Updated MLPA Information.

[Wingnut]

Feel free to add...

Updated MLPA Information. DFG Projected Implementation - Summer 2011

Final Map.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/scmpas121510.pdf

GPS Coordinates.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/sc_boundaries.pdf

Latest Detailed Restrictions.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/southcoast_amended_isor.pdf

Additional information.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/


Sacramento, CA – December 15, 2010 – Despite ongoing legal concerns, the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) voted 3-2 to approve a wide-ranging array of marine protected areas (MPAs), essentially no-fishing zones, along the southern California coast. In its latest effort to implement the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), the commission’s vote indefinitely closes approximately 12 percent of southern California’s ocean to recreational fishing – including many of the state’s best recreational fishing areas.

“It’s beyond comprehension that the commission would go through with approving these regulations given the serious flaws in the process,” said Bob Fletcher of the Sportfishing Association of California and former Chief Deputy Director of the California Department of Fish and Game. “The commission obviously had no desire to assure that a fair, open, objective and legally conducted process was in place before such a vote occurred. This vote leaves little doubt that the MLPA has is based on political agendas instead of the needs of California’s citizens and natural resources.”

The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO), which represents recreational fishing and boating interests in California, has been actively engaged in the MLPA process since the North Central Coast phase. The PSO has voiced its concerns regarding the numerous flaws and a lack of transparency in the process. One of the PSO’s members, United Anglers of Southern California (UASC), has retained legal representation to investigate the legality of the MLPA process.

During the December 15, commission meeting, the PSO’s attorneys presented to the commission the numerous examples of defects in the rulemaking process, including many flaws that were discovered after reviewing MLPA planning documents that have only recently become public.

On October 1, 2010, a California Superior Court ruled that two MLPA planning groups – the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) and Master Plan Team , also known as the Science Advisory Team, are state agencies and therefore compelled by California’s Public Records Act to share information that they were withholding from public view. These groups would not respond to a Public Records Act request, incorrectly claiming they were not state agencies. In light of a PSO review of the documents provided to date, the commission was presented several notable findings prior to their vote, including evidence that the BRTF held numerous scheduled, agendized meetings which were closed to the public.

Other notable flaws and concerns with the MLPA process that were not taken into consideration by the commission include:

* Lack of funding for the necessary monitoring and enforcement of MPA regulations – a $40 million annual price tag.
* Negative economic impact of closures to saltwater recreational fishing, which contributes $2.3 billion to California’s economy annually and supports nearly 20,000 jobs.
* Major flaws in the environmental analysis of the impacts of the proposed South Coast regulations.
* Inconsistent and shifting guidelines throughout the process.

“The MLPA attempts to resolve a fisheries ‘crisis’ that simply does not exist. As a result of decades of successful traditional fisheries management, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, there is not one marine fish stock currently experiencing overfishing in California’s waters,” said Gordon Robertson, Vice President of the American Sportfishing Association, a PSO member. “Simply put: fisheries management in California is working and the MPAs are not necessary.”

“While we are deeply disturbed that the commission would go forward with approving these regulations, the process is not over yet,” noted John Riordan, Board Member of UASC. “The PSO legal effort is working to protect the interests of recreational anglers and is making significant progress. I urge all anglers and anyone concerned with the MLPA to visit www.oceanaccessprotectionfund.org (http://www.oceanaccessprotectionfund.org/) and make a donation to help the fight against this flawed process in the courts.”

[klocked]

Well, lets hope for an injunction on these laws during the upcoming lawsuits!

[bones]

UPDATE from the "Fisherman" side !!

Check out what PSO (Partnership fo Sustainable Oceans) did recently. We are not going to go down without a fight. Let us hope that our new governor wants to help California's economy instead of hurting it more. He dislikes the Packard Foundation and the enviro's but even more notably........He is targeting alot of Arnie's policies.


