So Cal MLPA -- its started!

[tmaas]

Marine Protected Areas come to Southern California

The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) officially kicks off its Southern California program in July—Pt. Conception to the Mexican border. Its immediate impacts far outstrip the effects of any plankton bloom or El Nino. The law mandates Marine Protected Areas (MPA’s) connected in a network fashion. In the central and northern parts of the state, an average of 20% of the coast line is set aside for some type of MPA, which come in flavors. Most MPA’s are no-take by any user group and this type of MPA is called a Reserve, however, there is are other kinds of MPA’s (called Conservation Areas and State Marine Parks) that allow take of certain fish by certain groups, for example, rockfish may be taken by divers and kayakers but not commercial fishermen.

The scope of the area is vast. It includes the entire coastline and all of the offshore islands. Even the Channel Island MPA network is eligible for reevaluation and any existing boundary may be redrawn. There is no question that some of your favorite dive locations will be off limits to spearfishing. Our task is to mitigate, as much as possible, the loss of prime spearfishing grounds while meeting the goals of the law.

The ultimate decision on the final reserve network is made by the California Fish and Game Commission, who in turn are advised by the Blue Ribbon Task Force, who are in turn advised by a group of stakeholders representing scientists, ecologists, preservationists and consumptive users—sport and commercial. So even after a tremendous amount of work done by the stakeholder group, the final decision awaits two future filters before the final network is established. The state’s goal is to work on an accelerated pace and have the entire process completed in 18 months.

The stakeholder process involves lots of backroom conversations. It means coalition building with common interest groups and it means private meetings with members up the food chain—Blue Ribbon members and Commissioners. Because consumptive divers are a minority, our interests will have to be monitored closely. We will have to align with others of similar interests. There is a large group of non-consumptive divers in Southern California, who are some of the most vocal and radical preservationists. We may be lucky to simply break even on crucial votes.

Paradoxically, one of the most powerful tools we have is to cooperate with the independent group Ecotrust and disclose our most valuable locations. By early and voluminous responses from spearfishers, we can do two things. 1. Magnify our nearly 20,000 voices in relation to other user groups and 2. Make it clear which areas we hold dear so that conservationists will consider other areas as alternatives.

Terry Maas

[headshot]

DFG retained the consulting firm ECO-trust to collect and analyze information. They are going to be asking about your preferred dive spots, economic impact and social impact. They will be asking the non-Consumptives (seal people) a different set of questions.

At this time the SD Dive Community is not convinced of Eco-trusts neutrality or motivation.
We recommend an arms length relationship with Eco-Trust.

Volker Hoehne
SD Free Divers and the SD Council of Divers

[SpearMax]

DFG retained the consulting firm ECO-trust to collect and analyze information. They are going to be asking about your preferred dive spots, economic impact and social impact. They will be asking the non-Consumptives (seal people) a different set of questions.

At this time the SD Dive Community is not convinced of Eco-trusts neutrality or motivation.
We recommend an arms length relationship with Eco-Trust.

Volker Hoehne
SD Free Divers and the SD Council of Divers

Volker, I agree that we must vet out all such methods that DFG might be using. I personally did the attached GuideStar research on EcoTrust. Please view the attached PDF. EcoTrust appears to be a substantial nonprofit organization. Having a professional non-biased group involved just may be the best thing that could happen. If you and all the other clubs decide to participate by giving the high value (to us) locations, the word "Trust" in their name is of paramount importance. Please continue to check them out and let us know if there are any concerns.

Thanks for your input, Tony

[Robbert]

I'm not at all against "conservation" per-se but it seems when a group identifies itself as being focused on conservation it seems they usually go to extremes. Eco-Trust might take a more balanced approach then most but to say they are "un-biased" might be stretching things a bit too far.

I'll give them a fair shot though - I have not fully digested the information on them available but I certainly plan to.

Also, it seems providing DFG with lot's of information on "favorite" fishing areas in Cen-Cal backfired on them - any comments on that?

- Robbert

[Mike Eberhardt]

Instead of shutting down areas of coastline, couldn't they just further restrictions on take?

