LJ today

[tylerdurden]

More info...
Just so you know, Steve Benavides is one of the people who is more pro closure.


The following are comments from RSG members posted to OC Diving. More to think about for Monday.

From: steve@sgbcpa.com
Sent: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:27:37 -0700
To: news@ocdiving.com, diving@divebums.com
Subject: [OC Diving -News] BFTF (Blue Ribbon Task Force ) Guidance on MLPA issues

Things are coming very close to finishing up the primary job of the
regional stakeholders group. Next Monday and Tuesday the regional
stakeholders will meet to begin our final round of adjusting our
proposed maps prior to submission to the BRTF. I also spent two days
this week at the BRTF meeting in Santa Monica. Here are the highlights
of that meeting. First off, not a single one of the six maps that were
forwarded from round 2 met the SAT (scientific advisory team)
guidelines. The chairman of the BRTF made it perfectly clear that we
would be required to submit maps which meet the minimum scientific
guidelines or product would not be forwarded to the Fish and game
commission. Of course what this means is that the BRTF will be happy to
take our product and modify it, along with the help of the scientists,
in order to meet minimum scientific standards. We call this " making
sausage"

The clear problem is that any increase in the level of protection
imparted to any of the maps will come at an increased socio-economic
cost, which translates as less revenue for the fisherman. The levels of
protection on most of the maps actually fell from round one to round
two. It will be very difficult to turn this around and it will be very
painful for the fishing community.

When we meet next Monday and Tuesday we will be under incredible time
pressure to complete our tasks. Basically, we will be divided into one
of three groups. One of those groups will be charged with creating a map
that contains levels of protection at the "preferred" level. My guess
is that this map will look something like Opal B. from round one. The
second group will be charged with attempting to create a cross interest
support map using the Topaz map as a starting point. The final group
will consist of members who are charged with turning External A (the
FIC/FIN proposal) and bring that map up to conformance with scientific
guidelines. It is interesting to note that in so doing, the BRTF
collapsed all three of the fishing maps (external A, external B., and
Lapis 2) into a single map. This was done because the three maps have
virtually identical scoring in the evaluation that was just delivered at
the BRTF meeting.

What this means is that they're going to be three maps prepared by the
close of business next Tuesday. One of those maps will be prepared
primarily by the consumptive fishing coalition and their supporters. A
second map will be prepared which will reflect generous conservation
values and an enhanced level of protection but with significant
socioeconomic cost to commercial fisheries. The third map will fall
somewhere in between those two. It will be interesting to see if this
cross interest map can actually be produced. I say that because there
has been a distinct reluctance of the polar opposites involved in the
process to move off their entrenched positions. I think it's fair to say
that the BRTF will move them off their positions if we don't move them
ourselves. If the Maps meet the correct guidelines they will be
forwarded to the California Fish and game commission for approval. One
of them will receive a preferred endorsement from the BRTF. So after we
are done, and in the BRTF is done, the final decision will be made by
the California Fish and Game Commission sometime this December.

We are going to have a very difficult time at that meeting and will be
working very long hours. There will be an opportunity to provide public
comment next Monday afternoon. You should be aware that while we do
listen to the comments and enjoy some of them greatly, at this late
stage negotiations are going to come down to about six very difficult
geographies including Catalina Island, La Jolla/point Loma, Laguna
Beach, Palos Verdes, and Dana point. There is probably very little that
can be done at this point to change the direction of the process, kind
of like the rudder on the Titanic. If you do choose to speak, please
remember the quality is more important than quantity. Some of the
representative groups have chosen to cede their time to a few chosen
speakers and do a coordinated, well thought out, well delivered
presentation. I think I speak for a number of the RSG members that we
far preferred this type of presentation over listening to 200 people
saying the same thing. I especially like to hear from children,
especially when they read their letter, not their dad's. That said, t5he
process over the next few months will have a profound impact on the way
that we and our families interact with the ocean. This is a very
important issue. I am sad that so few people have taken the time to
become knowledgeable about the Marine life protection act and
appreciative of this opportunity and at the same time impressed that
some of the user groups such as the kayak anglers and Spearos are so
thoroughly schooled, prepared and well represented at the meetings. If
you have been following this process here are three very good reasons to
consider attending the next meeting.

Orange county is a particularly difficult geography. Remember, that if
the Marine reserve posed by the fishing coalition is accepted as the
final product there will be a no take marine reserve from Irvine Cove to
three arch Bay. That means no spear fishing and a lobster hunting in
Laguna Beach anymore. Attempts to move this reserve south, towards Dana
point, into what many (and me) believe is better habitat, is being
fiercely resisted by commercial fishermen who will suffer loss of
habitat if the reserve is shifted south. No matter what, because of
spacing guidelines, there is going to be a large state marine reserve
located somewhere between Newport and Dana point in the odds-on bet,
like it or not, is smack dab in the middle of Laguna Beach.

As difficult as Laguna Beach is, the La Jolla Cove/ Pt. Loma area is an
even more complex geography. We have probably heard more about the San
Diego area than any in the south coast study area. There are several
competing geographies and only a couple of them are similar. The only
thing I can say is that it looks like the northern edge of the La Jolla
kelp down to somewhere below Casa Cove will be left open to fishing and
other consumptive activities. The kayak fishermen and consumptive divers
have made a very good case for leaving this particular area open and it
appears that most of the competing proposals honor their wishes.

There is also going to be considerable pressure to locate a state marine
reserve on the west face of Palos Verdes. There is considerable
political and scientific opposition to locating one of the backbone
reserves on the south facing side of Palos Verdes near the White's point
sewer outfall and the Portuguese Bend landslide. It is virtually certain
that there will be some type of large marine protected area located
somewhere on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Again, the spacing guidelines
and the need for adequate representation of habitats and replication of
the same command the location somewhere at that point. I don't think
anyone is going to like whatever the final solution of Palos Verdes will
be. The intensity of use and the number of people utilizing the resource
is considerable.

Stephen G. Benavides
South Coast RSG member
steve@sgbcpa.com
949-474-7427