So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

[tmaas]

California Divers,

I have been offered the position as a stakeholder, one of 30. I believe the outcome, scheduled to become law in roughly 2 years, will have far reaching implications for the way we practice our sport.

My philosophy is that we view this process as future insurance so that over-fishing today does not destroy the chance for our children to enjoy what we currently have. I feel that with some creative thinking, we can retain most of our popular locations while at the same time preserve some of the coastline for generations to come.

I plan to communicate through my web site: www.freedive.net/MLPA where I will maintain a running log of significant activities as they occur. I have already placed my review of a very interesting meeting I attended this weekend on a computer modeling process, which can help the consumptive folks make a good case for alternatives to our best spots to the environmental folks, to help them accomplish their goals while at the same time preserving most of our valuable locations. This program dovetails nicely with the information provided by Ecotrust.

Highlights:
There will be five subzones, presumably with a minimum of one 3 X 3 mi reserve included in each, spaced no more than 60 miles apart (minimum MLPA guidelines). The coast is split at Santa Monica Bay into two zones, N & S. Another encompasses the northern Channel Islands and San Nicholas. One includes the southern Channel Islands and Santa Barbara Island. And the last groups Catalina and San Clemente.

One important take-away from this meeting is that both yellowtail and white seabass are species “not likely to benefit” from a special reserve. If we can show (unlike the hook-and-line guys) that we will create no “collateral damage,” which is best defined as accidentally catching one species while targeting another, then we might be allowed into reserves to take these specific species. More work will have to be done to document the selective nature of our sport, but this opens the door a crack for us, especially for the shore-based divers who might not have the luxury of boat travel to the islands.

Please visit my web site and take a look at the link to my acceptance letter, which includes the other 60 stake holders (30 alternates) and communicate with me privately if you know any of these stake holders and most important, their mindsets and beliefs. (tmaas@west.net)

Terry

[Noyo Jim]

Great report, Terry - nice to finally meet you at the workshop this weekend.

We have some great representation on the SoCal regional stakeholder group.

If people want to learn more about the California Fisheries Coalition, the coalition that hosted the workshop this weekend, go to www.cafisheriescoalition.org.

The RFA supports the CFC and will be backing up our representatives on the RSG in any way we can...

[tmaas]

10/7/2008 FIRST OFFICIAL MEETING OF THE SO CAL REGION MLPA

The So Cal Consumptive Diver Team:

Eric Kett and I had lots of time to confer on our way to and from the meeting. We have a very high level of agreement on how to proceed with this process. We will issue joint statements and endeavor to engage special interest groups based primarily on geography. We are hoping to work with 3 key groups: Santa Barbara area, Greater Los Angeles area and San Diego. We know that there is some disappointment by those in the Los Angeles and San Diego areas who feel that they are under represented on the stakeholder group.

Both Eric and I are committed to listening and conferring with divers who are most affected by the planned reserves in their area, most notably the Palos Verdes Peninsula and La Jolla-Point Loma areas. We would like to develop a team of local advisors from these areas and other areas as you suggest. The department is making some valuable mapping tools available to the public for reserve planning and assessment. One such resource is Marine Map ( http://marinemap.org/marinemap/ ). Another is Google Earth. It is our intention to confer with local interest groups in a phone conference setting where we can all sit in front of our computers and discuss boundary and other issues affecting specific areas.

Hello I’m Eric Kett,

A 27 year resident of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. For the past 23 years I have been a very active diver, boater, and ocean enthusiast along the southern California coast. I have taught SCUBA diving locally, and then became a Boat Captain. I have spent thousands of days boating and diving along the coast, islands and offshore rocks. In the late 90’s I became involved in the Marine Reserve Working Group for the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. From this process I developed a sense of obligation to share my experience and knowledge of the Marine Environment and its inhabitants through collaborative processes in hope of yielding better education and management of the resources so they are healthy for all to enjoy as they wish. In 2001 I became a Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council member and am currently serving my 3rd term as part of the executive committee of the Sanctuary Advisory Council. I believe I am well rounded in my experiences; Dive boat Captain, Island Excursions, Whale Watching, Fishing, Kayaking, Sailing, Photographing (both for fun and professionally), Research, Recreation, etc.
I look forward to working with Dr. Terry Maas, the rest of the RSG, BRTF, SAT, and any divers that would like to be more closely involved it looks to be an exciting year ahead.
Best regards, Capt. Eric Kett (805) 895-9322, SeaZen@gte.net

Highlights of the first meeting of stakeholders 10/6-7/08

The goal of the group is to produce 3 proposals, one each from 3 subgroups. Each draft will undergo at least 3 revisions. Each draft will be reviewed by the Scientific team (SAT). The distillation body, The Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) is responsible for taking the best elements from each proposal and combining them for its final recommendation to Dept. of Fish and Game Commission. In the northern study areas, often segments from one proposal were included in other proposals. Also the committee will look at any fully fleshed-out proposal from any group outside the stakeholder grooup. The idea for asking for multiple proposals is to try to avoid 100% consensus behind one plan, which the department has found in not possible.

The final outcome will utilize 3 types of reserve designation:, RESERVES (no take by anyone), PARKS (possible inclusion of some recreational take), and CONSERVATION AREAS (some recreation and commercial take may be allowed.),

The stakeholder group is composed essentially of 60 members, 30 primary, 30 alternates. Except for time constraints (when the primary and alternate confer) the members designated as alternate have the same rights, impact and importance as their primary throughout the process.

While the Department says that we can be inventive with reserve boundaries and rules, they worry a great deal about complexities that might confuse the public.

Both Eric and I agree that the group appears to be composed of a high percentage of stakeholders interested in consumption. Everyone appears cooperative at this point and there are high expectations that the group can minimize impact on consumptive users. The chair of the BRFT, who is ultimately responsible for the plan submitted to the Commission, Don Benninghoven, addressed the group and said that it was his desire to “come up with the most protection with the least economic impact.” We translated this to suggest that any plan should consider highly fishing interests.

The next step in the process is reviewing and improving the Department’s Regional Profile, which draws upon data from bathometric maps most notably hard and soft bottoms, Ecotrust data and user-mapping data created by NOAA. Stakeholders will input their particular knowledge so that the profile maps accurately characterize the entire region.

Initially, the Channel Island Reserves were advertised to be entirely open to being re-drawn. However now rather than open these up, the department has chosen to fall back on one of the goals of the MLPA act—adaptive management—whereby the Fish and Game commission will evaluate these reserves and make suggestions for changes. These evaluations are to be made every 5 years, which makes the first review due now. The review will be conducted by the Scientific Advisory Team (SAT), who will advise if any of the current reserves should be modified.

This process is wonderfully transparent to interested public members. Each meeting is broadcast to the web in real time and each meeting is open to the public members who are allowed time to comment to the group. The main information web site is: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/MLPA/southcoast.asp If you are interested in the proceedings, you can review them in web-based archives. Meetings will rotate between SB, LA and SD so there is plenty of opportunity for you appearance and input. Both Eric and I appreciate your input. If you plan to attend a meeting, let us know so that we can meet and confer at breaks.