I.e, 2 calico limit, 1 sheephead limit, 2 halibut, etc etc?

[WESTBURY]

Mike, That would make too much sense, lol

[Bill McIntyre]

I don't know who is right or who is wrong about Eco-trust, but I hope we can resolve it. If our own community is divided on tactics, we don't stand a chance. We can bicker with each other while we get steam rolled by the other interest groups.

[Seacidal]

Terry and Bill are absolutely right on the money in stating that our combined voices as hunter-divers need to be heard. As hunters, we have as much interest in responsible management and appropriate conservation as any other group. However, we require continued access. And we need to let it be known how much we value that access. A properly designed survey can help achieve that goal.

[LGHT]

Instead of shutting down areas of coastline, couldn't they just further restrictions on take?

I.e, 2 calico limit, 1 sheephead limit, 2 halibut, etc etc?

Mainly because of their overspending habits they can't afford to "police" the entire coast anymore so it's easier for them to just shut down the areas that they can't reach instead of making the limits stricter on the area's they can reach. I recall reading about a sweet spot up North that was disclosed and the DFG went after that specific spot because certain groups where against fishing in that area. Even after the outside consultants suggested other area's would be better and everyone was in agreement to close another area the DFG closed the sweet spot because of pressure from outside groups that are also big contributors to the DFG fund.

The DFG makes decisions based on what's best for the DFG.

FYI 2006 was the first year the DFG had less than 200 wardens in over 30 years!

http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/state_admin/2007/FG_Warden_Staffing_05_08_07.pdf

[headshot]

We know very little about eco trust.
We do know that they have a nice web page, they know how to use Power Point Software, work for DFG, they are funded by private foundations which are interested in closing portions of our cost line to spear fishing. Their director likes the word transparent.

Their name has no Bering on their actions, for Example, the Army of God does not imply a religions group.

None of these suggest trust worthiness.

We recommend an arms length relationship with Eco-Trust.

[LGHT]

As hunters, we have as much interest in responsible management and appropriate conservation as any other group. However, we require continued access. And we need to let it be known how much we value that access. A properly designed survey can help achieve that goal.

I'm a member of the RFA (recreational fishing alliance) and SAC (Sport fishing Association of California) and both have already done Survey's earlier this year and had a ton of info on who to write to. I'm not sure sure if there is such a group representing spearfishing or not, but I know between the SAC and RFA there are more than 10,000 members.

Like they say united we stand and divided we fall.

[headshot]

Like they say united we stand and divided we fall.

:thumps:

[Bill McIntyre]

Like they say united we stand and divided we fall.

I agree, but already it seems that the San Diego divers disagree on giving information to Eco-trust and insist that they have their own representative. Does that mean that Terry or anyone else can't say he speaks for them?

[thekelpcrawler]

Gentlemen!

Let's not be quick to judge , everyone is entitled to their opinion ; and their representation . We all need to work together , this process is just getting started ; lighten up .


Kevin B. Cooper

:cowboy:

San Diego Freediver's / Member MLPA Statewide Interest Group (SIG)

[LGHT]

I agree, but already it seems that the San Diego divers disagree on giving information to Eco-trust and insist that they have their own representative. Does that mean that Terry or anyone else can't say he speaks for them?

The way I see it if we are not ALL part of an organization it really doesn't matter. I just don't think there are enough numbers otherwise to really get anyone's attention. Individual groups will probably not be heard as much as the CSA - California Spearfishing Alliance!!



Also, it seems providing DFG with lot's of information on "favorite" fishing areas in Cen-Cal backfired on them - any comments on that?

- Robbert

I also agree with Robbert, I recall reading how the guys up North got screwed by participating in the survey disclosing their spots to the hired consultant and coordinating other areas that would be ok with them. In the end the DFG closed the one spot that they really wanted to keep with little or no regard to what area is better or what the fishing guys wanted to keep.

I would have to agree with the SD guys since Eco-Trust doesn't seem to have any interest in fishing at all or working with fisherman in anyway whatsoever. Seems like a hired gun organization!!

