Draft EIR for Proposed S Coast MPAs available

[halibutmike]

"From: DFG News [mailto: DFGNEWS@dfg.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 12:22 PM
To: DFG News
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report Now Available for Proposed South Coast Marine Protected Areas


Department of Fish and Game News Release

August 18, 2010

Contacts: Thomas Napoli, Department of Fish and Game, (562) 342-7164
Adrianna Shea, California Fish and Game Commission, (916) 653-4899
Kirsten Macintyre, Department of Fish and Game, (916) 322-8988


Draft Environmental Impact Report Now Available for Proposed South Coast Marine Protected Areas

A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is now complete for the Marine Protected Area (MPA) proposals covering Californias South Coast Study Region.

A 45-day public comment and review period begins today, Aug. 18, and will run through Oct. 4.

The DEIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of each of the five MPA proposals currently under consideration for this area, which extends from Point Conception to the California border with Mexico. The MPA proposals are part of the larger Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process, which will create new MPAs along the length of Californias coastline.

The DEIR was prepared by the California Fish and Game Commission with assistance from the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) as part of the required environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act. The process began in June with a public scoping phase, during which DFG solicited comments on the range of issues and type of information that should be considered in the DEIR. These comments helped to shape the content of the DEIR released this week.

The DEIR is now available to the public on DFGs website at

www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/regulatorydocs_sc.asp.

Printed copies of the DEIR and related documents are available at the Santa Maria Public Library, San Luis Obispo City-County Public Library, Ventura County Public Library, County of Los Angeles Public Library, Avalon Library, Santa Monica Public Library, Laguna Beach Branch Library, Oceanside Public Library and at the following DFG field offices:

California Department of Fish and Game
4665 Lampson, Suite C
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
(562) 342-7100

California Department of Fish and Game
1933 Cliff Dr., Suite 9,
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
(805) 568-1231"

Need to read it and send in YOUR Comments.... Note where incomplete and inaccurate.

[ralphthehalibut]

They gotta be kidding...


"The proposed Project IPA would have the potential to result in minor shifts in recreationaluse patterns along the coast of the SCSR, due to consumptive users being displaced from MPAs and selecting new, open fishing grounds. Movement in the opposite direction is foreseeable as well, however, as non-consumptive users such as kayakers, divers, swimmers, and wildlife viewers could find the protected areas desirable. The proposed Project IPA is not anticipated to result in any substantial net change in the beach use patterns of recreational users."

You mean aside from banning all fishing for a 9 mile stretch of orange county coast? Oh, and closing fishing at 5 of 6 of the ADA beach accesses in OC? Or the tiny fact tha 1,3 and the IPA displace 80-90% of the beach and bank based fishing efforts in socal, which by the way, is the LARGEST ocean user group, outnumbering boat based fishing efforts by more than 4 to 1.

Ya, that won't affect ANY beach use patterns at all (sarcasm).

On the plus side, since there are a bunch of BS statements like this in this hing hat can be easily disproved, which should make the upcoming lawsuits proving this was based on bad, corrupt science easier.

I don't know how any person who is anything but a complete and total piece of crap could support proposals like 1, 3 or the IPA. I mean, what kind of buthole do you have to be to say "lets displace the most people possible, do the most economic damage possible, and get no enviornmental gain over oher maps (prop 2) that don't have the extreme negative social and economic impacts of 1, 3 and the IPA?".

['o Cino]

Thanks Mike,

They will certainly hear from me. Lot's of bad science and illogical assumptions to discredit. The IPA/3/1 supporters are losing ground with their "Lorax" and "Horton Hears A Who" theories.

TRUTH

[Spearforfun]

My favorite line: "It is possible that displacement of fishing effort resulting from
the proposed Project IPA, in conjunction with other existing fishery management
regulations, may contribute to an existing declining trend in the number of fishing
vessels."

They admit they intend to destroy commercial fishing.... I can't believe it.

[PoolMan2]

I dare anyone to search the document for the word "spear" or "spearfish". The only place you will find it is in the sections where they are basically quoting the rules for each MPA. There is no mention of an "impact" on spearing, period. No negative affect on spearing at all in SB, Zuma, Dume, the Islands, PV, Laguna, or La Jolla.

[halibutmike]

I dare anyone to search the document for the word "spear" or "spearfish". The only place you will find it is in the sections where they are basically quoting the rules for each MPA. There is no mention of an "impact" on spearing, period. No negative affect on spearing at all in SB, Zuma, Dume, the Islands, PV, Laguna, or La Jolla.

Yep.... That's because we are clearly "LTS"

when discussing impacts...... "Less than Significant"

[saltierdog]

well the watermans alliance clearly sent in scoping documents
we need to follow up
I have begun reading this document over the weekend
more to follow