IMPLEMENTING CALIFORNIA'S MARINE LIFE PROTECTION AREAS

– The Facts, the Controversy, Special Interests, the Whale

By Richard Johnson  

    There will be virtually nothing left of commercial fisheries by the middle of the century without stringent new regulations, according to a 2006 scientific study published in the journal Science.
    Stocks have collapsed in nearly one-third of sea fisheries, and the rate of decline is accelerating.
    The international team of researchers attribute fishery decline to a broader loss of marine biodiversity.
    And they endorse expanding Marine Protected Areas to safeguard existing stocks.
    This is a vast piece of research, incorporating scientists from many institutions in Europe and the Americas, and drawing on four distinctly different kinds of data.
# 1. Experiments show that reducing the diversity of an ecosystem lowers the abundance of fish
# 2. Historical records show extensive loss of biodiversity along coasts since 1800, with the collapse of about 40% of species. About one-third of once viable coastal fisheries are now useless
# 3. Catch records from the open ocean show widespread decline of fisheries since 1950 with the rate of decline increasing. In 2003, 29% of fisheries were collapsed. Biodiverse regions' stocks fare better
# 4. Marine reserves and no-catch zones bring an average 23% improvement in biodiversity and an increase in fish stocks around the protected area

    In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse, defined as a decline to less than 10% of their original yield.
    Bigger vessels, better nets, and new technology for spotting fish are not bringing bigger returns - in fact, the global catch fell by 13% between 1994 and 2003.
   Historical records from coastal zones in North America, Europe and Australia also show declining yields, in step with declining species diversity; these are yields not just of fish, but of other kinds of seafood too.
   Zones of biodiversity loss also tended to see more beach closures, more blooms of potentially harmful algae, and more coastal flooding.
    Loss of biodiversity is driving the declines in fish stocks.
    Data from areas where fishing has been banned or heavily restricted show that protection brings back biodiversity within the zone, and restores populations of fish just outside.
    The study does not blame over-fishing for population decline, rather global warming, ocean acidification, pollution and habitat loss to develoment all contribute cumulatively to the global decline in marine life. Even so, a key implication of the research is that more of the oceans should be protected or restricted from fishing.
    Good management of marine parks and good management of fisheries is all well and good, say the scientists. They also note that trawling is a major impact on bottom ecosystems.
    But they say additional measures protecting biodiversity in order to spur recovery of fish  is not only logical, but scientifically demonstrable.
     A follow up study in 2009 modified the dire prediction of global fisheries collapse, and found the average exploitation rate has recently declined and is now at or below the rate predicted to achieve maximum sustainable yield for seven well studied ecosystems.
    Yet 63% of assessed fish stocks worldwide still require rebuilding, and even lower exploitation rates are needed to reverse the collapse of vulnerable species. The scientists  found that combined fisheries and conservation objectives can be achieved by merging diverse management actions, including catch restrictions, gear modification, as well as closed areas. 

Political Opposition:

    But society often lacks the political will to act on scientific advice.
    In Eastern Canada,  the Grand Banks cod population has fallen into apparently terminal decline.
    In Europe, politicians have ignored recommendations to halt the iconic North Sea cod fishery year after year. Without a ban, scientists fear the North Sea stocks could follow the Grand Banks cod fishery to oblivion.
    In California, economically interested and allied groups have launched a public relations campaign against a public private initiative charged with revamping the antiquated state system of marine protection areas.
    Resource extractors have always resisted imposition of new regulations, claiming to harvest sustainably, and asserting that  further government intervention will ruin the industry and put them out of business. Here in Mendocino County, this refrain is often sounded by the Farm Bureau, and recently by marijuana growers. In the past, it was the clarion call of the timber industry. But it was the lack of rules requiring sustainable harvesting that did in fact destroy that industry, leading to the current "timber gap" of decades to come before the forests will recover their former bounty under vastly decreased yields.
    Under capitalism, overextraction leads to declining harvest which by supply and demand increases prices encouraging more strenuous and expensive effort. This is happening in the world's fisheries. While some fishing technologies and some fisheries and some fishermen lend themselves to sustainable harvest, pressure on an entire habitat no matter how light will decrease biodiversity over time.  Scientists and most environmentalists are justifyably concerned that left to themselves, fishermen will fish to the last fish, just as loggers logged to the last tree.

Attempts to Regulate have Floundered:

    In the last 60 years, pressures on California marine resources have grown as fishing effort and ability have increased and as coastal development has transformed habitats and generated pollutants. In the last thirty-five years, both federal and state government programs have made an effort to address these problems.

Environmental factors, such as short and long-term shifts in oceanographic conditions, also affect marine and coastal wildlife populations, the total effects of which are not clearly understood

    The California Marine Life Protection Act passed in 1999 and amended in 2004 and can be found in the state Fish and Game Code Sections 2850-2863.

The MLPA requires that the Department of Fish and Game Department prepare and present to the Fish and Game Commission adopt and implement a Marine Life Protection Program, which includes a statewide network of marine protected areas (MPAs) up and down the California Coast. From 1999 to 2004, there were two different attempts by the Department of Fish and Game to implement the MLPA. However, both attempts suffered from a lack of adequate resources, and insufficient public involvement.

    Other related legislation includes the Marine Life Management Act of 1998, the Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act of 2000 (MMAIA), and California Ocean Protection Act of 2004 (COPA).

Various Levels of Protection:
   The Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act (MMAIA; Public Resources Code, sections 36600-36900) defines three types of marine protected areas (MPAs) in California:

    1. State marine reserve (SMR). In a  state marine reserve, commercial, recreational fishing and seaweed and shellfish harvesting are prohibited.  In  addition,  access and use (such as walking, swimming, boating and diving) may be restricted to protect marine resources.

    2. State marine park (SMP).  In  a  state marine park, public recreation including recreational fishing and seaweed harvesting are allowed. Public use, enjoyment and education are encouraged, in a manner consistent with protecting resource values.

    3. State marine conservation area (SMCA). In a  state marine conservation  area, any commercial and/or recreational use that would compromise protection of a designated species of interest, natural community, habitat or geological features may be restricted by the designating entity or managing agency. Research, education and recreational activities, and certain commercial and recreational harvest of marine resources may be permitted.

     Since passage of the MLMA in 1998, restrictions on commercial and recreational fishing have grown as managers have sought to maintain sustainable fisheries in the face of uncertain and declining fish populations.

Ecosystem Management

    The MLMA shifts the goals of fishery management away from a single-species focus on maximum yields toward sustainable yields and an ecosystem perspective. The MLPA reflects prevailing scientific views that increasing biological diversity, protecting habitats, aid in the recovery of depleted fisheries, and promoting recreation, study, and education

     In August 2004, the California Resources Agency, the Department, and the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation launched an effort to implement the MLPA, after two unsuccessful earlier attempts. This MLPA Initiative established an MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force (task force), together with a Master Plan Science Advisory Team (science team) and a stakeholder advisory group, to oversee the completion of several objectives.  

       A marine reserve is an important type of marine protected area where no “take” of species is allowed, such as in a national park. Marine reserves help safeguard critical ocean habitats and help allow all types of marine life to thrive, from the coral of the seafloor, to the fish and mammals that reach the water’s surface, and all marine life in between.

    The current effort to implement the MLPA, known as the MLPA Initiative, is a public-private partnership guided by scientists, policymakers, stakeholders, and members of the public. In distinct regions up and down the California coast, Marine Life Protection Areas of varying sizes and regulations are being designated by the Initiative process for adoption by California regulatory agencies.

    The Northern Regional Study Area includes from the Oregon border to Alder Creek just north of Point Arena.

    Violation of the regulations by fishing or harvesting shellfish or seaweed for example will be a misdemeanor punishable by fines and possibly jail time. 

    Although the MLPA Initiative includes extensive public participation through numerous public meetings and a Regional Stakeholder Group, the process is bitterly resisted by some commercial and recreational fishermen, seaweed harvesters and shellfish divers. In Mendocino County, the Ocean Protection Coalition which opposes offshore oil, naval weapons training and electrical generator buoy arrays also oppose MPLA.  

    The California Fish & Game Commission adopted the first network of marine protected areas along the Central Coast, from Santa Barbara to Half Moon Bay, in 2007 and the second network along the North Central Coast in August of 2009.  The next phases of the Initiative are currently underway to establish marine protected areas along the North Coast (from the Oregon border to Alder Creek) and South Coast (from Point Conception to the Mexican border).  

By 2011, the entire network of marine protected areas would be adopted throughout California.

Southern California MPAs Approved

     On November 10, the Blue Ribbon Task Force for the Southern California Study Region unanimously approved landmark fishing restrictions, creating a patchwork of havens for marine life designed to replenish the seas while leaving some waters open for commercial and recreational fishing and sealife harvesting.

     The chosen “Integrated Preferred Alternative” was developed in-house, rejecting an external array put together over 14 months by 64 stakeholders and many community groups, say critics. It will be presented to the December 9 meeting of the state Fish and Game Commission in Los Angeles.

     Some Southern California stakeholders who gave their time and honest energy to proposing their own plan  denounced the task force array of Marine Protection Areas as devastating to the Malibu, Orange County, and San Diego fishing communities.
    The Initiative claims however that this array was adopted from three plans proposed by the regional stakeholder group. All four will be forwarded to the next level of evaluation.

The proposed Southern California Region Integrated Preferred Array of MPAs. Red is a Marine Reserve Area, Blue is a  Marine Conservation Area. Typically, some 15% of state waters are reserved.

The Oil Conspiracy Debunked:    JOHN LEWALLEN, rj photo, 2008

     Seaweed harvester John Lewallen of Ukiah who was instrumental in the fight to stop oil and gas leasing offshore Mendocino is a leading detractor of the MPLA process. He charged that Catherine Reheis-Boyd who was elected president of the Western States Petroleum Association October 16 and who already serves on the Southern and North Central study regions BRTF was working on behalf of the oil industry to impose MPAs in order to” run independent fishermen out and pave the way for onshore oil facilities” at a time when oil companies are seeking to expand drilling operations off the California coast.

     This accusation is contrary to law, logic and instinct.

First of all, MPAs would not “run fishermen off” the ocean, secondly, offshore oil leasing occurs if at all in federal waters outside the three mile limit while MPAs are designated within state waters from there to the shoreline, next, approval of petroleum leasing is a federal prerogative and the presence or absence of fishermen on the ocean is irrelevant, and finally, any new drilling offshore would chronically degrade fisheries within any MPAs downcurrent.

     On October 1, California attorney general Brown issued a memo reviewing the legal authority for MPAs which included the opinion that  activities/uses incompatible with an SMR are those that injure, damage, take or possess living, geological, or cultural marine, resources. Such activities are unlawful with the exception of permitted research, restoration and monitoring.

Activities that generally would not be allowed in an SMR include, but are not limited to, dredging, the construction and maintenance of jetties or other structures, intake pipes, sand borrowing, and beach nourishment2.

    Non-extractive activities that would generally be allowed within all types of MPAs are things such as swimming, wading, boating, diving, surfing and anchoring. Note that the designation of an MPA cannot restrict non-fishing uses and activities that have already received approved regulatory permits or leases.

    The approval of offshore oil and gas leasing plans include review by state governors, and must comply with the Coastal Zone Management Act. The placement of MPAs in state waters of California would actually enhance their possibility of being spared new leasing for hydrocarbon extraction.

    The BRTF for the North Central region developed an MPA array  that banned the Kashia Pomo Tribe and other American Indian Nations from harvesting seaweed, mussels and abalone as they had done for centuries from their traditional areas off Stewarts Point and Point Arena. It was adopted by the Fish and Game Commission on August 5 despite opposition by North Coast environmentalists, seaweed harvesters, fishermen and Indian Tribes

Point Arena is also Lewallen’s favorite seaweed harvesting spot, in which a North Central region MPA will ban harvesting starting next year.

    He accuses the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation of taking over the process of setting up Marine Protected Areas, and accuses it of "moving to finance and control fisheries law enforcement and the making of all fisheries regulations" as a step toward privatizing public trust resources.

Blue Ribbon Task Force Named 

     On November 16, secretary for Natural Resources Mike Chrisman announced the membership of the Blue Ribbon Task Force for the North Coast study region. Despite Lewallen’s opposition, Reheis-Boyd was named to the BTRF which held its first meeting in Eureka on November 18-19.

     The members are:

• William W. Anderson*, President, Westrec Marina Management, Inc.

• Meg Caldwell*, Director and Senior Lecturer on Law, Stanford Law School's Environment and Natural Resources Law and Policy Program

• Roberta R. Cordero, Lawyer/Mediator, Co-Founder Chumash Maritime Association

• Cindy Gustafson, District General Manager, Tahoe City Public Utility District

• Catherine Reheis-Boyd*, Chief Operating Officer and Chief of Staff, Western States

Petroleum Association

• Gregory F. Schem*, President and Chief Executive Officer, Harbor Real Estate Group

• Jimmy Smith, Chair, Humboldt County Board of Supervisors

• Virginia Strom-Martin, former Democrat assemblywoman from Sonoma.

Timelines:

The MPLA process provides for participation by constituencies with an economic interest in the outcome, but within a process loaded with detailed regulations and an inflexible timeline.

Officially designated local stakeholder groups, or anyone in the public can submit “external arrays” for consideration by the Blue Ribbon Task Force for approval and ultimate submission to the Department of Fish and Game and state Parks and Recreation. This is initiated with a statement of intent to be filed to the BRTF.

     To  be acceptable, each MPLA has to meet a multitude of criteria, such as having northern and southern boundaries parallel to the latitudes, extend from the intertidal zone to deep water, include key habitats such as: sandy beaches, soft bottom, rocky shallow and deep reefs. And they must be within 30-60 miles of each other and consist of between 9 and 36 square miles, The limitations on commercial, recreational fishing and sea life harvesting must be spelled out. Details are on the MPLA website at www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/guide.asp

The Marine Protection Act Initiative has laid down a timeline for completion of external arrays. A Local Stakeholders Panel will be nominated by November 30, and external array proposals are due by February 1. 

The first meeting of the local stakeholders group will be in February to analyze the external proposals. Between March and September, the BRTF will develop its own proposed array of MPAs, and all will be submitted for evaluation by the Department of Fish and Game, the Fish and Game Commission. the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative.

     The California Fish and Game Commission will next meet December 9 in Los Angeles and is expected to approve the Southern California Integrated Preferred Alternative.

     A final EIS on the finished coastwide array of MPAs will be approved at the end of next year and be in effect by 2011.

Local Participation

     California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative and CA Department of Fish and Game are currently accepting nominations from interested members of the public to be appointed to the MLPA North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (NCRSG). The NCRSG is a cross-interest group of citizens with local expertise and knowledge on the marine resources of the MLPA north coast study region, which includes state waters from the California border with Oregon to Alder Creek near Point Arena in Mendocino County. Nominations must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, November 30, 2009.

     For more information on the MLPA nomination selection criteria and to download a request for nomination to the NCRSG form, visit: www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/northcoast.asp

     A nomination form may be requested by email, phone, fax or U.S. mail. By Email: MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov By Phone: (916) 654-1885

By Fax: 916.653.8102 (Attention: NCRSG nominations)

By Mail: Marine Life Protection Act Initiative c/o California Natural Resources Agency. 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311, Sacramento, CA 95814 Attention: NCRSG nominations

     The City of Fort Bragg sponsors a local initiative to meet the challenge posed by MPLA implementation. Entirely composed of local fishermen, sea life harvesters and their supporters, including members of the OPC, and facilitated by a science teacher funded by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Mendocino Ocean Community Alliance (MOCA)  is committed to meet every two weeks until February to meet the deadlines imposed by the MPLA Initiative corporation.

     The group has assigned one subcommittee to drafting an external array that does “the most ocean preservation possible with the least economic impact.” A second working group will invite local marine scientists to participate in the process and a third will draft a statement of purpose for MOCA, according to a Frank Hartzell story in the Fort Bragg Advocate News.

     Meanwhile, in Humboldt County, a similar effort is underway  at the Shelter Cove Regional Improvement District. Involved are such groups as the California Fishermens Alliance. One criteria this group proposes is there be no loss of fishing jobs.

The proposed array to be submitted to the BRTF is to be integrated for the entire North Coast, so these local initiatives must coordinate their data and recommendations.

The Great Blue Whale an Omen of What?

    On October 19, a Great Blue Whale washed up dead south of the Mendocino Coast Botanical Gardens with two deep gashes in its back. It was struck by the propeller  of the Pacific Star out of Eureka, leased to the National Marine Fisheries Service to survey the Mendocino Coast.
    NMFS is part of the National Oceanographic and Aeronautics Administration. The boat was doing multi-beam echo sounder surveys to update marine charts that would be used to determine habitat for state and federal marine protected area designations.

Multibeam echo sounders (MBES), like other sonar systems, transmit sound energy and analyze the return signal (echo) that has bounced off the seafloor or other objects, according to NOAA's Office of Coast Survey. Multibeam sonars emit sound waves from directly beneath a ship's hull to produce fan-shaped coverage of the seafloor.
    Fishermen and an allied segment of the environmental community bitterly opposed to the California Marine Life Protection Act blame the MPLA and the private non-profit Initiative which is implementing it for killing the whale, demanding the legally-required process which has just begun on the northern California coast be halted.

    ßTo make matters worse, the Pacific Star, an out-of-state vessel from Alaska owned by Fugro-Pelagos company, was surveying on October 19 without a valid permit to operate in California waters.  The permit the Pacific Star had held expired on September 30 and a new permit was approved by the State Lands Commission retroactively only on October 22, three days after the whale was struck.  

     Steve Sullivan, vice-president of a rival company, Sea Surveyor, Inc charged that the blue whale would not have been struck or killed if the Pacific Star had been conducting their surveys in compliance with State Lands Commission regulations.

He said NOAA, the Federal sponsor for the seafloor mapping project being conducted for the Ocean Protection Council, has never had a permit to survey in California waters, nor do they adhere to the provisions of the permit that ensure protection to marine mammals.

Ocean advocates have demanded an independent investigation of the taking of the blue whale, and denounced an internal investigation being conducted by NOAA.

     Blue Whales are the largest mammal ever known to exist were abundant in nearly all the oceans until the beginning of the twentieth century. For over 40 years, they were hunted almost to extinction by whalers until protected by the international community in 1966. A 2002 report estimated there were still 5,000 to 12,000 Blue Whales worldwide, located in at least five groups.

     Fearing the endangered animals could soon become extinct, the International Whaling Commission banned all hunting of blue whales in 1966. There are now an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 blue whales in the Northern Hemisphere. The longest observed blue whale measured 106 feet long and 200 tons. Whales are an average life span of 80 to 90 years.

---

Research Articles from Science Magazine the official organ of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

Science, 31 July 2009: Vol. 325. no. 5940, pp. 578 - 585 DOI: 10.1126/science.1173146 Rebuilding Global Fisheries     After a long history of overexploitation, increasing efforts to restore marine ecosystems and rebuild fisheries are under way. Here, we analyze current trends from a fisheries and conservation perspective. In 5 of 10 well-studied ecosystems, the average exploitation rate has recently declined and is now at or below the rate predicted to achieve maximum sustainable yield for seven systems.     Yet 63% of assessed fish stocks worldwide still require rebuilding, and even lower exploitation rates are needed to reverse the collapse of vulnerable species. Combined fisheries and conservation objectives can be achieved by merging diverse management actions, including catch restrictions, gear modification, and closed areas, depending on local context.      Impacts of international fleets and the lack of alternatives to fishing complicate prospects for rebuilding fisheries in many poorer regions, highlighting the need for a global perspective on rebuilding marine resources.

Science, 3 November 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5800, pp. 787 - 790 DOI: 10.1126/science.1132294    Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services     Human-dominated marine ecosystems are experiencing accelerating loss of populations and species, with largely unknown consequences.     We analyzed local experiments, long-term regional time series, and global fisheries data to test how biodiversity loss affects marine ecosystem services across temporal and spatial scales.     Overall, rates of resource collapse increased and recovery potential, stability, and water quality decreased exponentially with declining diversity.      Restoration of biodiversity, in contrast, increased productivity fourfold and decreased variability by 21%, on average.     We conclude that marine biodiversity loss is increasingly impairing the ocean's capacity to provide food, maintain water quality, and recover from perturbations. Yet available data suggest that at this point, these trends are still reversible