[saltierdog]

Eco-Trust doesn't seem to have any interest in fishing at all or working with fisherman in anyway whatsoever. Seems like a hired gun organization!!

not at all true:(

http://www.ecotrust.org/cbfm/

[Dave Edlund]

Hi divers,

Here is my two cents. At the end of the day, about 20% of SOCAL state waters will go into one form of MPA or another. A big part of the process is where exactly those MPA's will be located. More than likely, we will have one stakeholder who represents our spearfishing community. That one stakeholder better know our favorite spots as ultimately it will that person who will help us the most in this process. If Terry Maas is selected as our stakeholder and I hope he is, Terry will have to negotiate with both fishermen and non-fishermen and try to defend as much as our favorite spots as possible. I know that of all fishermen on our coast, the WSB spearfishermen is the most secretive with their favorite spots. But if I were you, if you decide not to talk to Ecotrust, you better talk candidly to Terry. I personally don't think denying Ecotrust your favorite WSB areas will accomplish much as sooner or later, Terry must share them in this process. The one thing I can share with you guys is the fishermen who where the least cooperative in the Central California MLPA process got the short end of the stick when the maps where finally finished. I was the spearfishing stakeholder in that process and saw it happen. The one thing I am very happy about in this process is that spearfishermen in SOCAL are very involved and that will serve us well.

[Dave Edlund]

I think Robbert suggested that CENCAL got the short end of the stick in our MPA process. I would beg to differ. Because we worked with DFG biologists for 50 years, we got DFG staff backing that helped us win on several key issues. When all the MPA's in Central and North Central are finalized, Cencal will have lost maybe 5% of our traditional dive spots. In the whole Central and Northern California, we are likely to lose maybe 2 or 3 spots, many of them just so-so for hunting. The key to this whole process is to have stakeholder representation for our community. If we get that in SOCAL, we will win most battles. But don't come in with false expectations, you will have to give up some traditional diving areas. Most existing Reserve MPA's will be expanded in size, so if you have fishing areas next to them, be prepared to lose some of those areas. In areas there is a big photographic diver community, watch out. They will be for having no-take Reserves (La Jolla). Also watch out for areas off State Parks as the State parks department is not always pro-fishing. And be prepared to know exactly how healthy your fisheries are. Should WSB hunting be allowed in most Conservation type MPA's? You may not know what that means now, but it will be a big issue for you.

[Seacidal]

Gentlemen!

Let's not be quick to judge , everyone is entitled to their opinion ; and their representation . We all need to work together , this process is just getting started ; lighten up .


Kevin B. Cooper

:cowboy:

San Diego Freediver's / Member MLPA Statewide Interest Group (SIG)


Probably good advice. As Kevin has been extensively involved in this process for some time, representing divers and keeping them informed and involved, his advice from the SIG is to be respected.

This is a challenging task and will take time to conduct properly. User input and process transparency will be key toward arriving at a credible and respected outcome.

[seahunter]

This is a great thread! I am really happy to see the Socal guys being so proactive.

The main thing that stuck out in my mind from the Norcal process was how effective the environmentalists' paid lobbyists were at getting their point across to the MLPA comity. They knew pretty much nothing about fish or fishing. They knew little to nothing about the area, the representative for the dive community had never dove out here. Most of them had only seen the areas they were fighting for once or twice. The Fishermen had grown up using these areas, they new a lot about the areas, the fish communities, and the fishing practices, but they are fishermen not lobbyists and had a difficult time communicating with the MLPA comity.


I also agree with Robbert, I recall reading how the guys up North got screwed by participating in the survey disclosing their spots to the hired consultant and coordinating other areas that would be ok with them. In the end the DFG closed the one spot that they really wanted to keep with little or no regard to what area is better or what the fishing guys wanted to keep.


You might be referring to the salt point debate. Long story short: an abalone diver is responsible for th salt point MPA.

