How is norcal media already on the ball?

[MiguelT]

We're fighting this thing tooth and nail down here, and I just ran across this article from norcal.

http://www.times-standard.com/editorials/ci_12913348

They've got quotes in there I hadn't even seen yet, like this one

In fact, on July 9, the California Fish and Game Wardens' Association sent a letter to the California Fish and Game Commission pleading to “delay or suspend any and all mandates that place additional responsibilities on wardens until such time that furlough and staffing issues are addressed. A prime example of this is...related to the Marine Life Protection Act and the designation of protected areas along our coastline.”

They're even exposing the mlpa ground movement way early:

It has also been suggested that there is “misinformation” being spread in our area, but I have yet to hear any specific points referenced. Apparently, claiming that misinformation is being spread is a political attempt to smooth-over inherent flaws in the MLPA Initiative process.


These guys are on the ball up there, they know what's good for their communities and they're going to put up one huge fight. How come we can't even get fair press down here?

Hopefully we can get the civic leaders in our communities down here as informed and involved in the process as they apparently already are up there!

[Mike N]

I would say that the general population in the north coast region has more in common with the people on this board and consumptives in general than the they do with the general population in most of the rest of the state. In other words, a greater portion of the populace has a vested interest maintaining their access to the resource, their local media has caught on and is willing to voice the popular opinion.

I read a column in my local rag a week or so ago and the one thing I found encouraging was that the north coasters were very much against descisions being made about "their" resourse by people that live "hudreds" of miles away. Apparently this opinion goes for the their local reporters, too.

Welcome to the left coast. It may not be quite so far left up north regarding the MLPA, and I hope it makes a differnence for them.

I bet there won't be any cities up north asking for their entire shore to become a reserve. :rolleyes:


MN

[DarenDeath]

These guys are on the ball up there, they know what's good for their communities and they're going to put up one huge fight.

You said it :D :p
Some of us are trying to help down there too. I can't make the meetings, but I've signed petitions and passed them along to others.
I love hamachi toooo!

[Noyo Jim]

Planning, hard work, and advance strategy...

Check out the letter from every north coast county, most cities, tribes and agencies:

http://humboldtbay.org/harbordistrict/protected-area-workgroup/documents/Marine%20Life%20Protection%20Act%20-%20Letter%20to%20the%20CA%20Resources%20Agency.pdf


We worked our asses off to make this happen!

[zenspearo]

Planning, hard work, and advance strategy...

Check out the letter from every north coast county, most cities, tribes and agencies:

http://humboldtbay.org/harbordistrict/protected-area-workgroup/documents/Marine%20Life%20Protection%20Act%20-%20Letter%20to%20the%20CA%20Resources%20Agency.pdf


We worked our asses off to make this happen!

Jim,

I'm stunned. And jealous as hell.

Awesome letter!!!

[Noyo Jim]

I'm going to try to post some other articles from the north coast...

Local fishermen and officials on Thursday questioned the scientific foundation behind a state process to close and restrict areas of ocean at a meeting meant to spearhead data collection for the effort.
As the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative moves to the North Coast region, it's getting a chilly reception and facing a community that has serious reservations about the program. At the Humboldt Bay Aquatic Center, initiative staff laid out the general concept behind the value of a system of marine protected areas -- MPAs -- that the Legislature called for in 1999.
The initiative's executive director, Ken Wiseman, pledged that the planning process would try to avoid recommending restriction of areas that would cause economic harm, and to treat the North Coast differently than other less united regions. Wiseman agreed that he'd like to see area fishermen, biologists, environmentalists and others come up with a single plan to pass up to the California Fish and Game Commission for approval by the end of 2010.
”I think we might be able to do that in this community,” Wiseman said.

read more...

http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_12905636

[Noyo Jim]

You guys may have already seen this one, but part 2 will come out this Thursday and cover some of the funding issues...

http://www.advocate-news.com/local/ci_12898347

Officials explain MLPA process to skeptical locals
By FRANK HARTZELL Staff Writer -
Updated: 07/23/2009 08:01:01 AM PDT



Editor's Note: This is the first of a two-part series on the MLPA process. In part 2 next week, sources of funding, scientific basis and local efforts to create a local plan will be further detailed.



