MLPA/SMR's....

[Darian]

There was an attempt to discuss this subject under the "deleted" topic, below. Some of the info has disappeared due to the deletion but this subject is timely, has potential impact on us and deserves our attention. The current phase(s) of the project involve a portion of NorCal and SoCal coastline fisheries. Just to provide some perspective, there's some interesting discussion of the impact on SoCal on Bulla's BB at:

www.garybulla.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3896

Even tho I don't necessarily see this as a bad process, the outcomes could be draconian if we don't try to participate..... 8) 8)

[Darian]

I decided to comment on proposals under the MLPA for the North Central Coast area. A copy of those comments follows:

MLPA Comments

January 21, 2008

To Whom It May Concern,

I am a resident of Sacramento and former resident of coastal areas in southern and central California. As an interested party I offer the following request and comments.

I, respectfully, request that no changes or expansions be made to existing MLPA’s in the North Central Coast Area.

Expansion or change may not be warranted as elapsed time between establishing the original areas and this point is probably not long enough to allow monitoring to demonstrate real negatives or positives. Especially in the case of slow developing, long lived species. There doesn’t seem to be any new monitoring information available to support expansion of MLPA’s in the that area.

Expansion of existing State Marine Reserves (SMR’s) or establishing additional closures in the north coast area will have negative economic impact for cities and counties that rely on commercial and recreational fishing activities, and tourism in those areas. A recent study of the value of recreational fishing, released by California Trout, provides some applicable information to support that conclusion.*

Expansion of MLPA’s for estuarine environments may be ineffective as many upstream activities by human stressors will not be addressed by reducing or eliminating human interactions in the immediate area of estuaries. As a single example, wineries established in Alexander Valley contribute to very high levels of silt in the Navarro River and it’s estuary due to the practice of sterile cultivation of grapes on the hillsides. Vegetation, other than grape vines, is eliminated so as to assure that all irrigation water is made available for the vines. There is very little if any effort made or capability available to retain excess water on those properties. Thus, run-off contaminated with insecticides enters the river and its estuary. Changing an existing MLPA in an estuary where upstream activities of this or other agricultural or developmental nature would not appear to benefit conservation efforts.

The plan for implementation of these actions is heavily weighted towards conservation actions. Such as, reduction or elimination of human interactions or impacts and limits on or elimination of takings. The mission of DFG, “….is to manage….diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources….for their use and enjoyment by the public.” (emphasis added), it would appear that elimination of human interaction as a conservation action is in conflict with this mission statement.

There is a perception among the public that adoption of new or expanded MLPA’s, involving closures, are seen as an easy choice to solving reduced enforcement capabilities due to lack of DFG staff for enforcement activities. It is apparent that chronic under funding of all operational areas of DFG contributes to that perception. Expanding or changing existing MLPA’S will not solve this problem and may lead to increased demands on the DFG staff time available for enforcement activities. Poachers probably will not be affected by the proposed changes or expansions.

As a fisherman who grew up fishing in the ocean, surf, near and off-shore, I’ve seen many increases in the cost of licenses, fees for stamps and cards, etc., while watching as access has been limited and limits reduced. As a believer that conservation measures are valuable. I support those that are effective. I’m unconvinced that the proposed actions will have any additional benefits over those currently in place.

Sincerely,

Darian Calhoun
JockScot@comcast.net

* The Value of recreational Fishing in California, Direct Financial Impacts, January 2008, Drafted by Carolyn Alkire, Phd., Contracted by California Trout.

[lee s.]

Darian,
You word things soooo much nicer than I would. Just ask the Pres of our local FF club.....a vineyard manager by trade. :roll: You ought to see when he goes to promoting grape horticulture and the "essential" benifits of such. Yeah, right!
The fox watching the hen house :lol: , and many of the hens will not even TRY to outfox the fox. :cry:
Oh yeah, I like it. Your letter that is. :wink:
.....lee s.