Long story long: The verdict is still not in, but my understanding is that one very vocal abalone diver from sea ranch was able to convince state parks to write a letter to the Marine life protection act (MLPA) comity that requested a marine protected area (MPA) at salt point. He did this so that the MPA the fishing community had proposed would have less of a chance of being selected. He did not like the fishing community's MPA because it engulfed one of his trophy abalone spots. In the end the MLPA comity put the environmentalists MPA on the preferred alternative map (the map the MLPA comity recommend to DFG). This MPA is 3 times the required size and will put one of our 3 calmest coves (ie one of the safest to dive) into a preserve.

[LGHT]

Here is a link to all the letters and e-mails received.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_111907a.pdf

["Yard-Sale Josh"]

You said somehting about letting ecotrust know our favorite spots so that they may try to to not have them shut down. who do we contact with this information?

["Yard-Sale Josh"]

anyone want to tell me?

[Seacidal]

The MPA process isn't supposed to be conducted to shut down our favorite spots. It's a matter of identifying areas of critical habitat that requires protection.

Something to keep in mind, especially those of us who have "been around" -- critical habitat isn't necessarily those areas that are currently the most productive. There are plenty of areas that qualify as critical habitat, but may not be currently among diving "hot spots" due to fishing pressure, development, water quality degradation, pollution, etc.

Those "depleted" spots, if properly protected through appropriately designed and directed measures, could experience far greater restoration of the marine ecosystem. Much greater than protecting areas which are currently highly productive.

This type of approach is just one of the ways we need to look at things differently as the MPA starts to roll through SoCal.

Keep this in mind when considering and discussing areas for protection.

Just something to think about. Hope it helps.

[LGHT]

anyone want to tell me?


There is an entire sub section called "California Fisheries Regulations and Science (MLPA & MPA)" under California. It will be toward the top.

In that subsection you should see 8 different topics started.

The one that contains info about EcoTrust is called:

"Trusting ECOTRUST MLPA initiative SOCAL"

Feel free to browse the topics for additional info that may also be helpful.

[halibutmike]

California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Announcement

Who: MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the MLPA South Coast Study Region

What: First meeting and draft agenda (see below)

When: September 8, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Where: Four Points by Sheraton 8110 Aero Drive San Diego, CA 92123 and via simultaneous webcast on the day of the meeting at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings_sc.asp - - - - - - - - - - - -
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

Blue Ribbon Task Force

Draft Meeting Agenda

(revised August 29, 2008)



Monday, September 8, 2008

9:30 a.m.



Four Points by Sheraton *

8110 Aero Drive
San Diego, California 92123





Members of the public are invited to view or listen to the meeting via simultaneous webcasting on the Internet. Please visit the MLPA website at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings_sc.asp for more information.



Public participation: The public will be invited by the chair at several points in the meeting to offer comments on agenda items. General comments on the MLPA Initiative and the work of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force, not directed to specific agenda items, will be taken immediately after lunch at approximately 1:30 p.m.



Briefing documents and meeting presentations/handouts: Please note that task force briefing documents are listed at the bottom of the agenda as either attachments (received in advance of the meeting) or handouts (received on the day of the meeting).





Meeting Objectives

Receive charge from Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman and amendment to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the third phase of the MLPA Initiative
Receive presentation of draft lessons learned report for the MLPA North Central Coast Study Region and recommendations for the south coast
Receive an introduction to the MLPA South Coast Study Region (SCSR), including existing marine protected areas (MPAs) and the draft regional profile
Receive updates on the MLPA South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group and MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team (SAT)
Discuss the MLPA Statewide Interests Group (SIG) and potentially approve formation of the SIG for the south coast
Review policy direction provided in previous study regions and discuss applicability to the MLPA South Coast Study Region
Review methods for stakeholder involvement at both the statewide and regional levels
Adopt a schedule of meetings to achieve the charge from Secretary Mike Chrisman
Receive a briefing on the staffing and resource needs of the MLPA Initiative
Review the 2007-2008 MLPA Initiative budget and potentially adopt a 2008-2010 budget
Review and adopt task force operating procedures and policies
Receive an update on the California Fish and Game Commission regulatory process for the MLPA North Central Coast Project
Meeting Agenda