Terry Maas and Eric Kett
see www.freedive.net/MLPA for the complete log

[Tino Bernazzani]

This is a long process and I wish you guys good luck.
It will be a challenge to add more MLPA's in an already highly regulated stretch of the coast.
If anyone wants to see a Google Earth file that I created, it shows the current MPA's with links to the take allowed.
Con=Conservation area, Blue
RES=Reserve area, Red

Google Earth Current MPA file (http://www.spearboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=71524&d=1205892023)

[tmaas]

Tino,
Thank you for the resource. Between now and our next meeting, we are expected to read and comment on the regional profile. If anyone has the time to review this and offer us comments, your efforts will be appreciated. Find the profile at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/scprofile.asp
Terry

[Noyo Jim]

Terry I looked at the profile briefly and noticed there was no information about the historic abalone fishery. Given that we are trying to bring that back in SoCal, maybe ask that some reference to abalone landings, historical value, be added to the profile.

[tmaas]

Here is a link to a simple podcast, which describes the process and progress to date. While it is from an environmentally oriented group, it offers a fair overview of the implementation of the act for the So. Cal area: http://www.thankyouocean.org/podcast/
Terry

[headshot]

Great report, Terry

[tmaas]

The second So MLPA stakeholder's meeting is Tuesday and Wednesday. If you are in the area, please join us. You may also view the meeting live via web cast at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings_sc.asp
What: Second meeting and proposed agenda (see below)
When: November 18, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. and November 19 at 8:30 a.m.

Where: Crowne Plaza Ventura Beach Hotel *
450 East Harbor Boulevard
Vdentura, CA 93001

PROPOSED MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 (10:00 a.m.),Wednesday, November 19, 2008 (8:30 a.m.)
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, and may view an archived version approximately two days after the meeting. Please visit the MLPA website at www.dfg.ca.govmlpa/meetings_sc.asp for more information. Meeting materials will not be provided at the meeting but will be posted to the MLPA website as soon as they become available.
Public participation: The public will be invited to offer comments on the work of the MLPA South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (SCRSG) at approximately 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
November 18, 2008 and at 12:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 19. 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


· Complete introductions for all MLPA South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group members
· Review comments provided on the draft regional profile and provide additional input
· Using adopted MLPA North Central Coast Study Region goals and objectives as a staring point, discuss and develop south coast regional goals and objectives
· Provide introduction to MarineMap and how to use the online tool in marine protected area planning
· Present informational briefings, including south coast habitats, species movements and dispersal, commercial fishing, and recreational fishing
· Present guidelines for developing marine protected area proposals
· Present marine protected area proposal evaluation methodology and its application to the MLPA South Coast Study Region
· Outline preparations for third regional stakeholder group meeting

Meeting Agenda - Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Note: The regional stakeholder group will break for lunch at approximately 12:30 p.m. and public comment will be taken at approximately 1:30 p.m.
1.Welcome, Agenda Review, and Brief Introductions
2.Updates and Follow-up Tasks from October Meeting
3.Informational Presentation Regarding Marine Habitats and Ecosystems of the MLPA South Coast Study Region
4.Informational Presentation Regarding Adult Movement and Larval Dispersal of Fish and Invertebrates in the MLPA South Coast Study Region
5.Introduction to MarineMap as a Tool for MPA Planning
6.South Coast Regional Goals and Objectives, Part 1
7.Draft Regional Profile for the MLPA South Coast Study Region

Recess

Meeting Agenda - Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Note: The regional stakeholder group will break for lunch at approximately 11:30 a.m. and public comment will be taken at approximately 12:30 p.m.
8.Review Agenda for Day 2 and Questions from Day 1
9.South Coast Regional Goals and Objectives, Part 2
10.Guidelines for Developing Marine Protected Area Proposals
11.Marine Protected Area Evaluation Methods
12.Informational Presentation Regarding Commercial Fisheries of the MLPA South Coast Study Region
13.Informational Presentation Regarding Recreational Fisheries of the MLPA South Coast Study Region
14.Informational Presentation Regarding Ecotrust Fisheries Uses and Values Project
15.Next Steps and Preparations for Next Meeting

[Seacidal]

Thanks for the update, Terry.

I encourage anyone who is interested in the MPA process to try to attend at least some of these meetings.

[toggy]

Hi Terry,

Thank you so much for representing our interests!

I had a talk with an ecologist from the DFG today (after a beautiful La Jolla kelp dive). She said some very disturbing/frustrating things to me. Call me ignorant, but I really didn't know how serious this MLPA issue was. So I just had a look at the MLPA South Coast Study Region draft and I know you have a lot to read; I'll try to be as brief as possible:

1) she said conservation areas may be enacted as early as April 2009
2) I love diving between Del Mar and Cardiff and I asked about this area. She said that that area is under-fished and thus a perfect candidate for a closure (i.e. less complaints). I see it as thus being less necessary to close. Are we closing for the sake of closing (to make the "seal people" happy) or for the sake of the ecosystem?
3) When asked if closing was necessary to fix the ecosystem, or if we could use science and regulation to create a sustainable fishery she admitted that creating a sustainable fishery was a viable option. She said, however, that it was "easier" to just ban it all together. She meant easier to administer (i.e. simpler enforcement). I have a hunch that when one considers the economy (which is especially pertinent right now!) sustainability wins as it keeps the fishing industry strong (for our and the next generation). Fishing licenses and enforcement penalties can pay for more wardens and create more jobs. (people can catch a cheap meal, Seaworld can catch there bait and stay in business, the list goes on). Massive no fishing regions is a lazy, primitive, and unnecessary solution (kind of like R&R fishing). We spend millions on scientists...use them.
4) She suggested that the majority of kelp north of Mission Bay was to be made a no fishing area, and that Point Loma would be closed to lobstering, but left open for fishing. This sounds like a great way to quickly turn Point Loma into an overfished area. Focusing all recreational fisherman to one area seems hazardous at best.

Please let me know if I am misinformed or missing something. And I would really like to stay involved. I plan to read the SoCal MLPA act and hope to get back to you with my other 2 cents. And let me know if there is anything I can do to help you in the effort!

I want to stress that the DFG ecologist was very friendly and somewhat sympathetic. I hope this post doesn't make her look bad, it was not my intention to shoot the messenger.

and thank you again Terry!
Matt

ps> sorry if this is in the wrong thread, let me know and i can move it

[WESTBURY]

Sure wish the time of the meetings were a little more sensitive to the "average working Joe".

[toggy]

Sure wish the time of the meetings were a little more sensitive to the "average working Joe".

And these ones are at the same time as the annual California Coopertive Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) conference: http://oceaninformatics.ucsd.edu/calcofi/conference/

who needs the local oceanographers at these meetings anway

by the way...im going to CalCOFi so I'll let you know if there are MLPA discussions

[tmaas]

She said, however, that it was "easier" to just ban it all together. She meant easier to administer (i.e. simpler enforcement). I have a hunch that when one considers the economy (which is especially pertinent right now!) sustainability wins as it keeps the fishing industry strong (for our and the next generation).

