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 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.
