bigeyedave
10-28-2008, 04:31 PM
California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
October 18, 2008
To: The California Fish and Game Commission
Attn. President Richard Rogers and fellow Commissioners
Re: Comments made at the October Commission meeting about the importance of local community support.
Hello Commission Members,
My name is Ed Tavasieff and I am a previous member of the NCCRSG as well as the owner of California Fresh Fish and a commercial fisherman in California with over 40 years experience.
I spoke to you at the October Commission meeting expressing the importance of local community support and its role in ensuring successful MPA’s. Following is what time did not allow me to address.
Since you are in the process of determining the best solution for MPA’s in the NCCR to ensure ecosystem function and stability, you also realize the importance of the NCC region as an integral part of the “network of MPA’s” for the entire state of California. The right choice here is important to ensure success of the entire network.
Before you are four choices (1-3, 2/XA, 4, and the IPA) all of which meet the requirements and guidelines of the MLPAI.
However, one stands out among them all in having the highest overall conservation value, the least socioeconomic impact and most importantly, the overwhelming support of the local communities.
I am speaking about proposal 2/XA.
You have indicated a preference to one proposal before you, the IPA.
The IPA came as a result of the BRTF trying to meld the various interests of the RSG into one “preferred alternative” by “cherry picking” from each proposal and still maintain conservation value. To that end the BRTF has achieved good conservation value along with local community support from Bodega Bay south.
But, from the Russian River north in sub regions 1 and 2, we are missing the vitally important element of local community support. This element is vital to the long term effectiveness and success of MPA’s, to the north of Bodega Bay.
In Goal 5 Objective 1 it states: “Minimize negative socio-economic impacts and optimize positive socio-economic impacts for all users, to the extent possible, and if consistent with the Marine Life Protection Act and its goals and guidelines”.
This possibility exists in proposal 2/XA. We have the ability to address socioeconomic needs at this time since 2/XA has met all the requirements and guidelines of the MLPAI. To take any other avenue would be disregarding Goal 5 Objective1.
The fragile economies of the coastal towns and businesses in sub region 1 and 2 rely on visitor dollars. The designers of 2/XA listened closely to the community needs in addressing this important issue and incorporated them into the final design.
There has been testimony from several groups such as the PSO (Partnership for Sustainable Oceans), and the RFA (Recreational Fishing Alliance) supporting the IPA with some minor changes.
Although these organizations support 2/XA, the changes to the IPA they ask for fall short of achieving the widely varied interests and needs of the broader constituency of proposal 2/XA.
It should be noted that these organizations represent a partial supporter list for proposal 2/XA. Included in the list of supporters are, the town of Pt. Arena, The Sea Ranch Association, the Mendocino County Farm Bureau, the Mendocino Board of Supervisors, Sonoma County Farm Bureau, the Mendocino County Fish and Game Commission, the Bodega Bay Fishermen’s Marketing Association, Caito Fisheries, local land and business owners, harbormaster of Pt. Arena Pier, commercial urchin divers, the many recreational fishermen and divers who might lose the best land access to their most important areas, commercial crab and salmon fishermen, CPFV operators out of Bodega Bay, and more. A brief visit to the support letters for 2/XA will confirm this statement.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/publiccomments.asp
Unfortunately, due to process time constraints during the RSG presentation of the three proposals to the BRTF, the interests of local communities in sub regions 1and 2 were not fully expressed or realized. As a result, much confusion and dissatisfaction with the MLPAI process has followed.
I will, as briefly as possible, explain the complex interests of 2/XA supporters and offer a solution for sub regions 1 and 2 in the following text focusing only on the problematic elements found in the IPA. I will very briefly describe the reasons for these choices.