Focusing all recreational fisherman to one area seems hazardous at best.



Matt,
We are still early in the process and not the first line has been drawn. Still, there will be closures in your area. I will let you know what the proposals are when they come, early next year. As for the enforcement issue, this is a big disappointment to me. The Department of Fish and Game is out of the creative phase by suggesting that most reserves be no-take because it is easier to administer. This removes a lot of creative solutions from the table, ie allowing the take of wsb and yellowtail because these fish are "not likely to benefit" from any reserve.

You are correct, making one area a reserve places more pressure in non-reserves. This part of the trade off and unavoidable. Our job is to minimize the impact on you.

Terry

[toggy]

Hi Terry,

Thanks for the info.

I went to the California Coopertive Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) conference today. I didn't come away with any positive news or vibes, so unfortunately I have nothing to post (unless I break from the "if you have nothing nice to say..." rule).

-Matt

ps> I'll mention that I was given a dose of the disregard for the interests of spearfishing and now especially sympathize with what you are up against. It seems we are considered collateral damage in the fight against H&L by-catch.

[SpearMax]

Terry, this work is so critical to the future of the sport in California. I commend you for taking up this challenge and thank you for your dedication of time and energy. Best of luck to you, Tony :cool:

[Urchin_Diver]

anybody else gonna show tomorrow?
we'll be there

[tmaas]

Nov 18-19- Second meeting, Ventura

SAT has defined 5 bioregions in the Southern California Region. The coast has been divided at Santa Monica Bay.
Reviewed habitats, recognized 75% is sand
Reviewed size and spacing criteria
1. Size controlled primarily by range of animals. Too small and many animals swim outside the reserve and are subject to getting caught.
2. Spacing between reserves should allow adequate larval disbursement and settlement so that one reserve is close enough to seed another.

Introduced a planning tool Marine Map ( http://marinemap.org/marinemap/ ). Works best in Firefox. Supposed to be opitmized for IE7 later this month. This tool allows users—including the public—to design and edit reserves. Stakeholder groups can share ideas of networks as they develop. Most important, we can share these ideas with you. We just email a small Google Earth file and you can see the exact boundaries for comment.

We are disappointed that the Department of Fish and Game favors very simple reserve design—straight lines, and all no-take—for simplicity of enforcement. We hope that more imaginative reserves, with specific boundaries for special goals, different layers of harvesting (allowing divers to take pelagics) and close spacing of different uses will allow us to parse up the area in a more intelligent fashion.

We met with the group Fisheries Information Network (FIN), a support group for stakeholders with the goals to provide stakeholders with support and strategy during this process. Their desire is to minimize impact on fishers and to provide a combined front, and to receive comments from consumptive fishing groups not represented as stakeholders.

The blue ribbon taskforce, the group that makes the final recommendation to the Fish and Game Commission, is calling for strict adherence to size and spacing guidelines and simplicity for enforcement.

Generally, MPAs should be 6-12 miles wide along the coast and separated by no more than 30-60 miles.

Ecotrust data: Divers finally came to the table and represent the same number of respondents as the shore and kayak fishers—about 170 responses for each group. Good work! This means that your favorite areas will be respected equally with other user groups. (When I worked with NOAA on a similar project, I was impressed on how closely our favorite areas coincide—fishermen and divers). On the commercial side, an impressive number of over 50% of commercial fishermen responded.

Both Eric I would appreciate more input from any of you. As we are approaches “lines in the sand”, we would like you input. Call or email us: tmaas@west.net and Eric at: seazen@gte.net

[ladvr]

Nov 18-19- Second meeting, Ventura


We are disappointed that the Department of Fish and Game favors very simple reserve design—straight lines, and all no-take—for simplicity of enforcement. We hope that more imaginative reserves, with specific boundaries for special goals, different layers of harvesting (allowing divers to take pelagics) and close spacing of different uses will allow us to parse up the area in a more intelligent fashion.

The blue ribbon taskforce, the group that makes the final recommendation to the Fish and Game Commission, is calling for strict adherence to size and spacing guidelines and simplicity for enforcement.

Generally, MPAs should be 6-12 miles wide along the coast and separated by no more than 30-60 miles.



Terry,
I came away from the El Segundo meetings feeling pretty good about the process. The mix of Stakeholders seemed reasonable. The emphasis on using the three different levels of reserves available seemed encouraging. The acknowledgement that the MLPA initiative does not legally require a minimum area or spacing seemed like a plus. Now I am hearing that you are required to look at minimum size and spacing as well as keeping the reserves as all “no take”. I am confused and disappointed that Stakeholders are being guided in such a manner. It makes me distrust the process. I hope you are able to over come some of these road blocks.

Mike

[tmaas]

Terry,
Now I am hearing that you are required to look at minimum size and spacing as well as keeping the reserves as all “no take”. I am confused and disappointed that Stakeholders are being guided in such a manner.

Mike,
It is not that the Blue Ribbon Task force will not look at other than no-take reserves, it is just that they prefer them and simple boundaries. We have yet to draw the first line. Let's see how things go. We are trying our best to present the diver's case. Be sure to follow the mapping when it begins.

Terry

[tmaas]

1/14/2009


The session began by discussing more criteria for choosing the specific sites, size, spacing and habitats for the mpa network. We were presented with studies of currents and fresh water plumes from major rivers as well as water quality assessments of the entire region.
The D.O.D. has weighed in strongly on the military uses of San Clemente, San Nicholas Islands and Camp Pendleton. They clearly do not want any reserve at these locations. We are waiting for “policy” guidance from the Blue Ribbon Task force as to the possible removal of these military installations from the process.
More scientific presentations were made on marine birds and mammals and their shared life histories.
The beginning of work on actual reserve design began when the stakeholders were broken into 3 groups to begin drawing “draw lines in the sand.”
Eric and I met with divers from the local area, who were interested in the process and with whom we shared our view of the process to date. We would really like to thank them for coming out to share with us their thoughts. The twelve divers from several different areas who joined us for dinner were;
Kevin Cooper, Volker, Joe Nguyen Ryan Sweeny, Kelsey Albert, Alex Stover, Mike (mnguy), Matt Mastiloff, Grant Milbrea, Tom Keahl, Paul Romanowski, Carey Humphreys, (please accept our humble apologies for any misspellings in names or mis-pronunciations). Thank you divers for attending, and for your support. It was nice to meet all of you.
This Stakeholder representative process needs your involvement to be effective. We encourage you to contact those above who are in your local area and form groups to discuss specific sub-bioregions. As soon as the first plans form, we will make these available in Google Earth format for anyone to see. Several private chat groups are forming to discuss ideas of interest for the local areas, namely San Diego, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara areas. The next RSG meeting is March 3rd & 4th .