Recreational fishing groups file lawsuit to invalidate regulations that unnecessarily deny access to public waters
January 27, 2011 - Sacramento, CA - Member organizations of the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO), which represents California’s recreational fishing and boating community, have filed a lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court seeking to set aside regulations established by the California Fish and Game Commission in connection with the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). The commission approved regulations for the North Central and South Coast study regions in August 2009 and December 2010, respectively, establishing marine protected areas – essentially no-fishing zones – in large areas of the state’s coastal waters. The lawsuit, filed by United Anglers of Southern California, Coastside Fishing Club and Robert C. Fletcher, cites a lack of statutory authority for adopting the regulations, and, in the case of the South Coast regulations, numerous violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the commission's environmental review of the regulations.

"From the outset, it was clear that the MLPA process was set up to reach a predetermined outcome under the fiction of an allegedly open and transparent process," said Bob Fletcher, former president of the Sportfishing Association of California. "In a rush to establish regulations based on political timelines and a pre-determined agenda, the Fish and Game Commission has ignored the legal requirements it must follow."

Most notably, the petition states that:

•The commission does not have the statutory authority to adopt, modify or delete marine protected areas under the MLPA's main rulemaking provisions until it has approved a final Master Plan for the state. The final Master Plan has yet to be written or approved.
•The other statutory authorities that the commission relies on do not provide the commission with the authority it needs to adopt these MPAs.
•The privately-funded "MLPA Initiative" process has been conducted in a manner inconsistent with the process the state legislature directed in the MLPA, and meetings held by MLPA planning groups that should have been open meetings were closed to the public.
•The South Coast study region regulations were adopted on the basis of an environmental review process that is in violation of CEQA.
"Our concerns were presented to the commission prior to its December 2010 vote to approve regulations for the South Coast," Fletcher further said. "Ignoring the information before them, the commission went forward with approving regulations to close 116 square miles of southern California’s coastal waters to recreational fishing. Many of the best sportfishing areas are included in the closures. These closures don't just disappoint the fishermen – they take away jobs and income for many California small businesses along the coast and elsewhere. Particularly concerning are the flaws in a regulatory process that has been fueled with private money from special interests. The end result of this process has been a rush by the commission to adopt regulations without the authority it has to have to adopt them, and without a proper review of the environmental consequences of what they're doing. That should be a concern for all Californians, whether they fish for fun or for a living, or whether they've never been fishing at all."

"Much of the best fishing areas are now closed under the MLPA process," noted Dan Wolford, Science Director for the Coastside Fishing Club. "Anglers in the North Central region are now suffering because of excessive, unnecessary closures that we believe were improperly established. We find it extremely concerning that anglers, who are the original conservationists, are being taken off the water through a seriously flawed process, while the real threats to the health of our ocean, such as contaminated stormwater runoff and industrial pollutants, are allowed to continue unabated."

The petition is the second lawsuit involving the MLPA by members of the PSO. In May 2010, Fletcher filed suit against the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force and Master Plan Team – also known as the Science Advisory Team – for failing to respond to a Public Records Act request, as state agencies are required to do. These groups claimed that they were not required to make their records available to the public on the ground that they are not "state agencies." Last October, a California Superior Court ruled that the Blue Ribbon Task Force and the Science Advisory Team are indeed state agencies and therefore are compelled by California’s Public Records Act to share information that they were withholding from public view.

"The good intentions of the MLPA have been derailed by private interests and political motivations," said Fletcher. "We urge anglers, outdoors enthusiasts and anyone who supports good government and the public’s right to know what its government is doing, to visit www.oceanaccessprotectionfund.org and donate what they can to help us to continue to fight this flawed process in the courts."
Donate NowTake ActionGet News and AlertsFollow usTwitterFacebookRSSNASCAR Driver No. 56 Martin Truex Jr. Supports KeepAmericaFishing™
Avid angler and NASCAR driver, Martin Truex Jr., supports efforts to preserve our right to fish.
.B.A.S.S. Pros Speak Up for KeepAmericaFishing
B.A.S.S. Pro Anglers encourage you to use your voice to Keep America Fishing.
.Sport Fish Restoration Act
Learn how the Sport Fish Restoration Act provides critical funds for fisheries management in your community.
.Be an Ethical Angler
Pledge your support to ensure that your favorite fishing spots are kept clean and abundant with fish.
.Wade Middleton helps to Keep America Fishing!
Pro Angler Wade Middleton knows we must fight to keep anglers on the water.
.Sign Our Anglers’ Bill of Rights
We believe all anglers have a right to fish on our public waters now and for generations to come.
.

