Landmark Marine Law Emerging

First round of proposals deemed not protective enough

Ian Fein
West Marin Citizen
12/06/2007

As early as next summer, new areas off the Point Reyes Headlands, Farallon Islands, Bodega Head and within Drakes Estero, will likely be set off for special protection from fishing and other recreational activities.

Similar restrictions are also possible at Duxbury Reef in Bolinas, thought the location is expected to spark an upcoming tug-of-war between conservation and fishing interests.

The new and expanded areas are being considered as part of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), a state law passed by the California legislature in 1999. The landmark effort will create a chain of protected areas along the California coast to conserve and restore the state’s diversity and abundance of marine habitats and species.

Supporters are hoping the new areas will help reverse a trend of depleting fish stocks and declining ocean health. But with protection comes new regulations, and an expected hit to the already struggling fishing industry.

A group of three-dozen regional stakeholders is currently engaged in the difficult process of implementing the law along the West Marin coast. Surprisingly, the debate over the fate of different marine species and fishing fleets is playing out with relatively little public attention.

Fred Smith, a stakeholder and executive director of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, believes that the proper balance will be struck.

“I’m confident that we can find a solution that will work for the many different interests who use and enjoy the ocean, while also protecting the valuable marine resources that this whole thing is about,” he said this week.

Josh Churchman, a stakeholder and commercial fisherman from Bolinas, is less enthusiastic.

“None of these proposals – not one of them – will allow for the survival of Bolinas as a working fishing port,” he said. “Most of the guys in Bolinas are pretty small to begin with. If they squeeze us any harder, we’re going to evaporate.”

A chain of protection along the California coast

The first set of the new MLPA regulations took effect this fall in the central coast region, which extends from Santa Barbara north to Half Moon Bay. The region now has 29 marine protected areas – encompassing some 18 percent of the representative state waters – each with varying levels of restrictions. Some marine reserves allow no disturbance whatsoever, while others permit limited commercial and recreational fishing.

Eventually a network of protected areas will stretch along the entire 1,100-mile California coastline, including within San Francisco Bay. But implementation efforts are currently focused on our north central coast region – ranging from Half Moon Bay north to Point Arena in Mendocino County.

To help frame the process, state officials appointed a 36-member regional stakeholder group last May. The group represents a broad spectrum of interests along the coast, including recreational and commercial fishermen, coastal property owners, scientists and environmental advocates.

West Marin representatives include Churchman, Smith, Inverness sport fisherman Tom Bay, Point Reyes National Seashore Don Neubacher, and Inverness docent Rick Johnson.

The stakeholders are working under a tight timeline, with a final decision by the California Fish and Game Commission scheduled for later this spring. In the meantime, they must try to negotiate proposals among their many different constituencies, while also meeting guidelines set by an advisory team of marine scientists and the department of fish and game.

At a meeting in San Rafael last week, the group heard feedback on its first round of ideas for marine protected areas, which were summarily shot down as both insufficient and poorly defined. Stakeholders will gather in Pacifica next week for a two-day session to hash out their second round of proposals, with the difficult task of narrowing their list of possibilities down to five arrays.

Churchman said the group had a lot of work to do.

“These guys are hard graders,” he said of the science advisory team and department of fish and game. “It basically felt like every single array was sent back to square one.”

Not big enough or strong enough

The upshot of much of the feedback from last week was the preliminary proposals were neither clear enough, strong enough, nor big enough to meet the goals of the act.

The Blue Ribbon Task Force, a political group appointed by the governor to be the last line of vetting before the fish and game commission’s final decision, told regional stakeholders last month that it is committed to a high level of protection. Task force members reminded the stakeholder group that the state marine reserves – the most restrictive type of protection areas – are the backbone of the MLPA.

A key factor in the review process is what level of protection the science advisory team assigns to a given activity. For instance, the scientists determined that crabbing posses a lesser ecological impact than abalone diving. Therefore, areas that allow crabbing, but not abalone diving. Therefore, areas that allow crabbing, but not abalone fishing, will earn a higher level of protection.

The scientific basis behind the rankings was questioned by fishermen, each of whom is lobbying to have his desired catch allowed in as many areas as possible.

Meanwhile, a consulting group also calculated potential socioeconomic impacts to fisheries and ports throughout the region. The numbers are based on interviews with some 275 commercial and sport fishermen, and represent a worst-case scenario – assuming that a relocated fisherman would not be able to find new grounds if his traditional fishing area was set aside for protection.

The consultants found an across-the-board economic impact of between $1 million and $7.5 million, depending on the proposed array. But because of their relatively small size, the Bolinas and Bodega Bay ports could be hit particularly hard – possibly losing as much as 15 to 20 percent of the value of their fisheries.

Baty, who in addition to being a sport fisherman, also describes himself as a conservationist, said some level of anger within the fishing community is virtually guaranteed by the MLPA.

“Most people are going to be pissed off, because when you close off any part of the coast you will be shutting off someone’s historic, sentimental fishing spot,” Baty said.

But he holds out hope that the stakeholder group can find the right balance.

“I think these marine protected areas can be sited in a way that does not profoundly affect any of the fisheries, but can still protect critical habitats that will help those species that we’re most concerned about,” Baty said. “I think this can be done correctly.”