There is an effort for the entire fishing community, including commercial and recreation fishermen and anglers to form a united front. We are staying close to this group as their interests most parallel ours and we are much stronger affiliated with this group rather than going it alone.
The next step is for the 3 groups to meet over the next month and come up with two proposals each. These will be presented to the entire group and the public for comment. The science team will evaluate these first reserve suggestions and provide feedback. One group may borrow a design from another or from a separate outside submission. The process will repeat 3 times until about 3 proposals are submitted to the Blue Ribbon Task force later in the year.
Some budget shortfalls are being made up by grants and despite the state’s budget problems, there appears to be enough funds to complete this process.
Everyone’s interest in the process has picked up momentum as was duly noted at this 3rd meeting of the RSG. 60 plus public speakers came forward, nearly 10 times the number from previous meetings. These public comments came from local politicians and many interested in keeping harbor seals at the Children’s pool off La Jolla and others wishing their removal. One of the more powerful presentations came from the Chadwick School where they asked that the entire Palos Verdes peninsula be included into a no-take reserve.
This public interest can be viewed as a good thing. It can give divers a bit of a spotlight to promote responsible efforts to improve the health of the ocean that do not involve reducing fishing grounds as well as the importance of having areas to dive/fish that are accessible from shore for all skill levels to enjoy the experience.
Terry and Eric

[rojodiablo]

Thanks for checking in Terry. Sorry you missed the meeting, after the meeting. It was pretty good, I came away with a very positive feeling from the other fishing groups, and we seem to have a good rapport from everybody. All I can say is, we are lucky to have the friends in the room that we do have.

[zenspearo]

Thanks Terry for the updates. It was a very educational experience and I think we have more divers now interested in the MLPA issue, which can only be a good thing.

[rhyne]

what sticks out the most from my first introduction to such a process is how we all have the opportunity to have a voice at this time. Our audience will be a wide mixture of our communities at large (socal) with many different personal agenda's. This is a great time for us to create whatever it will take to help these other involved parties understand why it is so important for the "lines in the sand" to be drawn in a way that preserves our sport and its future. We have an audience of the people making these decisions...we are the people making these decisions. It is up to us to create a voice, influence the MPA boundaries & preserve our sport and fishery as we know it. The time for action is now...so let's get to gettin.

[halibutmike]

Terry and Eric,

the following "Request for Letters of Support for Retaining San Nicolas Island and San Clemente Island in the Mapping Process." was posted to the OCDiving mailing list.

What is your take on the request from Steve (another stake holder)?
If the Islands are included will it just mean more closures, or will it mean less closures outside of the Navy excluded areas? (ie if some of San Clemente is closed, will less of Catalina be closed? thanks.

"-----Original Message-----
From: steve@sgbcpa.com
Sent: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:24:52 -0800
To: news@ocdiving.com,
Subject: [OC Diving -News] Request for Letters of Support for Retaining San Nicolas Island and San Clemente Island in the MLPA.

California Marine Life Protection Act ("MLPA") Initiative

Request for Letters of Support for Retaining San Nicolas Island and San
Clemente Island in the Mapping Process.

/////////////////////////////////

Last Tuesday, the SoCal MLPA Regional Stakeholders Group ("RSG")
received a memorandum from the MLPA I-Team (the staff from various
disciplines and direct the process) requesting the Blue Ribbon Task
Force ("BRTF")Adopt the following motion:

"Marine Protected Areas should not be considered and areas identified by
the United States Department of Defense on a map dated December 4, 2008,
as a live fire, training minefields and amphibious operation areas.
Legally permitted fishing will continue to be allowed in the same manner
as now in these areas, which is currently estimated at over 80% of the
time...."

The BRTF is a body of political appointees who are charged with
evaluating the MLPA proposals and recommending a preferred alternative
to the Fish and Game Commission for final approval. They have the final
say before the Commission.

That map identified all of San Clemente and San Nicholas and 17 miles of
Camp Pendleton as live fire areas, ie No MPA's there a all.

I will cut to the chase. What they're requesting is that all of the
coastline of both San Clemente and San Nicolas Islands and the entire 17
mile coastline of Camp Pendleton be completely removed from
consideration in the Marine life Protection Act Initiative process. In
the meantime there will be no levels of protection applied to San
Clemente or. San Nicolas Island. Commercial and recreational harvest
their will continue unabated and free of any restrictions imposed by the
MLPA. In plain terms, this means that the RSG are to have to apply the
guidelines for establishing a network of marine reserves through out the
Southern California bight without applying any of the protections to
those islands or to Camp Pendleton. I can't begin to tell you how bad
an idea this is or how difficult it will be to design any meaningful
network of marine reserves without including those to islands and Camp
Pendleton as integral parts of the network. If the BRTF agrees to the
Department of Defense request, this also means that one of the possible
outcomes is that Catalina Island will be forced to absorb all of the
network carrying capacity for all the offshore islands in the study
area.

If you care at all about a successful conclusion to building a network
of meaningful reserves in Southern California, It is vital that the
regional stakeholders group and the State planning staff be allowed to
include the coastlines San Clemente Island and San Nicolas Island and
Camp Pendleton as an integral part in designing the spatial array of
marine protected areas that will support one another with transport of
larva or adult finfish.

We need emails letters from concerned divers who care about trying to
create the comprehensive system of protected areas envisioned by the
MLPA. I believe this opportunity to finish this process will never
exist in most of our lifetimes. This decision is scheduled for January
22, so send an email, not a snailmail.

The Department of Defense and the state of California have already
reached accord in similar circumstances. When the Department of Defense
took a similar position at Vandenberg Air Force portion of the Central
Coast. The central coast RSG and the BRTF made accommodations that met
both the needs of building a network of reserves with the correct
spatial properties and accommodated the needs of the Air Force for a
very sensitive facility. I absolutely believe we can do the same thing
at San Clemente Island. Recreational fishers and divers and commercial
fishing and been living in close proximity to bombs and guns for dozens
of years. The fact remains, however, there is a COMPELLING STATE
INTEREST in seeing that all of the offshore islands are included in
building this network of reserves that we so desperately need. Your
letter can simply say that you feel it is important to include San
Clemente Island and San Nicolas Island as an integral part of the South
Coast MLPA process. Below are just a few good reasons. Please don't
just cut them out and paste them on your letter, because when they get
to many e-mails about the same they throw them away. Your letter should
began as follows, it has the email address:



January 14, 2009

Via email: MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov

Re: Military Use Areas in the MLPA South Coast Study Region

Dear Chair Benninghoven and members of the BRTF:

Please accept the following comments regarding military use areas in the
MLPA South
Coast study region...

///////////////////////////

You can send it by e-mail, it's as easy as that. I would appreciate
your help. This is very, very important to the diving community.
Scratch that, it's good for my grandchildren, and yours




Here are a few good reasons. This is a very small list of the good
reasons to keep all the islands in the process. These come from RSG
members and scientists assisting the RSG.:

-Exclusion of offshore habitat with exceptional water quality from
consideration in the network is ignoring and in contravention to the
preservation and protection of potential habitat. (This is goal number
six of the regional goals)

- Both of these offshore areas are designated as areas of special
biological significance by the state California. There is a Compelling
State Interest to include them in designing the spatial array of MBAs
- Both of the islands have been designated as areas of special
biological significance by the state California. This means they have
exceptional water quality.
- Approximately two thirds of all the offshore, shoreline habitat
in the entire study area is represented at San Nicolas and San Clemente
Island!!!