[Darian]

Just a few thoughts on MLPA's and the current segment of the ongoing project and how it relates to those of us who don't necessarily see any impact on their fishing areas. A cursory reading of the project action plan indicates the way the areas were divided so that the overall project could be implemented by regions. Several regions have been established and the last of them to be studied is the SF/Suisun Bays up to Carquinez Straight. I'm not sure how many MLPA's will be established in the bays but the action plan doesn't contain much language to indicate that changes will not occur as a result of any studies completed. In other words, a project is not considered a success unless some sort of action is the result. (regardless of its real or imagined need). :? :? Considering the bad news reported by the news media the last few days, it wouldn't surprise me to find that further expansion of closures, etc., is in the offing for the Delta. :? :? :?

From the action plan, "Key habitat" is identified as those having the following items for the purposes of protection:

"sand beach, shallow rock, deep rock, rocky inter-tidal, estuary, shallow sand, deep sand, kelp, shallow canyon, deep canyon." Is there anything else in the marine environment :?: :?: :?: (hmmm.... Mud??)

The only item I didn't understand was the inclusion of estuaries in the marine environment. Even the dictionary can't stretch the definition that far.... :?: :?: Which is why I would be concerned about expansion of the project to include the Delta, as well. :( :(

Enough gloom and doom for now.... 8) 8)

[Motofish]

This was in the SFGate.com today! We have already lost access to fishing at Waddel creek beach area all the way up to Ano Nuevo' and more is to happen. If you fish from the beach your going to out of luck. Victor

North Coast marine reserve plan goes to state
Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, April 24, 2008

A state task force recommended Wednesday a permanent ban on fishing in selected spots of ocean from Mendocino County to Santa Cruz, a move designed to protect 80 square miles of California's most pristine habitat.
The proposal by the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force would protect dozens of species, including rockfish - yellow eye, canary, bocaccio - northern red abalone, seabirds and sea lions and other marine mammals underwater and all along that section of coast.
Salmon are not among the fish whose habitats are targeted for protection, but the beleaguered species would undoubtedly benefit if a ban on salmon fishing is ever lifted.
The network of state marine reserves would include Point Arena in Mendocino County, Horseshoe Point in Sonoma County, Bodega Head, Point Reyes and the Farallon Islands, where restrictions on fishing and other activities like scuba diving would extend out into the ocean anywhere from 300 to 1,000 feet.
The plan, hashed out during a two-day hearing at the Embassy Suites Hotel in San Rafael, is part of a California initiative that conservationists say is the most ambitious coastal marine protection program in the world.
Last year, on recommendations from another task force, the state Fish and Game Commission established 29 similar reserves, protecting from human activities 110 square miles along the central coast, from Half Moon Bay to Santa Barbara.
The task force has negotiated for months over the newest proposal with environmentalists, commercial fishermen, sport anglers, divers, citizens, civic leaders and other stakeholders from coastal towns up and down the coast.
'The hard part'

"We know that marine protected areas work. Creating them is the hard part," said Karen Garrison, co-director of the Natural Resources Defense Council oceans program. "The result isn't all that we wanted, but the task force has protected real iconic places. They're recommending a new set of underwater parks that we hope will provide a long-term legacy."
The task force recommendation, which will go before the Fish & Game Commission during a special meeting in June, would create 18 marine protected areas. In all, 11 percent of state coastal waters between Santa Cruz and Mendocino County would be fully protected, meaning destruction of wildlife and habitat, including fishing, would be prohibited.
The regulations, which cover only state-controlled waters, would establish varying levels of protection for numerous other areas.
Bodega Marine Reserve covers the north central coast, but it takes in only 0.2 nautical square miles, according to regulators.
The north central coast is the second of five regions in California where wildlife and habitat reserves are planned under the Marine Life Protection Act, which was passed by the state Legislature in 1999.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger initiated stakeholder discussions four years ago and is in charge of appointing a five-person task force to come up with recommendations for each region.
In addition to the central and north central coasts, the network of reserves will eventually include the north, south and San Francisco Bay coastal regions, according to Fish and Game officials. The goal, when all is said and done, is to have an interconnected series of protected marine sanctuaries extending from Mexico to Oregon.
"In drafting the legislation, our objective was to protect these areas and marine life resources and preserve and protect the fishing population from overuse," said former San Francisco Assemblyman Kevin Shelley, author of the legislation. "The stakeholders and the task force have done a remarkable job in coming together in achieving what the Legislature intended in passing the law."
Not everyone pleased