Dreading possible impacts from Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) implementation, local fishermen hope to propose their own option for new ocean protections to present to the state.

That would be fine with MLPA Initiative Executive Director Ken Wiseman, who said the process could be changed to accommodate such a proposal.

Wiseman and a dozen MLPA Initiative-involved planners, scientists and public relations specialists chatted with locals and even sampled locally-harvested seaweed at a Tuesday night open house at Dana Gray Elementary in Fort Bragg.

After a decade of delays, the state-mandated process of creating new protected areas has arrived for the area from Elk to the Oregon border. Meetings were also held this week in Eureka and Crescent City.

Some were irked there was no chance for locals to give speeches at the open house, but many took the opportunity to ask questions of the officials on hand.

Jim Martin, John Innes and Dan Platt were among the fishermen on hand discussing local people creating a local option.

Similar MLPA processes are under way in three other California Coastal regions, with one area complete. The state plans to complete the North Coast process within 18 months, with the entire statewide effort to be complete by the end of 2011.

Those attending the open house learned that the normal first step is creation of a panel of about 20 scientists to oversee the local effort. That process got started at the open house, with locals being asked to nominate qualified scientists.
Nomination requests were also sent to dozens of universities and ocean-related organizations.
Step two is normally creation of a local stakeholders group. The local stakeholders usually create a plan for creation of the closed areas, which would be presented to the scientific panel.
The scientific panel then edits the map and sends it back to the stakeholders to make changes.
Wiseman said the process could be changed to allow locals to come up with a plan to set the table — rather than the official stakeholders group.
"If we get some solid proposals from the community, we could then convene a stakeholders group and say the work has been done, start with this proposal. I think doing it that way would build community trust," Wiseman said.
In Southern California, the state ends up playing intermediary between rival factions.
"Currently in Southern California, we have three external proposals, two brought by fishermen and one from environmentalists," Wiseman said.
Those rival proposals will eventually be integrated into the stakeholders plan.
While local factions may fight over turf down south, in Fort Bragg and Eureka, locals are likely to stick together — often against "outsiders," whether they be oil companies, federal agencies or the state, Wiseman realizes.
"Conservationists and fishermen have successfully worked together here on watershed proposals," said Wiseman.
"There may be an opportunity to take these external proposals as a place to start, rather than doing them in tandem [with an official stakeholder plan]," Wiseman said.
Wiseman said it might be easier in Northern California to stay off the areas deemed untouchable by locals.
"In Southern California every square foot has somebody's name on it. Here, there are miles nobody is worried about and some people say that would make good habitat," said Wiseman.
So far, locals are sticking together — against the MLPA process going forward. A dozen locals interviewed at the event all expressed some opposition to the process. Some opposed a local proposal in favor of fighting against all change, despite the fact the MLPA has the authority of law to establish new protected areas.
Organizers were greeted by a petition signed by harbor districts in all three involved counties, as well as Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity county supervisors, asking that the entire effort be delayed.
Wiseman says a delay isn't practical for a process that has been twice derailed since the state law creating new protected areas passed in 1999.
Letters called for more local scientific data, more understanding of economic impacts and a concrete source of long-term funding.
Without those, the process isn't ready to go forward, the letter said.
"Such an effort needs to be driven by sound science, not an arbitrary timeline," the letter from local agencies to Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman said.
The union that represents game wardens also now favors delaying the MLPA, saying there aren't enough wardens to patrol existing areas, much less new ones. Wiseman said clearly identified closed areas could actually be easier to patrol than areas where some uses are allowed. He said local people help enforce closed areas in places like Australia and New Zealand, where the MLPA idea originated.
About 50 locals filled the gym at Dana Gray at 7 p.m. during the drop-in event that lasted three hours.
Innes said the displays were interesting but not truly interactive.
"They are here to tell us what they are doing, not listen to what we have to suggest," he said.