1. Remove the Sea Lion Cove Component. This (0.22 sq. mi.) MPA includes the Stornetta Ranch lands and access purchased with funds from a public-private partnership that involved a dozen agencies and nonprofit groups working with the Stornetta family. $1 million dollars were used in this purchase from the Sport Fish Restoration Act. Sea Lion Cove has become a popular destination for consumptive as well as non consumptive interests and its inclusion would unnecessarily prevent full public enjoyment. Including this element to the Point Arena SMR/SMCA would NOT enhance or benefit the value of the Point Arena cluster and would create an unnecessary burden on local interests as well as an enforcement/compliance disaster. The Department of Fish and Game cruise report for abalone at this site has indicated the mean density of abalone to be 4,500 abalone/ha and that no requirements to close or reduce the take of abalone at Sea Lion Cove would be warranted under the provisions of the ARMP or the Commission. Sea Lion Cove is an example of the many stable abalone sites in this fishery. The Level of Protection is only a 2 and degrades the overall conservation value of the IPA array.
2. Remove the Saunder’s Reef Component. This (10.50 sq. mi.) MPA has one of the lowest levels of protection afforded to it (LOP = 2) and does not fall under the purview of the MLPAI. It reduces the overall conservation value of the IPA; it unnecessarily prevents shore based activities and does NOT meet the Dept. feasibility guidelines due to the difficulty in readily determining what activity is being performed. Its conservation value is so low it does not warrant consideration for enforcement or monitoring funds that would be better spent on meaningful MPA’s.
3. Utilize the 2/XA Black Point Solution For The Gualala to Salt Point Area. This (19.50 sq. mi.) MPA cluster is the focal point of the confusion and dissatisfaction from the local communities in sub regions 1 and 2. What the 2/XA solution provides here are as follows:
a. Provides a welcome MPA in The Sea Ranch utilizing two county access points, namely Black Point and Pebble. (A persistent error on mapping, used continually in the process, has indicated there were four access points being included in the Black Point cluster. In fact, there are only two, namely Black Point and Pebble.)
NOTE: A new opportunity for non consumptive divers is also created since there is now “exclusive access” for non consumptive activities such as photography, tide pooling and scientific research in an untouched area. These two access points are the closest to the water of all access points in the area making it much easier to transport associated gear;
b. Avoids the significant shift of effort from many popular shore and water based sites to areas already over popular, such as Ft. Ross, ultimately triggering an adjustment to the TAC in the Abalone Recovery Management Plan for the entire region;
c. Reduces the safety hazard associated with commercial salmon trolling by not forcing boats to go broadside in the prevailing wind and seas for extended periods past 3 miles to continue their near shore “tack “downhill;
d. Provides a small access for local land owners (who have family history here dating back as far as 130+ years) to access living resources adjacent to their lands.
NOTE: We are going to need these folks help for monitoring that is going to occur very soon;
e. Avoids a shift of effort likely to occur into The Sea Ranch that will exacerbate an already tense environment for TSR residents and the general public, due to a recurrent problem of trespassing by non-residents.
NOTE: I am told by officials there are dozens of citations issued on a regular basis. I have done phone interviews with many long term residents and although the majority has tolerated the current visitor levels, not one of the residents wanted more visitors, and one individual advocated the hiring of armed guards;
f. Reduces the carbon footprint of visitors to the area by allowing activities closer to home by not forcing travel to areas farther north.
NOTE: TSR has a total of 40 county maintained parking spaces disproportionately numbered among five access points. The shift of effort from Fisk Mill Cove alone would fill all these parking spaces. Further, all the other Stewart’s Point MPA refugees would be circling and waiting on the highway to enter these few accesses.
g. Avoids forced extended boat travel , higher associated fuel consumption, and the safety issues associated with extended distance from port by small private and CPFV’s to reach open areas closed by the Stewart’s Point MPA; and
h. Preserves the “user friendly” atmosphere of Salt Point State Park with continued access for a broad range of interests while maintaining sustainable commercial and recreational harvest of sea urchins, abalone, and finfish through Commission management.
NOTE: Ecotrust surveys have shown the most severe impact possible for the commercial urchin fishery would occur if the IPA Salt Point SMCA is adopted.
NOTE: The Stewart’s Point SMR proposed in the IPA is 28.52 sq. mi. nearly half the size of San Francisco. (47.6 sq. mi. The same solution found in Proposal 2/XA’s Black Point cluster contains 19.50 sq. mi.) Size and spacing guidelines require 9 sq. mi. with 18 sq. mi. being the” preferred” size.