- The property the Department of Defense wishes to exclude
contains approximately 50% of the entire persistent canopy of to help
cover in our study area!!@!

- The scientific advisory team, which is tasked with providing
input on the best available science to the Marine life protection act
initiative process is not even met to consider this and the BRTF is
being asked to make a final decision by January 22. The Science
Advisory Team does not meet until January 23. There is no need at this
time to take this drastic action.
- Clemente and San Nicolas Islands exhibit a wide variety of high
quality habitats and high diversity of marine life, as well as complex
oceanography and bottom topography.
- Both islands are farther offshore from mainland than any of the
other Channel Islands. They have much greater freedom from turbidity
and pollution from mainland sources.
- From a biological point of view, both islands are far enough
south yet far enough off shore to support marine life communities
characteristic of both warm water and cold water conditions, but warm
water marine life predominate at San Clemente. Cold water and marine
life predominate at San Nicolas. These islands appropriately placed in
different bioregion, but each island has features that are distinct from
the other islands in the bioregion.
- San Nicolas Island has the greatest total extent of kelp beds
(30%) and San Clemente has second-most (22%) of all the Channel Islands,
so those to islands account for over half the kelp of all eight of the
Channel islands!!!
- San Clemente Island has many more important seabird and marine
mammal areas than Catalina. Lots of people at Catalina: therefore, more
disturbance for sea birds and marine mammals. Long-ago elephant seals
used to haul out at Catalina Harbor: now, unlike other southern Channel
Islands, no elephant seals haul out at Catalina). The people affects
the Catalina in general represent a major difference between the two
islands.
- CIRP surveys have found unique warm water species (some
representing species range expansions) at both Catalina and San Clemente
Island , but many more at the south end of San Clemente Island than
anywhere else.


-
I could go on but you get the idea. In fact, I have another three pages
pertinent information, but I'm just too tired to dictate now. Please
excuse me, if there are any typing or grammar errors, but I wanted to
get this out quickly, because it's important.

If you're willing, thanks for your help.

Then again, if you don't like what I'm asking, write one anyway because
they need to hear from you too. It's your ocean too. You should also
have a say. This issue is very important.


Stephen G. Benavides

steve@sgbcpa.com
949-474-7427

In 1850 California became a state. The new state had no electricity, and
no money. There were gunfights in the street and almost everyone spoke
Spanish.

The irony compared to today, is inescapable."

[rhyne]

many good points made...email sent.

[rojodiablo]

many good points made...email sent.

I sure hope you thought hard about what you wrote.... do you want to agree with a guy who actually WANTS closures at SCI?? Or, do you maybe feel that the island is under presently fantastic management, and the NAVY has done a better job of stewardship of the marine resources than the state, and the baykeeper, and surfrider, etc?? What that guy is asking for is closures on SCI, where there is already excellent management in place.

BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR. pLEASE THINK ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU SEND ANYTHING TO THE STATE. yOU DON'T WANT YOUR IDEAS AND DESIRES TWISTED AGAINST YOU.:eek:

[rhyne]

i did give it thought and my email included and considered points shown here as well as some others. actually, i do feel that including those areas in the MPA/MLPA process is worthwhile. mainly because they are less influenced by humans as well as if areas out there are closed then it may keep some closer/more easily accessible areas open.
If i had a choice between closing part of a further away island or closing LaJolla, Laguna, PV well, i'd probably vote to keep the closer to home areas open.
we're going to lose some valuable area one way or another...either way this is gonna be a tough one for many.

[rojodiablo]

i did give it thought and my email included and considered points shown here as well as some others. actually, i do feel that including those areas in the MPA/MLPA process is worthwhile. mainly because they are less influenced by humans as well as if areas out there are closed then it may keep some closer/more easily accessible areas open.
If i had a choice between closing part of a further away island or closing LaJolla, Laguna, PV well, i'd probably vote to keep the closer to home areas open.
we're going to lose some valuable area one way or another...either way this is gonna be a tough one for many.

Agreed, and it's just one of those things we get to walk on eggshells for a few months. I might puke.....:rolleyes:

[Namor]

Thanks for all of the effort and time you all have put in.

Jeremy

[Seacidal]

This is a complex and delicate set of issues. The scope of habitat under consideration should be incorporated into any discussion of the extent of MPAs. There are a lot of factors and policies involved. It's not going to be easy to reach agreement, so any strength that can be derived from the law and the underlying legislative intent could prove to be essential.

[tmaas]

All,
Yesterday the rubber finally did hit the road. The morning was spent going over MPA design.

One important thing that we accomplished was applying to the Science Advisory Team (SAT)for the Level of Protection for the ACTIVITY spearing of coastal pelagics (yt, wsb, bonito and possibly halibut.) By asking for this from the SAT, we are establishing this activity as a credible allowable method of take within the Conservation and Park varieties of MPA. We all have made a good point on how selective spearfishing is, so we are hopeful for a "high level of protection" designation.

The navy through the Department of Defense will preempt the entire MPA process off Camp Pendleton, San Clemente Island and San Nicholas.
So for now, these areas are not under very active consideration. In the end, the Feds will tell us if and where they will allow reserves.
This is how Eric and I read their mixed messages.

The real meat of the day began when each member presented their confidential (to remain only in of 3 stakeholder groups) reserve proposals to other members of the group. It is clear that the environmental folks had a strategy and that was to make every important place we dive a complete reserve. Some of the reserves they proposed were HUGE. In fairness, the proposals were couched in phrases such as, "this is what we would like, but we know it is only a starting point for negotiation." Unfortunately not all the data layers have been provided to the stakeholders, for example the Ecotrust data is only now coming on line, so the enviro folks did not have any indication “of heavily fished areas” and of course their ignorance was quite evident.

After consultation Eric and I feel now is the time to start drawing up our own reserves. So now we challenge you to help us with this task. Here are the areas we want you to propose reserves—start with your favorite area and for simplicity we will make these reserves--complete no-take areas:
• All of Pt. LaJolla down to the entrance of San Diego Bay (your reserve is to be within this area not of course the entire area).
• Dana Point North through Orange County,
• Palos Verdes, Malibu (from the east end of Santa Monica Bay all the way up to Pt. Dume,
• Isla Vista,
• Refugio/El Capitan areas.
• For Catalina, you probably should start by expanding one of 3 reserves already on the island—The Wrigley center at the Isthmus, the area in front of Avalon and Farnsworth Bank.

Here is how we suggest you draw up the reserves:
• Only take one area, the one that you are most interested in
• Make two reserves, one 3 miles long and another 6 miles long (these are the minimum and preferred sizes respectively) Use Marine Map, Google Earth or a paper chart that you convert to pdf format for us.
• Boundaries should be straight out to sea and they should be on the whole lat/lon degree if possible, or otherwise using readily identifiable land marks. The boundaries automatically extend to 3 miles from shore, so don’t worry about drawing them exactly.