[bsp]

http://www.wonews.com/Blog.aspx?id=9...oCal%20borders (http://www.wonews.com/Blog.aspx?id=910&AuthorID=59046&t=MLPA%20MAP%20UPDATES:%20WON%27s%20exclusive%20ma ps%20%20detail%20SoCal%20borders)

Map that details all the finalized closures along with a nice breakdown of regulations courtesy of WON. If the MLPA process does not get held up in court or put on hold due to our lack of funds to enforce them (CA is bankrupt), then these closures will go into effect in 2011. They aren't in effect yet, so get out and fish!

[JapanRon]

Hi Wingnut,

Thanks. I'll be including some of this stuff in my asides from time to time.

JapanRon

[NachoFish]

Coalition Exposes Secret MLPA Meetings

by Dan Bacher

George Osborn, spokesman for the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO), presented a 25 page document documenting illegal private, non-public meetings of Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative officials to the California Fish and Game Commission during its meeting on February 2 in Sacramento.

The PSO, a coalition of national and regional fishing organization including the Coastside Fishing Club and United Anglers of Southern California, filed suit in San Diego Superior Court in late January, seeking to overturn South Coast and North Central Coast MLPA closures, alleging violations of the State Administrative Procedure Act.

During his brief public testimony, Osborn exposed the corruption and violations of law by the MLPA's Blue Ribbon Task Force (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7_04BC1acA).

“After reviewing the documents turned over to us, which previously the BRTF had improperly withheld from the public, we now have evidence, indicating that the public meetings of the BRTF have been an elaborately staged Kabuki performance, choreographed and rehearsed down to the last detail, even to the crafting of motions, in scheduled private meeting held before the so-called public meetings of the BRTF," said Osborn. "Clearly, this has not been the most open and transparent process, as it has so often been described.”

“The BRTF’s behavior taints the regulations that are the end product of its work, and these regulations must be reversed,” he emphasized. “The PSO respectfully requests that the Commission begin the process to un-do these wrongs committed against California’s recreational anglers and as all Californians, see that the MLPA is implemented properly, and reverse actions that unnecessarily close areas to fishing.”

“Let’s work with Governor Brown and direct California’s meager resources to solve real problems that harm the ocean we love,” he concluded.

Commissioner Dan Richards asked Osborn for proof about the secret meetings that PSO has accused the privately funded MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force of conducting.

Osborn then submitted to the Commissioners the copies of emails and correspondence by MLPA officials documenting private, non-public meetings. Secret meetings of the Blue Ribbon Task Force were held in April 2007 and on November 3, 2008, December 10, 2008, February 25, 2009, October 20, 21 and 22, 2009.

The documents included correspondence by Ken Wise, MLPA executive director, Don Benninghoven, former Fish and Game Commissoner, Melissa Miller-Henson, program manager of the MLPA Initiative, Meg Caldwell, BRTF member and others.

The documents also include the email by Fort Bragg City Council member Jere Melo on November 5, 2009, regarding his resignation from the MLPA Statewide Interest Group (SIG) for its failure to obey state laws.

"I cannot continue on a body that advertises its functions as 'public' and then provides very little or no public notice of its meetings," said Melo. "There is a real ethics question for a person who holds a public office."

The February 2, 2011 meeting was a joint hearing of the Fish and Game Commission and the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the North Coast. The Commission adopted a unified proposal crafted by recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, environmentalists and business owners that would create marine protected areas in approximately 13 percent of the North Coast state's waters - and for the first time acknowledged tribal gathering rights on the ocean.