1416 Ninth Street
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
October 18, 2008
To: The California Fish and Game Commission
Attn. President Richard Rogers and fellow Commissioners
Re: Comments made at the October Commission meeting about the importance of local community support.
Hello Commission Members,
My name is Ed Tavasieff and I am a previous member of the NCCRSG as well as the owner of California Fresh Fish and a commercial fisherman in California with over 40 years experience.
I spoke to you at the October Commission meeting expressing the importance of local community support and its role in ensuring successful MPA’s. Following is what time did not allow me to address.
Since you are in the process of determining the best solution for MPA’s in the NCCR to ensure ecosystem function and stability, you also realize the importance of the NCC region as an integral part of the “network of MPA’s” for the entire state of California. The right choice here is important to ensure success of the entire network.
Before you are four choices (1-3, 2/XA, 4, and the IPA) all of which meet the requirements and guidelines of the MLPAI.
However, one stands out among them all in having the highest overall conservation value, the least socioeconomic impact and most importantly, the overwhelming support of the local communities.
I am speaking about proposal 2/XA.
You have indicated a preference to one proposal before you, the IPA.
The IPA came as a result of the BRTF trying to meld the various interests of the RSG into one “preferred alternative” by “cherry picking” from each proposal and still maintain conservation value. To that end the BRTF has achieved good conservation value along with local community support from Bodega Bay south.
But, from the Russian River north in sub regions 1 and 2, we are missing the vitally important element of local community support. This element is vital to the long term effectiveness and success of MPA’s, to the north of Bodega Bay.
In Goal 5 Objective 1 it states: “Minimize negative socio-economic impacts and optimize positive socio-economic impacts for all users, to the extent possible, and if consistent with the Marine Life Protection Act and its goals and guidelines”.
This possibility exists in proposal 2/XA. We have the ability to address socioeconomic needs at this time since 2/XA has met all the requirements and guidelines of the MLPAI. To take any other avenue would be disregarding Goal 5 Objective1.
The fragile economies of the coastal towns and businesses in sub region 1 and 2 rely on visitor dollars. The designers of 2/XA listened closely to the community needs in addressing this important issue and incorporated them into the final design.
There has been testimony from several groups such as the PSO (Partnership for Sustainable Oceans), and the RFA (Recreational Fishing Alliance) supporting the IPA with some minor changes.
Although these organizations support 2/XA, the changes to the IPA they ask for fall short of achieving the widely varied interests and needs of the broader constituency of proposal 2/XA.
It should be noted that these organizations represent a partial supporter list for proposal 2/XA. Included in the list of supporters are, the town of Pt. Arena, The Sea Ranch Association, the Mendocino County Farm Bureau, the Mendocino Board of Supervisors, Sonoma County Farm Bureau, the Mendocino County Fish and Game Commission, the Bodega Bay Fishermen’s Marketing Association, Caito Fisheries, local land and business owners, harbormaster of Pt. Arena Pier, commercial urchin divers, the many recreational fishermen and divers who might lose the best land access to their most important areas, commercial crab and salmon fishermen, CPFV operators out of Bodega Bay, and more. A brief visit to the support letters for 2/XA will confirm this statement.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/publiccomments.asp
Unfortunately, due to process time constraints during the RSG presentation of the three proposals to the BRTF, the interests of local communities in sub regions 1and 2 were not fully expressed or realized. As a result, much confusion and dissatisfaction with the MLPAI process has followed.
I will, as briefly as possible, explain the complex interests of 2/XA supporters and offer a solution for sub regions 1 and 2 in the following text focusing only on the problematic elements found in the IPA. I will very briefly describe the reasons for these choices.