Not everyone was happy with the plan that state wildlife officials are calling "a legacy of thriving Yosemites of the sea."
"They set aside 11 percent as fully protected reserves, which means almost 90 percent is open to some kind of fishing," said Samantha Murray, program manager for the Ocean Conservancy. "At the end of the day, not all habitat is created equal, and I think they missed out on protecting some really special places."
Murray said Duxbury Reef, off of Bolinas, was one area left out of the task force's recommendation.
On the other hand, Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, complained that the process focuses only on fishing and not other environmental problems.
"What is so grating is that people are pretending that this is about conservation when all it really does is shut down fishing," Grader said. "These guys are deathly afraid to take on any sort of water pollution that is going to affect these fisheries. In the end, fishermen will be stuck with these closures forever whether they work or not."
The proposed ban comes in the shadow of a collapse of the salmon fishery and a pending decision to halt ocean fishing of chinook. It is hoped that the latest proposal will help resuscitate flagging populations of rockfish, a complex of bottom-dwelling fishes that was once a mainstay of the state's commercial and sport fisheries.
Environmentalists say the proposal could also protect crucial habitat that helps sustain everything from sea slugs to gray whales.
The task force recommendation is a compromise of three different proposals developed over the past year by an advisory group of conservationists, fishermen, scientists, boaters and divers.
The three other alternatives will be reviewed by the Fish & Game Commission along with the preferred alternative. The June hearing will be followed by public hearings. A final decision is not expected until December.
What's next

-- The proposal and three alternatives will go before the state Fish & Game Commission for review.
-- The commission will hold a public hearing in June followed by a public comment period.
-- A final decision is expected in December.

[Darian]

Interesting article. I received an E-mail from the authors of the recommendations, yesterday. It might be helpful to put these recommendations in perspective:

The preferred alternative would create 24 MLPA's for a total of 155.9 square miles of coastline or 24% of the region (Santa Cruz to Mendocino).

Proposals 1-3 would create 23 MLPA's for a total of 164.6 square miles or 21.6% of the region.

Proposal 2-XA would create 21 MLPA's for a total of 137.5 square miles or 18% of the region.

Proposal 4 would create 28 MLPA's for a total of 204.9 square miles or 26% of the region.

(All of the above proposals would include area from existing MLPA's.)

Proposal O (existing MLPA's) would not create any additional MLPA's. That represents a total of 26.8 square miles or 3.5% of the region.

Some of these proposals are really drastic but may be necessary. It's late in the process but not too late for comments from the public if you choose to make them. 8) 8)

[Motofish]

If you carefully read through the suggestions presented by the MLPA any fishing from shore is doomed, there could be provisions made to small boat fishing only as in 2-xa or something like that but anyone who from shore is going to be out of luck.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

I'd be interested to hear Anne Vitale's views on this...

[Darian]

Yep!!! The old Exclusion policy again. :x :x I can agree that preserves work for restoration of species. What bothers me is that there is no plan for what happens after recovery (if any) and there is no plan/thought to re-open, when and/or under what circumstances. That means we've probably lost those areas permanently. What good is served by closing an area, saving marine species with no thought to opening it for later, restricted usage. :?: :?:

Any way you slice it, with the exception of Proposal O, there's a lot of coastline (Santa Cruz to Mendocino) involved (from a high of 26% to a low of 18%). Most of it will be in productive fishing areas (surf/inshore). The impact of these designations will be felt more than by fisherman. The Unemployment rate in the Sonoma/Mendocino coastal areas is already close to 25%. Now with the shutdown of commercial fishing, places like Fort Bragg/Pt. Arena might just dry up. :? :? :?

I would like to suggest a rotating closure be established for sensitive areas along the coast. It could implemented as specified sections opening and closing in alternating years. For example, in odd numbered years, one section of coast closes while another opens. The closing/opening would reverse in even numbered years. 8) The period involved could be one year, five or ten but would be monitored with an eye towards re-opening. 8) 8) This might allow for recovery and restricted usage of the coastline and minimize economic impact on coastal cities/counties/towns. 8) 8) I'd be willing to bet that (like me) when we voted in the originating act for all of this, we didn't envision closing large areas of the coast from access/use. Just another unintended consequence :?: :?

I've gotta admit, this looks like a "done deal", for now. :( :(