The Yurok and other North Coast Tribes did not endorse the proposal, but accepted it, providing that the state formally acknowledges the sovereign rights of Tribes to gather along the coast as they have done from thousands of years.

“There is no evidence that tribes have had a negative impact upon the ecosystem," said Thomas O'Rourke, Chair of the Yurok Tribal Council. "They have been part of the ecosystem since time immemorial. Science needs to recognize people as part of the ecosystem. If you don’t include people, the proposal will fail. Our rights are not negotiable.”

He emphasized, "The Tribe doesn't endorse the unified proposal, but it accepts the proposal."

"Nothing is final until it's final," O'Rourke said after the meeting, in responding to the Commission's decision to move the unified proposal forward. "We are as comfortable as we can be in this stage of the process."

In reference to the lawsuit filed by PSO, O'Rourke stated, "If the state doesn't listen to us and tries to impose regulations on the Tribes, the fishermen's lawsuit is possibly one of many they will have to deal with."

The Commission also heard from supporters of Option Zero, who felt shortchanged because they were only given one minute each to comment at the end of the public comment period. This was done in spite of a letter from Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro and Senator Noreen Evans urging the Commission to "allow for a briefing from Option Zero supporters."

Option Zero proponents, including environmentalists, recreational anglers, and commercial fishermen, support managing fisheries on the North Coast through existing regulations - and criticize the MLPA process for setting up marine protected areas that fail to protect the ocean from water pollution, oil spills and drilling, military testing, wave energy projects and all other uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering.

MLPA critics also slam the process for its many conflicts of interest, including the domination of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces by oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corporate interests. Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, served on both the North Central Coast and North Coast task forces and chaired the South coast task force.

The MLPA process was privatized in 2004 when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger directed the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, a private corporation that North Coast environmental leader John Stephens-Lewallen described as a "money laundering operation for corporations," to fund the controversial process through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Fish and Game.

Since then, the MLPA Initiative has violated numerous state, federal and international laws, including the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act, the California Public Records Act, the State Administrative Procedure Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The copy of the PSO lawsuit is below.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=1209Mp9XpnXAYTHYCs54MFFdTN9eKo7QlD3TXUwWdT7u cEzzC8KEI01Ef5pOR&hl=en&authkey=CKypmoID

[DockRat]

http://www.wonews.com/Blog.aspx?id=9...oCal%20borders (http://www.wonews.com/Blog.aspx?id=910&AuthorID=59046&t=MLPA%20MAP%20UPDATES:%20WON%27s%20exclusive%20ma ps%20%20detail%20SoCal%20borders)



Those colored maps make it much easier to see the areas.
Thanks for posting it.
DR

[DockRat]

Keep in mind that these areas MAY BE CLOSED TO HUMAN ACCESS !!!

Not just fish but, ALL MARINE SPECIES starting at the high tide line.

VERY IMPORTANT LINE IN THE MLPA LAW BELOW !

Restrictions [36710(a) PRC]: Therefore, access and use (such as walking, swimming, boating and diving) may be restricted to protect marine resources.



Starting at the high tide line.

Example; Some enviromental group discovers that Sunblock hurts abalone, or that surfers are killing sea slugs. The green abalone are making a major comeback in Laguna Beach. WHAT IF they begin to decline in numbers.

NO HUMAN BEACH ACCESS. :ROFL:

They closed several miles at Cape Hatteras ' No Surfing ' thanks to a rare bird that uses the dunes for nesting. Look at the Calif Delta Smelt.

http://www.savehatteras.com/

WHAT WOULD YOU THINK IF THERE WERE NO FISHING, NO SURFING, and NO OFF ROAD (ORV) PERMITTED ON THE MOST VISITED PARTS OF HATTERAS, OCRACOKE, OREGON INLET, CAPE POINT, & OTHERS!