Note: The task force will break for lunch at approximately 12:15 p.m. Public comment will be taken immediately following lunch at approximately 1:30 p.m.
1.
Welcome and introductions


2.
Mandate of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force

3.
Amendment to the MLPA Initiative memorandum of understanding

4.
Lessons learned in the north central coast

5.
MLPA South Coast Study Region

6.
MLPA South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group

7.
MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team

8.
MLPA Statewide Interests Group

PROPOSED ACTION: Approve formation of the MLPA Statewide Interests Group for the south coast

9.
Policy direction for the MLPA South Coast Study Region

10.
Stakeholder and interested public participation

11.
Project work plan and timeline

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt schedule of meetings for the MLPA South Coast Study Region

12.
Staff planning and resources

13.
MLPA Initiative budget

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt MLPA Initiative 2008-2010 budget

14.
MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force operations and policies

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt task force operating procedures

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt MLPA Initiative policy on transparency

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt reimbursement guidelines for MLPA Initiative activities

15.
MLPA North Central Coast Study Region

Adjourn

* This facility is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request reasonable accommodations for a disability, please contact California Relay Service (at least two days prior to the meeting) at 800.735.2929 (TT) or 800.735.2922 (voice) and ask them to contact the California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative at 916.653.5656.

[halibutmike]

California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Announcement

Who: MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team for the MLPA South Coast Study Region

What: First meeting (administrative with no actions) and draft agenda (see below)

When: September 10, 2008 at 11:00 a.m.

Where: via teleconference and webinar. Members of the public may also join MLPA staff in Sacramento or Los Alamitos for the teleconference. See below for more details regarding public locations and toll-free calling information. - - - - - - - - - - - - California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

Master Plan Science Advisory Team for the South Coast Study Region

Administrative Meeting Agenda

(revised August 29, 2008 )



Wednesday September 10, 2008

via teleconference 11:00 a.m.
Toll free phone number for audio: 800.974.2163 (passcode is 8127186#)

Presentations via GoToWebinar: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/906846273



For in-person teleconference and webinar access the public may join staff at:



Resources Building *
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1206
Sacramento, CA 95814
California Department of Fish and Game *

4665 Lampson Avenue, Suite C

Los Alamitos, CA 90720

Members of the public are invited to listen to the meeting using the toll-free phone number and passcode, or may use the MLPA offices listed above for access. This agenda may be found on the MLPA website at www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings_sc.asp.
Meeting Objectives

Welcome new MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team ( SAT ) members
Receive an introduction to the MLPA Initiative process and players
Receive an introduction to open meeting requirements and how they apply to the SAT
Review SAT charter, operating guidelines and meeting timeline
Receive briefing on the science guidance adopted in the California Marine Life Protection Act Master Plan for Marine Protected Areas
Receive briefing on the marine protected area (MPA) evaluation methods developed in the central coast and north central coast processes of the MLPA Initiative
Meeting Agenda
1.
Welcome, introductions and review of agenda

2.
Marine Life Protection Act Initiative process and players

3.
Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act

4.
SAT operations

5.
Science guidance in the California Marine Life Protection Act Master Plan for Marine Protected Areas

6.
MLPA North Central Coast MPA evaluation methods

7.
Public comment (public comment will be taken at approximately 1:00 p.m.)

* This facility is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request reasonable accommodations for a disability, please contact California Relay Service (at least two days prior to the meeting) at 800.735.2929 (TT) or 800.735.2922 (voice) and ask them to contact the California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative at 916.653.5656.

[grant]

Civil disobedience once we are unfairly regulated is my answer. Or working together to beat the man.

[halibutmike]

California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Announcement Who: MLPA South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group
What: First meeting and proposed draft agenda (see below)

When: October 6, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. and October 7 at 8:30 a.m.

Where: Embassy Suites 1440 East Imperial Avenue El Segundo, CA 90245 and via simultaneous webcast on the day of the meeting at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings_sc.asp - - - - - - - - - - - -
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group

Proposed Draft Meeting Agenda

(revised September 26, 2008)

October 6, 2008 (9:30 a.m.)