1. Remove the Sea Lion Cove Component. This (0.22 sq. mi.) MPA includes the Stornetta Ranch lands and access purchased with funds from a public-private partnership that involved a dozen agencies and nonprofit groups working with the Stornetta family. $1 million dollars were used in this purchase from the Sport Fish Restoration Act. Sea Lion Cove has become a popular destination for consumptive as well as non consumptive interests and its inclusion would unnecessarily prevent full public enjoyment. Including this element to the Point Arena SMR/SMCA would NOT enhance or benefit the value of the Point Arena cluster and would create an unnecessary burden on local interests as well as an enforcement/compliance disaster. The Department of Fish and Game cruise report for abalone at this site has indicated the mean density of abalone to be 4,500 abalone/ha and that no requirements to close or reduce the take of abalone at Sea Lion Cove would be warranted under the provisions of the ARMP or the Commission. Sea Lion Cove is an example of the many stable abalone sites in this fishery. The Level of Protection is only a 2 and degrades the overall conservation value of the IPA array.
2. Remove the Saunder’s Reef Component. This (10.50 sq. mi.) MPA has one of the lowest levels of protection afforded to it (LOP = 2) and does not fall under the purview of the MLPAI. It reduces the overall conservation value of the IPA; it unnecessarily prevents shore based activities and does NOT meet the Dept. feasibility guidelines due to the difficulty in readily determining what activity is being performed. Its conservation value is so low it does not warrant consideration for enforcement or monitoring funds that would be better spent on meaningful MPA’s.
3. Utilize the 2/XA Black Point Solution For The Gualala to Salt Point Area. This (19.50 sq. mi.) MPA cluster is the focal point of the confusion and dissatisfaction from the local communities in sub regions 1 and 2. What the 2/XA solution provides here are as follows:
a. Provides a welcome MPA in The Sea Ranch utilizing two county access points, namely Black Point and Pebble. (A persistent error on mapping, used continually in the process, has indicated there were four access points being included in the Black Point cluster. In fact, there are only two, namely Black Point and Pebble.)
NOTE: A new opportunity for non consumptive divers is also created since there is now “exclusive access” for non consumptive activities such as photography, tide pooling and scientific research in an untouched area. These two access points are the closest to the water of all access points in the area making it much easier to transport associated gear;
b. Avoids the significant shift of effort from many popular shore and water based sites to areas already over popular, such as Ft. Ross, ultimately triggering an adjustment to the TAC in the Abalone Recovery Management Plan for the entire region;
c. Reduces the safety hazard associated with commercial salmon trolling by not forcing boats to go broadside in the prevailing wind and seas for extended periods past 3 miles to continue their near shore “tack “downhill;
d. Provides a small access for local land owners (who have family history here dating back as far as 130+ years) to access living resources adjacent to their lands.
NOTE: We are going to need these folks help for monitoring that is going to occur very soon;
e. Avoids a shift of effort likely to occur into The Sea Ranch that will exacerbate an already tense environment for TSR residents and the general public, due to a recurrent problem of trespassing by non-residents.
NOTE: I am told by officials there are dozens of citations issued on a regular basis. I have done phone interviews with many long term residents and although the majority has tolerated the current visitor levels, not one of the residents wanted more visitors, and one individual advocated the hiring of armed guards;
f. Reduces the carbon footprint of visitors to the area by allowing activities closer to home by not forcing travel to areas farther north.
NOTE: TSR has a total of 40 county maintained parking spaces disproportionately numbered among five access points. The shift of effort from Fisk Mill Cove alone would fill all these parking spaces. Further, all the other Stewart’s Point MPA refugees would be circling and waiting on the highway to enter these few accesses.
g. Avoids forced extended boat travel , higher associated fuel consumption, and the safety issues associated with extended distance from port by small private and CPFV’s to reach open areas closed by the Stewart’s Point MPA; and
h. Preserves the “user friendly” atmosphere of Salt Point State Park with continued access for a broad range of interests while maintaining sustainable commercial and recreational harvest of sea urchins, abalone, and finfish through Commission management.
NOTE: Ecotrust surveys have shown the most severe impact possible for the commercial urchin fishery would occur if the IPA Salt Point SMCA is adopted.
NOTE: The Stewart’s Point SMR proposed in the IPA is 28.52 sq. mi. nearly half the size of San Francisco. (47.6 sq. mi. The same solution found in Proposal 2/XA’s Black Point cluster contains 19.50 sq. mi.) Size and spacing guidelines require 9 sq. mi. with 18 sq. mi. being the” preferred” size.