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/ocean-isle-beach-nc/T0IQCRBDBND4IFB09

An enviro- legal group called the Southern Enviromental Law Center, is suing to close Cape Hatteras National Seashore to all 4wd traffic, thus making many places innacessable. Last year a Judge ordered the Beaches closed because of a supposedlack of regulations, but the Park Service has allowed traffic anyways, with an interim set of rules until a new set is made.-The Beaches may be closed for the alleged protection of the endanhered species, the Piping Plover.

These are people who are a political machine with limitless funds, and great political clout. They are relentless in there efforts to keep people out of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. They are threatening a vital tourist industry, thus threatening the local economy on Hatteras Island. There is a Bridge that connects the barier Islands from the manland called The Bonner Bridge, that needs re building.(http://www.replacethebridgenow.com/ ) The S.E.L.Center has fought it tooth and nail. Basically this group can slow tourism to the Islands to a trickle, which can cripple the local economy-which has surivived quite well so far. That and a ban on beach driving would be devestating.

Wait till the enviro groups go to shut down places like Laguna. Hey City Council :ROFL:
Your closure you voted for just closed your coastline :ROFL:

Summer beach tourists will go somewhere else. :ROFL:
You guys will be HURTING $$$ in the wallet with beach closures :ROFL:

Future Marine Protected Area Violaters ! Write that kid a ticket.
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r57/kristencvierig/May/P6255819.jpg


DR

[Wingnut]

Howling Mad Murdock (http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/member.php?31621-Howling-Mad-Murdock) - Yesterday 07:32 PM

Arthur,

I don't really know much about the MLPA, as it really doenst affect me up here in SF; I don't fish too much up here. But I was talking to him about how it affect sportsfishermen down south, and how the closures impact the California budgets. I am not very versed in the MLPA, but I figure you are.
Now the kicker..my step father has a direct line into Govenor Brown. When he was the Mayor of Oakland we did tons of construction for the city, as well as a huge subdivision. Jerry Brown is somewhat of a friend, and I have access to him. I hypothetically supposed a situation that if I got a letter with signatures, I could get it in front of the Jerry Brown. Maybe it's too late? But I suspect it would do a whole lot of good.
I subscribe to this board and to BloodyDecks.com so I would send an email to the site admin, but I figure you may know them too, and I have talked with you some on the boards. What do you think?

Kevin






http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/image.php?u=22290&dateline=1262634881&type=thumb (http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/member.php?22290-Wingnut)
Wingnut (http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/member.php?22290-Wingnut) - Today 06:29 PM

That is fantastic Kevin, I know that Jerry Brown is no fan of the Packard Foundation. Let me make a couple of phone calls and I'll get in touch with you via PM's. :Wink:

[bones]

Update June 2011......

California's Anglers Claim Another Legal Victory
Judge Denies Motion by Environmental Groups to Intervene
in Litigation Challenging Regulations Closing Ocean Areas to Sportfishing

Sacramento, CA – June 6, 2011 – A San Diego Superior Court judge has ordered that the Natural Resources Defense Council and Ocean Conservancy have no legal right to intervene in a lawsuit that seeks to preserve ocean sportfishing in California. That lawsuit, filed on January 27, 2011, by members of the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO) – United Anglers of Southern California, Coastside Fishing Club and Bob Fletcher – asks the court to set aside regulations established through the "Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative" which created massive fishing closures along California's North Central and South Coasts. On the matter of intervention, members of the PSO argued, and the judge agreed, that the two environmental organizations did not have a direct and immediate interest in the litigation, and therefore will not be allowed to intervene on the side of the Fish and Game Commission.

"This is a significant victory for our overall legal effort," said Dave Elm, Chairman of United Anglers of Southern California. "The state is capable of representing itself in this case, and allowing the Natural Resources Defense Council and Ocean Conservancy to intervene on their side would have only created additional burdens for the Court and unnecessarily added to our legal costs."