October 7, 2008 (8:30 a.m.)


Embassy Suites *

1440 East Imperial Avenue

El Segundo, CA 90245

Public participation: Members of the public are invited to attend the meeting in person or view and listen to the meeting via simultaneous webcasting on the Internet; an archived version will be available approximately two days after the meeting. Please visit the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) website at www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings_sc.asp for more information.

The public will be invited to offer comments on the work of the MLPA South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (SCRSG) at approximately 1:15 p.m. on Monday, October 6 and at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, October 7. Note that the public comment period is for comments specific to the MLPA South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group; comments related to other MLPA Initiative activities or groups should be directed to those bodies or MLPA staff.

Meeting Objectives

· Review project goals, charge of the SCRSG, and work plan

· Review and adopt proposed SCRSG ground rules

· Review key findings of stakeholder assessment and implications for south coast process

· Initiate review of draft regional profile

· Initiate discussion of draft regional goals and objectives

· Outline preparations for second SCRSG meeting

Meeting Agenda – Monday, October 6, 2008

Note: The SCRSG will break for lunch at approximately 12:15 p.m. and public comment will be taken at approximately 1:15 p.m.
1.
Welcome, agenda review, and brief introductions

2.
Project goals, roles, responsibilities and timeline

3.
Lessons learned from past marine protected area (MPA) processes

4.
SCRSG charge, ground rules and decision process

5.
Stakeholder assessment and implications for the MLPA South Coast Study Region

6.
Stakeholder interests, areas of expertise, affiliations and collaborative efforts


Recess to Tuesday, October 7

Meeting Agenda – Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Note: Public comment will be taken at approximately 11:30 a.m. and the SCRSG will break for lunch at approximately 12:00 p.m.
7.
Revisions to ground rules

8.
Draft regional profile for the MLPA South Coast Study Region

9.
Evaluating existing MPAs and the iterative MPA planning process

10.
SCRSG role in creating alternative MPA proposals

11.
Aspirations, hopes, and challenges

12.
Regional goals and objectives

13.
Next steps and preparations for the second SCRSG meeting (November 18-19, 2008)


Adjourn

* This facility is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request reasonable accommodations for a disability, please contact California Relay Service (at least two days prior to the meeting) at 800.735.2929 (TT) or 800.735.2922 (voice) and ask them to contact the California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative at 916.653.5656.

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

[halibutmike]

Official Ca DFG Announcement 9-30-08: South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group
Members chosen to represent diverse interests from Santa Barbara to San Diego
SACRAMENTO – The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative and California Department of Fish and Game ( DFG ) today announced the appointment of the MLPA South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group. Under the guidance of a blue ribbon task force, this group of 30 primary members and 27 alternates (list below) is responsible for working with a science advisory team and MLPA staff to help California improve the design and management of the south coast portion of a statewide network of marine protected areas (MPAs).
“An outstanding group of individuals was nominated for the south coast study region, which underscores the public’s commitment to making this process a success,” said DFG Director Donald Koch. “Selecting the appointments from this group of highly qualified individuals was no easy task. We appreciate the willingness of each of these stakeholders to dedicate the next 14 months to working collaboratively to help protect the state’s unparalleled coastline.”

Group members bring an in-depth knowledge about local resources and uses to help complete a regional profile, including an evaluation of existing MPAs within the MLPA South Coast Study Region (from Point Conception in Santa Barbara County south to the California border with Mexico , including offshore islands). The stakeholder group will also develop recommendations for alternative MPA proposals. A team composed of DFG staff, California Department of Parks and Recreation staff, and MLPA Initiative staff and contractors will work closely with the stakeholder group throughout the process.

"The regional stakeholder group represents a broad range of interests in the area, and all members have knowledge of marine issues affecting the study region," said MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force Chair Don Benninghoven. "This knowledge is essential to successfully guide the recommendations for implementing the Marine Life Protection Act in this part of the state."