Marine Map is a very powerful tool. You may require some tutorial on its use but that is available. Go to (http://www.marinemap.org/marinemap). A user name and password is required to develop MPA proposals using this tool; thus, you will need to contact MLPA Initiative staff at help@lists.marinemap.org. If you are not interested in using marine map, you can send us proposal any way you can using the above criteria.

Eric and I will assemble your thoughts and offer feedback to the group on your ideas.You can email each of us with questions: tmaas@west.net seazen@gte.net

Now is the time to start placing our own lines in the sand.
Don't worry about all the goal justification stuff required with a reserve proposal, Eric and I will take care of that.

Respectfully, Terry and Eric

Please also see the thread below where we can discuss maps

http://spearboard.com/showthread.php?p=876069#post876069

[rojodiablo]

Mike and I have a pretty good idea where to take this. We talked about it a bit at the SAT meeting, and these are already drawn. There is no way we want to put this in open forums, so PM Mnguy, Zenspearo or myself for info.

[tmaas]

Mike and I have a pretty good idea where to take this. We talked about it a bit at the SAT meeting, and these are already drawn. There is no way we want to put this in open forums, so PM Mnguy, Zenspearo or myself for info.


Paul,
Please send your proposals to either me or Eric, that's why we gave our private emails. Thanks for your help and support!
Terry

[rojodiablo]

Absolutely Terry. We will work on the second part of it, the part after the main proposal is vetted by you guys. You know what that one is, and we have been talking, and kicking around the other part of the proposal. I am waiting for more input from of all places...the Neptunes and Fathomiers. HUH!! Imagine that!!!:rofl::crazy:

[ladvr]

If anyone is interested in talking about PV please send me an email.

Mike

[rojodiablo]

If anyone is interested in talking about PV please send me an email.

Mike

Email sent.

[tmaas]

Stake holder’s log 2/10/09

This was the second day of our first of three mapping sessions. Basically, our environmental counterparts asked for the moon by taking huge swaths of our best locations. The fishermen are offering a much more modest array of reserves, which we hope will meet the needs of the MLPA law. We will present our initial ideas at the March 2-3 meeting in Oxnard. This will be an open meeting and everyone will be able to see the first salvos. In addition, the fishermen’s external proposals, if any, will be presented at that time. All of these proposals will be fed to the SAT, where they will be evaluated and given “point-ranking” for their meeting the SAT guidelines for habitat protection, replication and distance guidelines. There will be two more iterations before the final several plans are submitted to the state in the late summer.

We had several very important revelations at the meeting:

1. Our request for a high-level-of-protection for the activity of spearing coastal pelagics will likely be granted. I know this does not help the folks spearing other species of bottom-dwelling fish, nor does it help lobster fishermen, but it does offer us the possibility of some limited fishing in areas that might be otherwise closed.
2. The San Clemente and San Nicholas Islands proposals by the DOD, which is likely to be their final and only compromise and which will probably be accepted by the state has profound implications for the MLPA and for divers in general. Basically almost all of the Western end of the island will be closed by the implementation of a so-called “Safety Zone.” You are familiar with the Wilson Cove closure, which will now extend 3-miles offshore. The second huge closure is the “Swat 1” closure, which will close the North West end of the island and includes Castle rock and the “9-fathom reef”, both of which are excellent areas for spearfishing. The closure will extend out for 3 miles and represent permanent closures in the name of the Navy and national defense. The Coast Guard will be given the task of patrolling these areas. It is unclear now if the Coast Guard will even allow transit in these areas, especially Swat 1, which will be receiving small-arms fire from the island.
3. The “alpha” area at San Nicholas is also going into permanent reserve status. The DOD is saying, “These, and only these reserves are our contribution to the MLPA and you can take them or leave them, but we are offering nothing more.”
4. The ecotrust data (which has just come on line for use in the RSG meetings) is truly valuable. In short, we now have data to back up our claims as to the value we place on certain areas. Thanks to all who hung in there to fill out the long and tedious survey – it’s invaluable!

Eric has been voted as one of two spokespersons for his group and he will be presenting one of the arrays for his group. Obviously, he has made a big impression on his group for them to be willing to trust him with their plan presentation. Way to go Eric!

Terry Maas and Eric Kett

PS, You might be interested in what the editor of Western Outdoor News had to say about the group he attended. While he was asked to abide by the groundrules, he refused and publishes this: http://www.wonews.com/Blog.aspx?id=465&AuthorID=59062&t=STAKEHOLDER

++++++++++++++++++++

Also, here is the ECOTRUST response table from Divers, Kayakers and Private Boaters. Very interesting the types of fish targeted by each group. Please note that the table does not fomat so that you need to read the numbers in sequence, for example for wsbas (white seabass) there were 22 responses from Los Angeles County and 16 from Orange County... for a total of 90 responses.



DIVE
Fishery Los Angeles County Orange County San Diego County Santa Barbara County Ventura County Total
wsbas 22 16 33 11 8 90
lobs 18 23 28 10 7 86
chal 15 19 32 9 8 83
ytail 15 14 44 3 7 83
clbas 15 10 27 11 5 68
shphd 5 5 12 1 2 25
scalp 3 6 7 1 4 21
rckf 1 3 7 5 3 19
dor 1 4 11 2 0 18
snbas 3 6 8 0 1 18
clms 2 3 8 2 0 15
crkr 2 3 8 2 0 15
barc 2 0 11 0 1 14
bon 2 1 9 0 0 12

KAYAK
Fishery Los Angeles County Orange County San Diego County Santa Barbara County Ventura County Total
clbas 31 24 38 5 7 105
chal 27 22 34 5 9 97
wsbas 16 17 43 0 7 83
ytail 11 13 52 0 1 77
snbas 15 15 19 1 3 53
lobs 7 12 15 2 3 39
tshk 6 7 15 2 2 32
barc 7 7 15 0 2 31
rckf 6 4 16 0 5 31
bon 6 6 18 0 0 30
shphd 2 8 12 0 3 25
mckl 2 3 13 0 3 21
sqd 1 2 10 0 1 14
rcrb 2 0 4 0 1 7

PRIVATE VESSEL
Fishery Los Angeles County Oceanside Orange County San Diego County Santa Barbara County Ventura County Total
clbas 42 11 47 91 7 6 204
ytail 34 7 41 83 2 5 172
chal 30 7 33 69 9 7 155
wsbas 33 8 43 55 6 6 151
snbas 25 4 31 47 2 0 109
barc 23 3 21 44 2 4 97
rckf 13 3 20 45 5 4 90
lobs 16 4 20 34 1 1 76
bon 8 2 20 34 0 2 66
tshk 8 6 13 30 2 1 60
mckl 5 1 9 18 0 1 34
shphd 8 1 2 12 0 0 23
crkr 2 0 5 13 0 1 21
srfp 1 0 1 6 0 0 8

[Seacidal]

Thanks for the report Terry.

