California Fish and Game Commission pass final Southern California Marine Life Protected Areas: Southern California’s coastline now has more Marine Life Protected Areas (MLPA), with several falling on San Diego County’s shores.
More than four years in planning, the California Fish and Game Commission passed regulations creating 36 new Marine Protected Areas (MPA) in the California South Coast Study Region in Santa Barbara on Dec. 15 with a 3-2 vote.
Many of these areas generated heavy debate amongst communities, with environmentalists, scientists, commercial and recreational fishermen, and residents joining into the fray on how best to protect the future of coastal natural habitats, preserve local economy and provide public recreational freedom.
Regional boundaries extend from Point Conception to the California-Mexico border. Regulations were adopted as part of the Marine Life Management Act of 1998, which focused on maintaining the health of marine ecosystems and biodiversity in order to sustain resources. This passage encompasses about 187 square miles of state waters in the region.
Planning groups for the expansions of MLPAs include the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRFT), Science Advisory Team (SAT), Regional Stakeholder Group, Statewide Interests Group, and the California Fish and Game Commission. New regulations were passed following more than 50 days of meetings with formal public comment and are expected to go into effect mid-2011.
Fish and Game Commissioners Dan Richards and President Jim Kellogg voted against adopting the Commission’s Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA) proposed regulation. Richards named three distinct reasons for his “no” vote.
“First and foremost, the protection of the ocean and its habitat is as important to Kellogg and myself as [it is to] the other commissioners,” said Richards. “What we are looking for is a fair, transparent process for all constituents – a plan that truly considers the economic impact of this decision and an adaptive management plan that can be properly funded and implemented.”
The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) states the IPA includes changes in allowable fishing and other uses.
“Though these changes may result in economic impacts to commercial fishing interest and ocean-dependent fishing businesses, these impacts have been evaluated and minimized during the design of the proposed Project IPA and alternatives,” Richards said. He argues that the EIR does not address the negative economic impacts on the fishing industry and the actual impact is unknown.
“The economic impact here is huge,” Richards said. “This plan will put thousands of Californians out of work.”
Ecotrust’s January 2010 report to the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative estimated annual net economic impact on commercial fisheries is a loss of -15.6 percent in San Diego and -29.1 percent in Oceanside. The report estimated loss for commercial passenger fishing vessels at -27.4 percent in San Diego and -12 percent in Oceanside.
Adaptive management of protected areas includes implementing and enforcing the new laws, closely monitoring protected areas, and educating the public. Richards said current laws are good but with California in an economic crisis, the state is already having a tough time funding enforcement.
“Changes made in the IPA are a lifetime change and there is zero ability to implement and enforce proper adaptive management,” he said. “The new enacted plan is fatally flawed, hurts the fishing industry and I cannot support it. It would be irresponsible.”
Fish and Game Commissioner’s vice president Richard Rogers, along with members Jack Baylis and Michael Sutton, voted yes on the proposed plan. Sutton said he has been an avid fan of the MLPA process and the decision will level the playing field of land-protected areas and the coastal areas.
Sutton’s day job is serving as vice president and director of Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Center for the Future of the Oceans. He said there is less than one percent of protected ocean in the world.
“Our decision will serve all constituents, the fisherman as well,” said Sutton. “We need a place for fish to spawn and live. There is abundant evidence that marine reserves are good for the fishing industry and best for the coastal environment.”
Sutton said many environmentalists think the IPA does not protect enough while fishermen complain it’s too restrictive. He said allowing fish populations to increase would create an overflow, pushing fish into open areas, both protecting spawning areas and further supporting the fishing industry now and in the future.
“On land, I have never met a hunter who did not believe in protected reserves,” he said. “They understand the necessity for preservation of species and its importance to the future of gaming. I think of the IPA as fish unlimited.”
In the city of San Diego, several adopted areas have the highest degree of protection. San Diego-Scripps Coastal State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA)/Matlahuayl State Marine Reserve (SMR) cluster moved the shared boundary below Scripps Pier. Matlahuayl SMR remains a no-take environment and San Diego-Scripps allows recreational hook and line fishing. Other no-take areas adopted were the Famosa Slough SMCA and Cabrillo SMR with an SAT level of very high. Designated at level high, the Tijuana River Mouth SMCA only allows recreational dip net and commercial round haul net fishing.
Dr. Serge Dedina, WiLDCOAST executive director, said the designation of the coastal and marine region at the mouth of the Tijuana River as an MPA is a significant step in its efforts to protect the ecological and economic values of our natural resources. He said WiLDCOAST recently stopped a $75-million Army Corps dredging project that would have destroyed the reef and used its nomination as an MPA to justify its efforts.