The stakeholder group includes, among others, representatives of recreational angling, diving, commercial fishing, ports and harbors, conservation, business and government agencies with MPA-related responsibilities.
MLPA Initiative Executive Director Ken Wiseman said that a large number of talented people were nominated for the regional stakeholder group. “We selected a manageable-sized group that represents a wide range of interests in the south coast. The members of the group are committed to taking a thoughtful look at the entire study region and have demonstrated experience in working collaboratively with multi-interest groups,” Wiseman said. “We believe these individuals have the ability to discuss and balance varied perspectives and communicate those to a broad constituency.”

The regional group’s first meeting will take place Oct. 6 and 7 in El Segundo where members will be introduced to one another and to the stakeholder process. Additional members may be named prior to the first meeting. Subsequent meetings of the group will be held every six to eight weeks, or as necessary, throughout the study region.

Discussions at group meetings will be carried out primarily by the stakeholder representatives with the assistance of professional facilitators. Meetings will be open to the public and will be videotaped for simultaneous Web casting and later viewing on the Internet. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in the meetings as observers; they also will have opportunities to provide comments on evolving MPA proposals and other elements of the process.

The California Resources Agency and DFG have partnered with the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation and others in an initiative to achieve the MLPA goals. This public-private partnership is guided by the advice of scientists, resource managers, experts, stakeholders and members of the public. The MLPA directs the state to design and manage a system of marine protected areas in order to, among other things, protect marine life and habitats, marine ecosystems, and marine natural heritage, as well as improve recreational, educational and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems.

The MLPA requires DFG to prepare and present to the California Fish and Game Commission a master plan that will guide the adoption and implementation of a Marine Life Protection Program within the department. The commission is then required to adopt a master plan, based on the best readily available science, which includes a statewide network of MPAs. After the south coast region, the commission will be presented with recommendations for alternative network components along the two remaining study regions (north coast and San Francisco Bay ) between 2009 and 2011.

California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Members of the South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group
Revised September 29, 2008

Sarah Abramson, Coastal Resources Director, Heal the Bay

Calla Allison, Marine Protection Officer, City of Laguna Beach (alternate for Ken Kearsley)

John F. Ballotti, Senior Director, Global Procurement, Mattel, Inc.

Benjamin Beede, General Manager and Limited Partner, The Cultured Abalone

Philip Beguhl, commercial fishing representative, Santa Barbara County Fish and Game Commission

Steve Benevides, Co-founder, Kelp Forest Coalition

Bob Bertelli, President, California Sea Urchin Commission

Julie Bursek, Education Coordinator, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (alternate for Brent Scheiwe)

Roberta R. Cordero, Co-Founder and President, Chumash Maritime Association

Jim Dahl, Council Member, City of San Clemente (alternate for Leslie Daigle)

Leslie Daigle, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Newport Beach and Regional Council Member, Southern California Association of Governments

W. Scott Dunn, independent kayak guide and instructor

Dr. Jonna Engel, Staff Ecologist, California Coastal Commission

Dr. John M. "Jack" Engle, Associate Research Biologist, Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara (alternate for Phyllis Grifman)

Roy "Buck" Everingham, Owner, Everingham Brothers Bait Company (alternate for Ciro Ferrigno)

Jenn Feinberg, Consultant, Natural Resources Defense Council (alternate for Greg Helms)

Ciro Ferrigno, Member of the Board, California Wetfish Producer's Association

Ray Fields, President, The Abalone Farm, Inc. (alternate for Benjamin Beede)

Robert C. Fletcher, President, Sportfishing Association of California (alternate for Mike Gauger)

Mary Jane Forster-Foley, President, MJF Consulting Inc. (alternate for David Weeshoff)

Russell E. Galipeau, Superintendent, Channel Islands National Park

Michael Gauger, Seaforth Sportfishing, Inc.

