using this habitat data in the MLPA process.”

Among the communities of the North Coast dramatically impacted by the corrupt MLPA process is the Kashia Pomo Tribe, who have sustainably harvested seaweed, mussels and abalone off Stewarts Point for centuries. However, the California Fish and Game Commission in August, under orders from Governor Arnold Schwarzeneger, banned the Kashia Tribe, seaweed harvesters, fishermen and abalone divers from their traditional harvesting areas in Sonoma and Mendocino counties.

As Lester Pinola, past chairman of the Kashia Rancheria, said in a public hearing prior to the Commission August 5 vote, “What you are doing to us is taking the food out of our mouths. When the first settlers came to the coast, they didn’t how to feed themselves. Our people showed them how to eat out of the ocean. In my opinion, this was a big mistake.”

Everybody who cares about the health of our oceans and coastal communities should support a full, independent and impartial investigation of the killing of "Jane " the whale by a NOAA contract boat. At the same time, the MLPA process, rife with conflict of interests, mission creep and corruption of the democratic process, should be immediately suspended.

"How ironic it is that a rare blue whale was killed by the people who say they want to 'protect marine life,'" concluded Martin.

Enviros, Fishermen Force Governor to Extend MLPA North Coast Process

2009-10-26T13:33:00.000-07:00

By Dan Bacher, IndyBay
October 24, 2009

Secretary for Natural Resources Mike Chrisman (right), under intense pressure from a broad coalition of environmentalists, fishermen, seaweed harvesters and Indian Tribes, said Friday the MLPA Initiative will extend the local proposal deadline for marine protected areas on the north coast.

Local groups will now have until February 1, 2010 to submit “external arrays,” or alternative proposals under the Marine Life Protection Act’s north coast process.

“While MLPA is a state law and the Schwarzenegger administration is committed to its implementation, it is also critically important that we have broad local participation,” said Mike Chrisman. “Granting an extension will afford local folks more time to prepare their proposals.” He added, “I would especially like to thank Assemblymember Wes Chesbro for the many constructive conversations we’ve had to help make this happen for his constituents.”

Chrisman said that MLPA Initiative Executive Director Ken Wiseman worked with Assemblymember Chesbro (D-North Coast) and Senator Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa) to help determine the specific length of the extension.

He also said "It will address the needs of north coast interests and still meet the objectives of the memorandum of understanding that guides the MLPA Initiative."

Chrisman said California is taking a "regional approach" to redesigning MPAs along its 1,100 mile coastline, and has divided the state into five study regions; the MLPA North Coast Study Region extends from the California border with Oregon to Alder Creek near Point Arena in Mendocino County.

Environmentalists, fishermen and Indian Tribes have lambasted the fast-track MLPA process of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for being rife with conflict of interest, mission creep, racism and corruption of the Democratic process, as well as having no basis in sound science. Assemblyman Chesbro and Senator Wiggins deserve a big round of applause for pressuring the Governor to get this extension.

The Natural Resources Agency claims that the MLPA process "requires that the best readily available science be used in the redesign process, as well as the advice and assistance of scientists, resource managers, experts, stakeholders and members of the public."

However, the "best available science" has NOT been used in the process. A groundbreaking study published in the July 31 issue of Science magazine reveals that the California Current ecosystem has the lowest fishery exploitation rate of any place in the world examined by co-authors Ray Hilborn and Boris Worm and 19 other scientists.

“The drastic reductions in harvest in California have been designed to rebuild the overexploited rockfish stocks,” said Hilborn. “At present the community of groundfish is now at about 60% of its unfished biomass, far above the 30-40% level target for maximum sustained yield.”

In light of the latest scientific findings, Hilborn questions whether the widely-criticized MLPA process has much value, in light of the creation of massive no fishing zones along the entire continental shelf of California through the Pacific Fishery Management Council process and the most stringent fishing regulations of any place on the planet.

“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,” Hilborn said. “The benefits of the MPAs established under the MLPA will be primarily to have some areas of high abundance of species with limited mobility.”

Dr. Hilborn, a professor at the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington, and the other authors of "Rebuilding Global Fisheries" say that efforts made to reduce overfishing are succeeding in five of ten large marine ecosystems studied, including those in California, New Zealand and Iceland. Their study puts into perspective recent reports predicting a “total collapse” of global fisheries within 40 years.

The conclusions by the 21 international scientists with widely divergent views effectively counter the spurious arguments by Governor Arnold Schwarzengger and Chrisman for the urgent “need” to fast-track the controversial MLPA process because of the “dire condition” that rockfish, lingcod and other groundfish stocks are supposedly in along the California coast.

The temporary delay in the North Coast process is an important victory against Schwarzenegger, Chrisman, the Resource Legacy Foundation that funds the MLPA process, and their corporate environmentalist collaborators. Now that the momentum against the MLPA process is building, it is important for everybody to put pressure upon their legislators to indefinitely suspend the $35 million dollar process at a time that the state doesn't have enough game wardens to patrol the existing marine reserves on the Central Coast.

MLPA proposal deadline extended six weeks

2009-10-26T13:32:00.000-07:00

The Times-Standard
10/24/2009

State Secretary of Natural Resources Mike Chrisman announced Friday that the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative will extend the deadline to submit proposals for North Coast marine protected areas.

After hearing concerns about the tight timeline from local officials and state legislators, Chrisman said the earlier deadline of Dec. 15 is being pushed forward to Feb. 1.

Chrisman said that MLPA Initiative Executive Director Ken Wiseman worked with Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata, and Sen. Patricia Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa, to determine the length of the extension.

”While MLPA is a state law and the Schwarzenegger administration is committed to its implementation, it is also critically important that we have broad local participation,” Chrisman said in a statement. “Granting an extension will afford local folks more time to prepare their proposals.”

The Marine Life Protection Act calls for the designation of areas off limits to fishing and other extractive activities. The North Coast is the last region being addressed by the initiative, which has proved particularly controversial.

Chesbro said he appreciated the extension Chrisman announced, though he'd have preferred a longer period. Chesbro said he remains concerned about the North Coast being able to have a major role in the process.

”We should have a bottom-up approach that includes complete local knowledge and input. It's important that all aspects of the process be driven by local participation,” Chesbro said. “The best way to encourage stewardship is to ensure that we have a plan that is developed and supported by those most affected by it.”

MLPA task force delays vote on no-take marine reserves off Southern California

2009-10-23T16:07:00.000-07:00

By Pete Thomas, Los Angeles Times
October 23, 2009

A state task force failed to reach consensus Thursday on a network of marine reserves and conservation zones to be established off Southern California and will reconvene Nov. 10 in the Los Angeles area to produce a version it hopes will meet conservation goals without severe economic impact.

Three proposals were up for consideration as part of the Marine Life Protection Act process, which ultimately will place no-take reserves and less-restrictive conservation zones along the California coast to protect fisheries and habitat.

That the so-called Blue Ribbon Task Force could not reach consensus, after a marathon session, shows how delicate and contentious this issue is. It did not accept any single map proposal offered by stakeholder groups but plucked parts of each and tweaked here and there and departed with a tentative map that will be scientifically evaluated before the next meeting.

It does not appear as though Rocky Point will be made into a marine reserve, as fishing interests had feared. Instead the Palos Verdes Peninsula reserve might be placed a bit more to the south off Point Vicente.

Neither will fishing closures at Santa Catalina Island be as extreme as one proposal had offered, but there will be closures at Catalina, deemed critical by conservationists. Vast parcels off the La Jolla and Laguna Beach areas also will become off-limits to fishing.

Since nothing is decided, though, it's premature to speculate as to what the final product will look like. The tentative map is expected to be posted on the Department of Fish and Game's website next week.

Whatever proposal the task force chooses must be approved by the California Fish and Game Commission.

Ocean Task Force Delays Decision on South Coast Marine Protected Area Plan

2009-10-23T16:04:00.001-07:00

San Clemente Times
October 23, 2009

The Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force, a governor-appointed advisory group, this week reviewed three marine protected area plans for coastal waters between Point Conception and the border with Mexico. After three days of meetings and six hours of public testimony, the Task Force decided to wait for further scientific analysis before recommending a preferred alternative. They will meet again on November 10 in Los Angeles.

The three plans under consideration were developed by local stakeholders after a year of study and negotiations. The Conservation Plan, or Proposal 3, would protect high quality marine habitat for maximum conservation benefits. The Fishermen’s Plan, or Proposal 2, would provide minimal protection; and the Middle Ground Plan, or Proposal 1, is a compromise between the other two.

A review by the Science Advisory Team shows that the Conservation Plan would do the best job of restoring sea life and habitats, providing the most ecological and economic benefits in the long run while leaving nearly 90 percent of coastal waters open for fishing.