We are very fortunate to have you and Eric representing us in this process. The experience, credibility and respect you bring to the process is a huge asset.

Congratulations Eric! You're the perfect candidate to be making this presentation.

I realize this is a big commitment of time and effort for both of you and I appreciate your willingness to stick it out and do the best job possible. Not to mention putting up with all the headaches that go along with it!

Thank you!
Chip

P.S. I have to admit that it is a bit frustrating when the agency has (in general) been doing a good job of making the process available to the public through web simulcasts of proceedings. But these meetings were available only to those who could physically attend. This significantly reduces the public's ability to observe the process. Even if public comment isn't allowed, the ability to watch even one of the three break-out groups would seem a valuable addition to maintaining a transparent process. Oh well. It is what it is.

[rojodiablo]

Terry, the Fathomiers meeting went very well, and I will be giving the recommendations back to the group. We had 100% unanimous agreement to the locations that have been proposed for us. I was able to explain many of the facets of this shit colored jewel to the divers ( several Spearboard members came!!) and once we really looked at the locations, and went through the reality of what would limit acceptable locations, talked about the goals and objectives, everyone was in unison- it was nice to see. Thanks for everything, Paul.

[saltierdog]

Thanks terry
Paul R Presented all the information to a packed room of members last night
We are in agreement with the proposals
Though no one was very happy with the navy and the closure area on San Clemente

[tmaas]

Terry, the Fathomiers meeting went very well, and I will be giving the recommendations back to the group.

Thanks Paul, Your commitment to the process has been phenomenal. Thanks for the outreach and Eric and I look forward to the Fathomieres suggestions.
Terry

[ladvr]

Terry,
Could you please send me any updated proposals for PV?

Thanks,
Mike

[Sparkie]

From WON editor Rich Holland's article:

". . .there are roughly 100 folks who are right now devoting a majority of their time each day to closing large sections of our ocean to fishing. Forever."

Aren't the MPAs required to undergo a review process a minimum of every five years to assess the effectiveness/failure of each MPA? From what I've heard, the MPAs are not supposed to be set in stone, rather they can be modified or removed if they fail to meet their goals.

[tmaas]

Aren't the MPAs required to undergo a review process a minimum of every five years to assess the effectiveness/failure of each MPA? From what I've heard, the MPAs are not supposed to be set in stone, rather they can be modified or removed if they fail to meet their goals.

The Channel Islands reserves just underwent their first "adaptive management review" and the State recommended a no-change to them. The fact of the matter is that it takes over 10 years to fully assess the effects of reserves. Some effects are not apparent for over 15 years. It is my belief that once a reserve is designated it will not be changed (perhaps added to only) in our lifetime. My humble opinion.

Terry Maas

[Kelsea]

Terry, the Fathomiers meeting went very well, and I will be giving the recommendations back to the group. We had 100% unanimous agreement to the locations that have been proposed for us. I was able to explain many of the facets of this shit colored jewel to the divers ( several Spearboard members came!!) and once we really looked at the locations, and went through the reality of what would limit acceptable locations, talked about the goals and objectives, everyone was in unison- it was nice to see. Thanks for everything, Paul.

I tell you what - that was a great Fathomiers meeting last night. I think it was very productive and I was pleased to see some SB members there. Though, there were many seats still available in that room and I really wish more would have to come listen. It was nice being able to openly discuss the proposed areas and listen to the justifications on why certain areas were chosen vs. others.

Paul - everyone should be kissing your ass until they're blue in the face for all the hard work and uncompensated time you've put in.

Terry - thank you for the update. We appreciate the hard work that you and Eric have put in.

[Seaholic]

Terry and Eric and many others

Like many have already said, I want to thank you guys so much for your time and efforts in this whole mess.

The proposed maps looked great. Thanks

[kennenmackay]

Paul - everyone should be kissing your ass until they're blue in the face for all the hard work and uncompensated time you've put in.

yeah, or for dropping little pearls of wisdom like:

"Guys, they're not even giving us vaseline this time..."
or
"Guys this is like prom night and afterwards shes waving around a little stick with a little pink band on it. This is NOT gonna go away" :lol::thumps:

Next time Im bringing a pen and paper to collect some Paulisms....

[Kelsea]

Next time Im bringing a pen and paper to collect some Paulisms....

Bring a LOT of paper and multiple pens! :lol:

[FreediveShop_HB]

Terry and Eric and many others

Like many have already said, I want to thank you guys so much for your time and efforts in this whole mess.

The proposed maps looked great. Thanks

A big Second on this ^

I was glad to be there last night, sorry if I came off as the crazy guy in the room bringing up the not so nice tactics that maybe aren't even necessary but it's hard to have good faith when we definetly aren't seeing any from the other side. It was hard to even look at those proposals just seems like we really need to dig our heels in for a fight. Nobody is going to just lay down on this one.

I think we need to show up to this March 3-4 Stakeholders thing in force and give our guys some support like at the last science advisory meeting. A lot of you who went will attest it did make a difference and we need to keep the pressure on all the way on this one. I hate sports analogies but, This is the fourth quarter and we need to finish strong. Once these maps are done there isn't going to be much to talk about.

[rojodiablo]

A big Second on this ^

I was glad to be there last night, sorry if I came off as the crazy guy in the room bringing up the not so nice tactics that maybe aren't even necessary but it's hard to have good faith when we definetly aren't seeing any from the other side. It was hard to even look at those proposals just seems like we really need to dig our heels in for a fight. Nobody is going to just lay down on this one.

I think we need to show up to this March 3-4 Stakeholders thing in force and give our guys some support like at the last science advisory meeting. A lot of you who went will attest it did make a difference and we need to keep the pressure on all the way on this one. I hate sports analogies but, This is the fourth quarter and we need to finish strong. Once these maps are done there isn't going to be much to talk about.

Guys, I really agree with this sentiment. We don't have to run this pace forever; but to tell you the truth, whatever I have done well in life on, I have found it within myself to push HARDER at the end. When you're tired- your opponent is tired. But there is plenty of time to rest after the next phase is done. We need to play the full 4 quarters, and when we get to OT, then we will be looking at other options that I don't want to think about right now....I am trying to stay on a positive path, out of respect for everyone and everything at stake.

But contrary to that last thought, there will be a LOT to talk about when the maps get finalized. Once the lines are drawn, then there will need to be concensus on what to do with these areas, and the areas that have not been adressed fully.

It was looking like they would change the date for the RSG in March to avoid the Fred Hall show. The dates appear to be the same, but the venue looks to be comng to Long Beach instead. Good for us, but kinda tough for the Santa Barbara guys who are wanting a chance for some needed attention. I sincerely hope we can get them some couch space, maybe some invites to the Fred Hall show to entice them to come down from the upper coast.

And, as usual, I got my DFG proposal on groundfish regs for the year. Parts shaded were up for review. Written review was to be MAILED IN by Feb. 4. My packet was mailed Feb. 3, and it got here today.......:thumps: Right on time guys, right on time.