The lawsuit against the MLPA Initiative cites a lack of statutory authority for the California Fish and Game Commission to adopt the closure regulations, and, in the case of the South Coast regulations, numerous violations of the California Environmental Quality Act in the Commission's environmental review of the regulations. Soon after its filing, legal counsel for the Natural Resources Defense Council and Ocean Conservancy announced that they would seek to intervene on the side of the Commission. Had intervention been allowed, these groups would have become parties to the litigation with full rights to participate.

"These environmental groups have played a major role in influencing the MLPA Initiative towards excessive and unnecessary fishing closures through a seriously flawed process," said Bob Fletcher of the Sportfishing Association of California and former Chief Deputy Director of the California Department of Fish and Game. "Throughout the MLPA process, anglers have had the deck stacked against us due in large part to the deep pockets of these pro-closure environmental organizations. We finally have a level playing field in the courts, and fortunately we have one important factor on our side – we're right."

The ruling on intervention is the latest in a series of victories for California's sportfishing community in the legal effort against the MLPA Initiative. Last year, Fletcher filed and won a suit against the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force and Master Plan Team– also known as the Science Advisory Team – for failing to provide documents related to their MLPA planning efforts. These groups incorrectly claimed that they were not required to make their records available to the public under the Public Records Act on the ground that they are not "state agencies." Once these records were finally disclosed, numerous long-standing suspicions about the lack of openness and transparency within the MLPA process were confirmed, including that the Blue Ribbon Task Force met numerous times outside of the public view in scheduled private meetings.

On March 11, 2011, a California Superior Court ruling ordered the Blue Ribbon Task Force and Master Plan Team to pay 100-percent of the legal fees incurred by members of the PSO in the Public Records Act case.

"Clearly our legal effort has strong standing, as the court has now decided in our favor three times," noted Elm. "However, these victories don't come cheap. I urge all anglers, and anyone who supports public access to public resources, to help us fight the flawed MLPA process in the courts by visiting www.OceanAccessProtectionFund.org and making a donation today."

[superbigfish]

Wingnut,

Any update from Kevin?

Superbigfish


Howling Mad Murdock (http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/member.php?31621-Howling-Mad-Murdock) - Yesterday 07:32 PM

Arthur,

I don't really know much about the MLPA, as it really doenst affect me up here in SF; I don't fish too much up here. But I was talking to him about how it affect sportsfishermen down south, and how the closures impact the California budgets. I am not very versed in the MLPA, but I figure you are.
Now the kicker..my step father has a direct line into Govenor Brown. When he was the Mayor of Oakland we did tons of construction for the city, as well as a huge subdivision. Jerry Brown is somewhat of a friend, and I have access to him. I hypothetically supposed a situation that if I got a letter with signatures, I could get it in front of the Jerry Brown. Maybe it's too late? But I suspect it would do a whole lot of good.
I subscribe to this board and to BloodyDecks.com so I would send an email to the site admin, but I figure you may know them too, and I have talked with you some on the boards. What do you think?

Kevin






http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/image.php?u=22290&dateline=1262634881&type=thumb (http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/member.php?22290-Wingnut)
Wingnut (http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/member.php?22290-Wingnut) - Today 06:29 PM

That is fantastic Kevin, I know that Jerry Brown is no fan of the Packard Foundation. Let me make a couple of phone calls and I'll get in touch with you via PM's. :Wink:

[Wingnut]

Wingnut,

Any update from Kevin?

Superbigfish

Well, I was informed that Pal Liebowitz isn't interested in getting into another round with the MLPA process. He is completely disillusioned by what he has experienced thus far. I've even tried to contact Western Outdoor News to pass on the information, but didn't get a response. :Neutral: There are people out there still fighting the good fight and need funds to keep the legal team viable. That is where I have been, and will continue to send my support. :Cool:

Any suggestions as to whom we can contact that may benefit from what Kevin is offering?
I can put him in direct contact with whoever can use this information and can take it to the next step.
Maybe Dave Pfeiffer at Shimano, The United Anglers of Southern California, or perhaps the folks at KeepAmericaFishing.org :Idea:

[bsp]

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/southcoast.asp

They go into effect on October 1st unless something changes. A lot can happen through the legal system in that time, so we have to keep our fingers crossed.