“Coastal tourism and recreation drive the majority of jobs and revenue in southern California’s ocean economy,” said Greg Helms of Ocean Conservancy. “We hope, after reflection, the Blue Ribbon Task Force will recommend a strong marine protected area plan that will pay big dividends in the future in the form of more and bigger fish and enhanced recreation opportunities. ”

The debate at this week’s meeting centered on a few ecological hot spots that are vital for the overall health of southern California’s ocean: Naples Reef, waters around the Palos Verdes Peninsula, Point Dume, Laguna, and La Jolla.

“The value of Los Angeles County’s fisheries has dropped by half since 1990,” said Kate Hanley of San Diego Coastkeeper. “If we don’t protect the key breeding and feeding grounds at Rocky Point and Point Dume, the entire area could see further declines. The real cost is from inaction.”

The marine protected area plans were developed with extensive input from local communities. Each plan was evaluated for potential social and economic impacts, as well as ecological benefits. Economic modeling suggests that all of the plans under consideration would result in less than a 10 percent reduction in current fish landings for commercial and recreational fisheries in southern California.

Two recent studies have shown that non-consumptive recreation drives most of the jobs and revenue in southern California’s ocean economy.[1] A strong marine protected area network will not only protect the resources that drive coastal tourism and recreation, it will also create a new set of attractions for area visitors. La Jolla Underwater Park is already a popular destination.

“Studies have shown over 90 percent of visits to our coast are non-consumptive,” said Hanley. “Hundreds of divers, surfers, swimmers, and birders came to this week’s Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting to support the protection of their favorite ocean places. I’d encourage them to continue working—the Marine Life Protection Act is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to leave a legacy of healthy oceans, and we have to get it right.”

The Marine Life Protection Act was designed to ensure the long-term health and productivity of California’s ocean. Go to www.caloceans.org or www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa for more information.

Group fails to find preferred fishing closure alternative

2009-10-23T15:14:00.000-07:00

By Ed Zieralski, San Diego Union-Tribune
October 23, 2009

Final word won't come until next month, but San Diego County recreational and commercial fishermen may have avoided huge hits yesterday when the Marine Life Protection Act's Blue Ribbon Task Force wrapped up its three-day meeting here at the Hilton Hotel.

The task force failed to arrive at what is being called a preferred alternative of ocean-fishing closures to pass on to the state Fish & Game Commission for its Dec. 9-10 meeting. But before adjourning, the task force looked at a less severe network of fishing closures along the county's coastline than had been proposed by preservationists.

After much negotiation and discussion, the statewide task force settled on three local options for protected areas as part of the 1999 Marine Life Protection Act passed by the state Legislature. The task force will meet Nov. 10 to pick the preferred alternative that it will send to the commission along with three proposals submitted by the South Coast Regional Stakeholders and a zero, or no-action option. The commission will pick from the five proposals.

The options the task force will look at for San Diego will involve using combinations of Swami's off Encinitas, Del Mar, La Jolla, Point Loma and the Tijuana Estuary as key pieces. One of the options chosen from the stakeholders' group Proposal 2, or the “Fisherman's Proposal,” leaves La Jolla alone.

Local fishermen are not out of harm's way. Areas of the South Coast will take significant hits in terms of access and open fishing, and San Diego could still be a target.

“The economic hit the commercial passenger fishing fleet will take is huge off Point Dume, Catalina Island, Laguna and even in San Diego if the wrong sets of options are approved,” said Bob Fletcher, former president of the Sportfishing Association of California and a member of the stakeholder group. “In San Diego, we'll be devastated if they combine La Jolla and Encinitas.”

Buck Everingham of Everingham Bros. Bait Co. likely dodged critical closures off Tijuana and north La Jolla that would have severely impacted his ability to provide bait for the sportfishing fleet. Part of the compromise yesterday was that he'll be able to make bait off Imperial Beach and the Tijuana Estuary even if the area is given protection.
“I made 23 percent of my bait off Imperial Beach in 2007,” Everingham said.

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, chairwoman of the task force, regretted that the group didn't reach a preferred alternative but said she didn't want to rush into it. She said she didn't want to have to think about the South Coast process on the way home. That got a response from Tommy Gomes of Catalina Offshore Products and a member of the stakeholder group.

“She's going to have to think about this on the way home,” Gomes said, “but we fishermen will be thinking about this the rest of our lives every time we get on our boats.”