New cabezon rules: 2 fish per day, 15" minimum.

[johncarpenter]

Hi Terry,

Thanks for your leadership and doing your best to reduce the impact on us.
I've been diving off the coast for 30+ years now and cannot recall a reserve ever being opened...You're right...

[rojodiablo]

Hi Terry,

Thanks for your leadership and doing your best to reduce the impact on us.
I've been diving off the coast for 30+ years now and cannot recall a reserve ever being opened...You're right...

Glad to see you join in John. It will be really helpful with you, Scotty, Danny from the Neptunes here so when we get new info to pour over, and we need ideas; it helps a lot to have folks with 20,30 years of knowledge in the oceans affected by these proposals. Paul!!

[Seacidal]

Hi Terry,

Thanks for your leadership and doing your best to reduce the impact on us.
I've been diving off the coast for 30+ years now and cannot recall a reserve ever being opened...You're right...

I think you're probably right. There hasn't been a reserve area reopened. The thinking on this is that many of the previous efforts have been inadequate to achieve the established goals. Have to wonder if the current round of MPAs will be?

At least there is some encouraging news, even if it isn't directly effecting spearfishing.

Bocaccio proposed for removal from Species of Concern List
Fisheries Ecology Division, 1/29/2009 5:31:42 PM

Bocaccio was added to the NMFS "Species of Concern" list following an Endangered Species Act Status Review in 2002, which was based on the 2002 stock assessment. A decision was made not to list the species as "Threatened" but extremely long projected rebuilding times (hundreds of years) gave cause for concern.

The stock has doubled in abundance since rebuilding began in 2000, and is expected to rebuild to optimum population size in the early 2020s. Fishery management has been effective in limiting fishing pressure by a combination of restrictive quotas, seasons, and area closures. There no longer appears to be reason to include bocaccio as a "species of concern."

[rojodiablo]

I think you're probably right. There hasn't been a reserve area reopened. The thinking on this is that many of the previous efforts have been inadequate to achieve the established goals. Have to wonder if the current round of MPAs will be?

At least there is some encouraging news, even if it isn't directly effecting spearfishing.

I just read the groundfish regs for this year and 2010. Man, they have to give SOMETHING back... the regs for the northern section are BRUTAL.

Never was a shortage of Boccachio. And of course, the Navy just closed off the single largest salmon grouper hole on earth!!!!:loser:

Thanks for that update Chip.

[tmaas]

Stakeholder Log Entry March 7, 2009

Hello Divers,
Well the first round of MPA array shapes have been submitted for review. There were 3 external proposal and 6 draft array proposals from the 3 working groups of the RSG. They can be summed up as follows:
1. External Proposal A, submitted by the FIC/FIN. This was submitted with input from all fishing interests (Divers too).
2. External Proposal B, submitted by United Anglers
3. External Proposal C, submitted by Santa Barbara Channelkeeper and Santa Monica Baykeeper

The working groups of the SCRSG submitted two arrays each. They can be summed up as one large and one small. For us specifically one has less impact, the other more. We are going to be impacted by these closures I think we all know that, Terry and I are still hopeful that the impact will be workable.

The evaluations of the proposals include both; SAT guidelines (size and spacing, habitat replication, etc) and economic impacts (both by individual MPA and total array). There will be a % valuation placed on sport uses and a $$ amount placed on commercial. We are waiting for the evaluations to come back before spending too much time on validating why we chose each area for the arrays we supported. So please stay tuned the large lady has not sung yet.

Several key issues have had some more light shed on them regarding support from you, our constituents;
1. Showing up for meetings in numbers
a. I still believe showing up for meetings is helpful. Be professional, be concise, have comments typed up to turn in for public record
2. Sending letters to congressional members, Governor, DFG, BRTF, SIG
The letter campaign is underway; follow the thread on spearboard to find the letter or issue you can write about.

If any of you need help to get motivated, just look at proposal “C” or any of the large reserve concept proposals from the working groups.

I was great to meet and eat with some divers at the Long Beach meetings, thanks to Logan, Kelsea, Capt. Leo, Joe, Richard, Mike, Chip, Paul, and others for showing up!

Eric and Terry

Terry posted the following maps, which are of public record and represent the environmental plans for your best dive locations. Notice how they nailed every one… (Click on each map for a blow up)

[tmaas]

MLPA MEETING APRIL 28,29

APRIL 28
This day, the RSG members were shown their first evaluations of the first-pass arrays. Due to a problem with the kelp assessments, no array passed the test for having reproducible habitat, including the massive array from the environmental External C.
Once again the freediving community was the best represented of the public speakers. All of you gave very good presentations and make Eric and I proud to be supported by such an apt, and dedicated block of advocates for smaller, more reasonable arrays.

There were some shockers including one BRTF member saying that while the Chairman had stated that economic displacement would have a top priority, the environmental member of the BRTF said that there was no formula or test by them to consider this.

Later, when scientific modeling by two separate university models show that under good to fair management practices, smaller reserves produced more biomass than larger ones. When I questioned the Department of Fish and Game representative about how she thought the Department was managing the resource given the three choices 1. Unsuccessfully, 2. to maximal yield, and 3. conservatively, she absolutely refused to make an answer. Can you imagine that the State has no idea about how they handle the fish resources???! Amazing. This is particularly vexing because over and over again the leaders of this program say we have to go by the “best available science.” When I asked what the best available opinion as to the Department’s management of fish resources in the state was, there was simply a loud “No Comment.”

The meeting went well past dinner. Eric stayed until the meeting ended at 10:00 pm and I visited with the faithful diver contingent to help explain the process and to discuss the day’s events. At the meeting Bob Fletcher represented the consumptive group asking for a “pause” in the process to let it catch up with the science, which is lacking. The kelp mapping is deplorable. This letter was signed by 30 RSG members including Eric and myself, representing nearly ½ of the entire RSG reps.

APRIL 29

The three work groups broke out into 3 subgroups each for a total of 9 subgroups trying to reach consensus on specific MPAs. While there were some small compromises made by the environmental groups, the areas of SB, Pt.Dume, Malibu, PV, Laguna and La Jolla still encompass almost all of the divers preferred dive locations. I’m not sure that any progress was made at all. We are still literally miles apart. Some of the maps are more scary than the external C.

In a response to the consumptives request for more time, the MLPA team decided to add another day to our May 20,21 meeting. So now on May 19 Tuesday, we will begin work in the afternoon, but there will be several hours set aside for Public input in the evening. This will be an important chance for you to express you views, especially on specific MPAs that affect you. The meeting will be held at the Double Tree near the John Wayne airport. Eric and I would really appreciate your attendance to the evening public comment session.

The plan going forward is to try to come to some sort of compromises for the end of the 2nd of 3 rounds at the end of this meeting. The MLPA team will then “shop” the various array proposals around to different public meetings in several geographies across the state. These will be very important road shows not to miss. This is where we can expect lots of public input from both consumptive oriented and preservation oriented folks.

Terry and Eric