Tommy Gomes, Owner, Uni Goop Bait (alternate for Bruce Steele)

Joel Greenberg, Southern California Chapter Chairman, Recreational Fishing Alliance (alternate for John Balloti)

Phyllis Grifman, Associate Director, University of Southern California Sea Grant Program

Mervin "Louie" Guassac, Executive Director, Kumeyaay Diegueno Land Conservancy

Marcela Gutiérrez, Wildlife Conservation Program Manager, WiLDCOAST (alternate for Sarah Abramson)

Kate Hanley, Director of Operations and Marine Conservation, San Diego Coastkeeper

Greg Helms, Southern California Program Manager, The Ocean Conservancy

Ray Hiemstra, Associate Director, Orange County Coastkeeper (alternate for Kate Hanley)

Mike Huber, Regional Environmental Coordinator Program Manager, U.S. Department of Defense Region IX

Ken Kearsley, former Mayor, City of Malibu

Michael J. Kennedy, Deputy Director, Kayak Fishing Association of California (alternate for Paul Lebowitz)

Eric Kett, Owner, Sea Zen Marine Consulting (alternate for Terry Maas)

Mick Kronman, Harbor Operations Manager, City of Santa Barbara

Paul Lebowitz, Director, Kayak Fishing Association of California

Dr. Terry Maas, Director, Underwater Society of America and Founding Member, Sea Watch

Jeff Maassen, Vice President, Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, Inc. (alternate for Bob Bertelli)

Jenny Marshall, Consultant, U.S. Navy (alternate for Mike Huber)

Carl Mayhugh, President, Pacific Oceanworks, Inc. (alternate for Steve Benevides)

Mike McCorkle, President, Southern California Trawlers Association (alternate for Gerry Richter)

Dr. Michael McCoy, Member, Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Authority (alternate for Dr. Vinod Sasidharan)

Merit McCrea, Captain, Condor Cruises and Research Technician, Marine Science Institute (alternate for Norris Tapp)

Garth Murphy, Founder, Surf Research (alternate for W. Scott Dunn)

Bob Osborn, Member, United Anglers of Southern California (alternate for Wendy Tochihara)

Jack Peveler, President, California Association of Port Captains and Harbormasters (alternate for Mick Kronman)

Dr. Benjamin Pister, Marine Ecologist, Cabrillo National Monument (alternate for Russell E. Galipeau)

Lia Protopapadakis, Marine Policy Specialist, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation (alternate for Dr. Anne Spacie)

Gerry D. Richter, Vice President, Point Conception Groundfishermen’s Association

Dr. Vinod Sasidharan, Associate Professor and Program Coordinator, Recreation and Tourism Management Program, San Diego State University

Brent Scheiwe, Director, SEA Lab

Dr. Anne Spacie, Science Director and Member of the Board, Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation and Professor Emerita, Purdue University

Bruce Steele, Captain, F/V Halcyon

Norris Tapp, Captain, F/V Freelance

Cassidy Teufel, Coastal Program Analyst, California Coastal Commission (alternate for Jonna Engel)

Wendy Tochihara, National Sales Manager, Izorline International

David Weeshoff, Member of the Board, International Bird Rescue Research Center

[donny]

At first glance it seems like a fair cross section of the users. I wish the blue ribbon TF was set up with the same representation. Thanks for posting, Donny

[Namor]

Here is a link to all the letters and e-mails received.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_111907a.pdf

This seems like just a handful of letters. To whom do we write about specific concerns, and at what point would it be appropriate to do so?

Also, I think that one of the stakeholders is a faculty member @ UCSB which is in my neck of the woods. Do you guys think it would be beneficial for me to approach them with my concerns?

Anyone who can share some info with me on how to most efficiently work to our benefit please let me know.

Jeremy

[Bill McIntyre]

How will this impact the process?

http://www.spearboard.com/showthread.php?t=71100

[tmaas]

How will this impact the process?

http://www.spearboard.com/showthread.php?t=71100

While this has huge impact in Federal waters, especially Hawaii, it does not impact the current MLPA process, which confines itself to state waters, within the 3-mile limit of land. It does, however, seem to prohibit "tacking on" federal reserves to extend state reserves many miles offshore.

Terry