Those wishing to participate in creation of the local option can contact Jim Martin at flatland@mcn.org.

[Noyo Jim]

North Coast Assemblyman Wes Chesbro: "Show Me the Science" behind the MLPA Process

Dan Bacher, editor/publisher, Fishsniffer Magazine:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/13/18607580.php

[Noyo Jim]

Here's part 2 of Frank Hartzell's article in the Fort Bragg Advocate-News:

(Correction to the story: Jennifer Savage does not work for the MLPA Initiative, she works for the Ocean Conservancy. The author of the article is to be forgiven because both the MLPAI and the TOC are funded by the Packard Foundation. So, what's the diff?)

Locals demand more from public-private ocean preserve plan
By FRANK HARTZELL Staff Writer -
Updated: 07/30/2009 08:04:19 AM PDT

Editor's Note: In part two of an ongoing series on the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, this article looks at how the public process works and where the organizers are listening — and where they are not. Next week, the influence and history of the private foundations that are paying for the MLPA, along with how the initiative is being paid for, will be probed. In a future article, baseline science being used will be probed.

In late July, a dozen public relations experts, scientists and planners arrived to start the Mendocino, Humboldt and Trinity county coasts on an established process of creating new areas that will be off limits to fishing, seaweed gathering and abalone diving.

However, local ocean enthusiasts expecting a process they could shape were disappointed.

Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPAI) organizers came having already decided how and when to do local ocean protection. Input is sought only on where protected areas will be located.

But locals aren't yet falling into line and are intent on asking questions MLPAI backers consider closed, such as, why now, where is the science, and who is behind the initiative.

The Fort Bragg City Council on Monday, July 27, joined a long list of local agencies asking for better science to support the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative and asking that the process be put on hold until that happens.

There is no sign the united requests for delay will slow MLPAI's pace, or even if the

Advertisement

Schwarzenegger administration will answer the postponement requests from North Coast Indian tribes, cities, harbor districts and all three impacted county governments.

"To my knowledge, [California Resources Secretary Mike] Chrisman has not yet responded. Of course, elected officials responding to the concerns of their constituents is a good thing. However, the issues raised in the letter are actually already accounted for in the MLPA process," said Humboldt County resident Jennifer Savage, a spokeswoman for the MLPAI.

MLPAI organizers arrive with the force of law and the goal to finish everything by the end of 2010.

Many locals believe that timetable was created to allow Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to claim implementation of the MLPA, which was enacted in 1999, as an accomplishment.

"Just leave it to government out there to do things just to look like they are doing stuff. Carving up the ocean so they can make maps to hang in their office and say look what I did,'" said Fort Bragg Council member Dave Turner during Monday night's discussion.

Organizers face a relatively unpopulated and pristine area, which is more unified so far than any of the other four California regions, according to news accounts. Local elected officials, fishermen and environmentalists have presented a united front in demanding answers about the science and the motives behind the private foundation money paying government workers and private consultants to travel to three remote coastal communities to implement a cookie-cutter plan.

"Although some people have expressed concern that the estimated timeline is rushing things, the process has actually been going on for years and the original legislation is a decade old," Savage said. "Plus, some flexibility is inherent to the process, as is an enormous amount of opportunity for public input; the North Central Coast had over 50 meetings, enabling community members to provide information."

The MLPAI wants locals to identify 6- to 12.5-mile-long stretches of shoreline and at least nine square miles of sea, where seaweed harvesting, abalone diving and fishing can be banned; 31 to 62 miles will separate these protected areas. MLPAI scientists consider 62 miles the maximum distance for larvae to effectively travel.

Backers say these standards are flexible — if locals get involved and give reasons why a different approach can work.

"These guidelines are just that — guidance. And there are many ways to put together the MPA puzzle because the act allows for a lot of flexibility," said Savage.