“Thirty years after standing in front of bulldozers to stop the destruction of the Tijuana Estuary, I surf the offshore reefs of the federally protected estuary and recently declared marine protected area,” he said. “It was only until the MPA process that this amazing reef—home to our resident pod of bottlenose dolphins and probably the most important leopard shark spawning sight in Southern California—was officially recognized as a real ecosystem.”
With many sites in contention, more than 1,000 people overflowed the Four Points Sheraton in San Diego on Oct. 16, generating more than five hours of discussion regarding MLPAs. Speakers of all ages, backgrounds and interests gave local input on the pros and cons of the proposed regulations.
Several sites with state beaches fall under the management of the Commission and California State Parks. In some areas, this created dispute as the state parks department works to bring visitors and revenue in the area and designation of MLPAs interferes with state park planning.
Swamis in Encinitas had several options for the Commission to consider.
Ruth Coleman, director of California state parks, said the department manages 30 percent of the coastline. Coleman said the department had concerns in the Swami’s SMCA, dealing with recreational fishing and the economic impact of the proposed IPA.
“What we are asking is that you create an additional ribbon along the shoreline to allow for shoreline fishing,” she said. “This is a park where we have around three million visitors a year. Under our regulations these areas are designated as state beaches and fishing is legal here.”
City of Encinitas Deputy Mayor Maggie Houlihan disagreed, saying the current IPA proposal protects the residents’ present and future quality of life and economic vitality.
“I would ask you keep the highest level of protection at Swamis,” she said. “Many of us believe allowing the shoreline ribbon would leave the protection level to low and to seriously consider the scientist advisory team’s recommendation.”
In the Commission’s final adoption, Swami’s SMCA northern boundary extends to the Cottonwood Creek mouth and the southern boundary extends south to align with the State Parks beach. Recreational shore-based fishing with hook and line gear is allowed.
An area of great contention among anglers, divers and the public is the South La Jolla SMR/SMCA, which has a high concentration of recreational divers and boaters.
Diver Michael Dong said the San Diego Council of Divers represents a combination of eight diving groups in San Diego, and divers in the area have a significant economic impact to the San Diego region. He said it is a product of a collaborative effort with the sustainability of a healthy fishery in mind. Restrictions and compression of the La Jolla proposed open-take area will result in users being placed in danger due to boat traffic on the water.
“Including enclosures will not restore the area to the pristine 1920s; that’s a fact,” he said. “A science-based incremental approach is supported by the dive council. A gradual, correctable program is the most optimal, sane and ecologically-sound step to take for a continued productive environment. As fishermen we also want MPAs to continue our resource.”
The Commission’s decision added maximum recommended protection to the area by moving the southern boundary one city block south and one city block north to enclose the intertidal reef.
In San Diego’s October public forum, Tommy Gomes, San Diegan commercial fisherman and South Coast Stakeholder for the MLPA process, said the seeming transparency of the meetings is false. He said the commission and other stakeholders were in violation of several California State Acts. Gomes called the process “crooked, flawed and corrupt,” claiming that BRFT held several private meetings which compromised the entire process.
George Osborn, who represents Partnership for Sustainable Oceans, said the PSO has been continually and constructively engaged in the Marine Protection Act process.
Rushing the MLPA process to meet political deadlines— despite the fishing community’s legitimate concerns about the adequacy of science, data and transparency—was an issue of concern. On Oct. 1, the California Superior Court held up the right for access to all documents requested.
“To this date the requested documents have not been provided,” Osborn said. “Even if they responded soon there would not be reasonable time to review these documents prior to the December vote.”
Osborn urged the Commission to delay adoption of the MPA regulations for the South Coast until receipt of all requested documents.
“No harm would be done to the natural resources by the postponement,” he said. “But it could do considerable harm to the integrity of the regulatory process if the board forces a vote in December. To do otherwise invites legal challenges.”
Sharon Garrison of the Natural Resources Defense council said her focus was on California’s fisheries. She said even though some fisheries are working, there are spawning species declining at rapid rates.
“California has had its share of fishery crashes, from sardines to commercial abalone. We have learned some things since then and fishery management is working for some species now,” she said. “For those species (in danger) and the many others we value, scientists believe the most effective management approach combines protected areas that safeguard spawning habitat with proper fishery management measures. We can all get on the important business of restoring and sustaining abundant oceans and fisheries as our legacy to the future generation.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment