Next MLPA meeting--April 28 (Tues) in Oxnard

[so cal shaggy]

Guys, again I cannot thank you for showing up this was a big showing for all consumptive groups. All of you have caught on quite quickly that this process is moving at warp speed with no show of it slowing down for the data to catch up. This whole process is flawed and what is the most frustrating part is that the 1,000 lb. gorilla in the room (pollution) is not being addressed for example if the propossed full closures take affect nothing is going to get better. If they take the fishermen off the water and the spearfishermen out of the water the kelp is not going to grow again and the reason being is that the water quality is not optimum for the kelp to grow back. Another example of unmanaged closures which have not worked are the abalone in Laguna, Newport and Dana point, abalone in the orange county area have been a zero take species since 1981 but I can personally say that there are still hardly any abalone in these areas. The reason for this is that abalone are sensitive to water quality at catalina however within the last few years there are abalone everywhere why, because the water quality out at the islands is better than along the coast. Therefore no matter how much you tell us we cannot harvest or touch them unless the water is cleaned up they will not come back same for the kelp, in Crystal Cove there has been an ongoing kelp restoration project (7 years now) to try and bring back the dense kelp beds in that area and through seeding of the reefs and stopping urban runoff in the area (all runoff in that area is channeled into catch basins which are sent to the treatment plant for the area rather than just flowing into the ocean)has been stopped or drastically reduced to a minnimum and as a result the water in the stretch of Crystal Cove is cleaner than the water in Laguna and the kelp in that area has made a drastic comeback it is the thickest I have seen it in nearly 20 years. These are examples of good management of an area but full coastal closures with no followup management program guidlines established before creating the closure is just going to do more damage than good.

Thanks,
Jeff

[Holy Mackerel]

Jeff, thanks again for the info, please continue to post on these MLPA threads over here, it is helpful to get everyone's input from all groups. Yes, that was astounding to hear from the BRFT, that water quality was not the primary mission of the MLPA. It is mind boggling that water quality is not central, along with all other factors, to the ecosystem's sustainability.

chris

[so cal shaggy]

Chris, thanks for giving me the heads up to post on this board. I am trying to see if I can get a MLPA 101 workshop put on for your guys to get an easy understanding of what this whole process is about you might have to settle for an MLPA 102 workshop but I will make sure you guys get the information in an easy to undstertand way because I know how difficult it is to come into this and read through the act itself it is just too much to take in. Give me a week and I will see what I can arrange.

Thanks again all of you guys.

Jeff

[kurt]

Thanks for posting up those petitions. I've already got my whole company to sign. Everyone, please print those out and get some autographs. If you've ever given fish to anyone, get them to sign. I'm sure they appreciate your fishing grounds.

It was good to see some familiar faces at the meeting yesterday. Hope to see more at the next one.

Paul, sorry I left early. If it was closer to home, I would've stuck it out. How long did the comment session last?

[Mr Mugu]

Ask and ye shall receive!
Gee thanks alot guys! :lol:

Hot off the press, they've added Tuesday May 19th to our meeting schedule. So we'll be in Santa Ana the 19th, 20th, and 21st.

This meeting has a LARGE chunk of time devoted to YOU!!

We'll be meeting at 1pm for a work session, then break for dinner at I believe 5:30, and then we'll have Public Comment from then on.
Again this is for YOU to be heard! And at a reasonable hour for those trying to make a living.

And yes those that spoke yesterday had a very good impact on our work session today.
Again BIG THANKS!

Chris...PM SENT

[Matt]

[quote=Mr Mugu;37802]Ask and ye shall receive!
Gee thanks alot guys! :lol:

Hot off the press, they've added Tuesday May 19th to our meeting schedule. So we'll be in Santa Ana the 19th, 20th, and 21st.

This meeting has a LARGE chunk of time devoted to YOU!!

We'll be meeting at 1pm for a work session, then break for dinner at I believe 5:30, and then we'll have Public Comment from then on.
Again this is for YOU to be heard! And at a reasonable hour for those trying to make a living.

And yes those that spoke yesterday had a very good impact on our work session today.
Again BIG THANKS!


I think I will attend the entire meeting on the scheduled day for public forum to be allowed due to the fact that Ms. Thuden, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Poncelet seem to continually change the order of the meeting.....Let's just say I don't necessarily trust them all the way

[PAL]

Former SAC president Bob Fletcher read this letter into the record, excerpted below. MJ Kennedy and I both signed it, as the ground rules have been continually changed, usually at the last minute, making sound decision making next to impossible.

Dear Chairman Benninghoven:


We, the undersigned members of the South Coast Regional Stakeholders Group (SCRSG), are writing to express serious concerns with the direction of the South Coast Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) planning process.


When we agreed to constructively participate in this project, we did so with the belief that the process would be fairly adjudicated, unbiased, open and transparent based on consistent direction and quality science. Current events demonstrate this is not the case.


Laboring mostly in the dark and lacking information (habitat mapping, LOPs, etc) which is vital to good judgment, we nonetheless completed our first round of network proposals.


These have now been analyzed by the Science Advisory Team (SAT). As of the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s (BRTF) recent meeting, none, not even the most preservation oriented plans - could make the grade. This is astonishing. Those of us with intimate, expert knowledge of the study region expected better results. Although the proposed networks may in fact require adjustment, we believe most of the shortcomings lie with the data and its analysis. Many SAT members said as much during their last meeting.

We respectfully disagree with I-team statements that data resolution good enough for the North Central Coast Study Area is sufficient for the South Coast study area. But, southern California is not northern Californiala. Some 24 million people are clustered along our intensively used coastline. We don’t have the luxury of mile after mile of undeveloped shoreline, a situation which permitted the previous process to get by with incomplete and inaccurate science in the Central and North Central study areas.


Furthermore, the BRTF has failed to resolve the military use area issue. The BRTF’s ultimate decision will have serious implications. Without clear policy guidance on the military areas, the RSG’s hands are tied, because we cannot reasonably balance impacts between the user groups likely to be impacted.


The RSG only has two opportunities to revise MPA proposals following SAT feedback. We believe it would be irresponsible to waste round two on guesswork. The science data – the habitat maps - must be significantly improved and made readily available. The BRTF must provide certainty on the military use area issue.


These are serious issues that threaten the successful conclusion of this public process. We ask: what is the penalty for waiting until we can get it right? Insisting on sticking to the timetable only serves to heighten suspicions of bias.