The process is now officially under way locally with calls for nominations to a scientific panel. The panel will examine all proposals brought by a stakeholders group to be assembled this fall. The scientists can veto anything that doesn't pass muster with available science.

MLPIA Executive Director Ken Wiseman says he would welcome a unified proposal brought forth by the community, instead of the formal process used in the other regions.

But many local people are choosing to resist creating a proposal that could be vetoed by the scientific panel if it doesn't fit the mold. The local governments are demanding answers first as to whether science is current and sufficient and whether private funding should be allowed to force changes in public policy.

"[This] process ... has become obsolete since the MLPA's passage in 1999. It is obsolete because of improvements in federal/state fishery management, and the implementation of closed areas that already reflect the application of the best science currently available, as required by federal law," said Elizabeth Mitchell, a former attorney for the federal government on resources issues.

"The MLPA process, which had good intentions when it was passed, is now unnecessary, and will be the final nail in the coffin for fisheries and coastal communities throughout the North Coast," she said.

The process does not consider recent issues such as global warming, ocean acidification, water pollution and ocean industrialization such as wave energy. Because wave energy is not an "extractive" use, it would apparently not be prohibited.

The MLPAI has no formal process of presenting its plans to local governments but seeks input from all locals, Wiseman said.

Fort Bragg Council member Jere Melo told Wiseman in a letter that he would resign his post with the MLPAI's Statewide Interests Group if the process isn't made more open, inclusive and more considerate of economic impacts.

Savage said MLPAI organizers know minimizing local economic impacts is key to successful implementation.

"Hence the Ecotrust workshops, heavy representation of the fishing community on the Regional Stakeholder Group, year-long (at least) opportunity for public participation and other focused outreach," Savage said.

Ecotrust has been hired by the MLPAI to study commercial and recreational fishing patterns and create maps. The Recreational Fishing Association's Jim Martin said that study will be valuable information and has encouraged fishermen to cooperate with Ecotrust.

Martin, who has organized efforts by local governments to ask for delays told the Fort Bragg City Council about some of the missing baseline scientific data.

"If we don't know what we are preserving, maybe we should take a step back," he said.

Local activist George Reinhardt said getting such data is more important locally that some people in Sacramento realize.

"Doing a real study could show us what climate change is doing to the ocean and what it could do. This kind of information could benefit more than just the sportfishing community, but the entire planet," Reinhardt said.

Fort Bragg Mayor Doug Hammerstrom said the fact the MLPA's $34 million cost to create does not include funding for enforcement or any money or plan for monitoring what is being created is evidence the plan should be delayed.

"Unless we know the effect of what we did, we won't know if we solved the problem," said Hammerstrom.

"Another issue is this process doesn't identify what the problem being solved [by the MLPAI] is ... that is why we need better science," he said.

Savage said the process is actually a good way to get better science, some of which is about to be released.

"The MLPA actually represents an opportunity for getting better North Coast science. The habitat mapping is almost done and $4 million is already set aside for baseline monitoring once the [Marine Protected Areas] are in place," she said.

Turner was doubtful sending the letter asking for a delay would make any difference, but expressed hope for a day when science and the protection plan could arrive hand in hand.

"We are going to have to watch this and scream and holler ... When there is better [economic] times we can get some money and do the right studies," Turner said.

Savage said after the Science Advisory Team (SAT) is assembled this summer and the Regional Stakeholders Group (RSG) this fall, the two groups should be working on maps by the first of the year.

What happens next

"Based on what has happened in other regions, over the next several months, the RSG will work to produce a map or maps, which will then be vetted by the SAT. This process repeats a few times until the final maps are produced (with external proposals running concurrently with the RSG process) and submitted to the Blue Ribbon Task Force. At that point, the task force makes a final recommendation, based on the objectives of the MLPA, to the Dept. of Fish & Game Commission, who ultimately approves (or not) that recommendation," said Savage.