[DockRat]

City of Laguna is ready.
Check this website. :Finger: DR


http://www.lagunabeachcity.net/cityhall/marine/mpa.asp

Crystal Cove SMCA
This MPA was designed primarily to protect the tide pools and kelp habitat in Newport Beach.

The recreational take of finfish [subsection 632(a)(2)] by hook and line or by spearfishing [Section 1.76], and lobster and sea urchin is allowed.

The commercial take of coastal pelagic species [Section 1.39] by round haul net [Section 8750, Fish and Game Code], spiny lobster by trap, and sea urchin is allowed. Take pursuant to activities authorized under subsection 632(b)(111)(C) is allowed.

Beach nourishment and other sediment management activities, and operation and maintenance of artificial structures inside the conservation area is allowed pursuant to any required federal, state and local permits, or as otherwise authorized by the department.

Take of all living marine resources from inside tidepools is prohibited. For purposes of this section, tidepools are defined as the area encompassing the rocky pools that are filled with seawater due to retracting tides between the mean higher high tide line and the mean lower low tide line.

Public safety activities, including installation, maintenance and/or seasonal placement and removal of safety-related artificial structures, including but not limited to lifeguard towers, are allowed within any MPA classification pursuant to any required federal, state and local permits, or as otherwise authorized by the department.

Laguna Beach State Marine Reserve
This MPA was designed to protect critical marine species and habitat in tide pools and off shore

Take of all living marine resources is prohibited.

Public safety activities, including installation, maintenance and/or seasonal placement and removal of safety-related artificial structures, including but not limited to lifeguard towers, are allowed within any MPA classification pursuant to any required federal, state and local permits, or as otherwise authorized by the department.

Laguna Beach SMCA
This MPA was designed to protect critical marine species and habitat in tide pools and off shore while allowing the operation of the Aliso Creek Outfall

Take of all living marine resources is prohibited except take pursuant to activities authorized under subsection 632(b)(113)(D).

Operation and maintenance of artificial structures inside the conservation area is allowed pursuant to any required federal, state and local permits, or as otherwise authorized by the department.

Operation and maintenance of artificial structures and facilities, beach grooming, maintenance dredging, habitat restoration inside the conservation area is allowed pursuant to any required federal, state and local permits, or as otherwise authorized by the department.

Public safety activities, including installation, maintenance and/or seasonal placement and removal of safety-related artificial structures, including but not limited to lifeguard towers, are allowed within any MPA classification pursuant to any required federal, state and local permits, or as otherwise authorized by the department.

Dana Point SMCA
This MPA was designed primarily to protect the tide pools and kelp habitat in South Laguna Beach and Northern Dana Point.

Take of all living marine resources is prohibited except:

Only the following species may be taken recreationally below the mean lower low tide line only: finfish [subsection 632(a)(2)] by hook and line or by spearfishing [Section 1.76], and lobster and sea urchin.

The commercial take of coastal pelagic species [subsection 1.39] by round haul net [Section 8750, Fish and Game Code], and spiny lobster and sea urchin only is allowed.

Take pursuant to activities authorized under subsection 632(b)(113)(C) is allowed.

Operation and maintenance of artificial structures and facilities, beach grooming, maintenance dredging, and habitat restoration inside the conservation area is allowed pursuant to any required federal, state and local permits, or as otherwise authorized by the department.

Take of all living marine resources from inside tidepools is prohibited. For purposes of this section, tidepools are defined as the area encompassing the rocky pools that are filled with seawater due to retracting tides between the mean higher high tide line and the mean lower low tide line.

Public safety activities, including installation, maintenance and/or seasonal placement and removal of safety-related artificial structures, including but not limited to lifeguard towers, are allowed within any MPA classification pursuant to any required federal, state and local permits, or as otherwise authorized by the department

[Nipple Twister]

Doesn't seem odd that the "no-take" areas start and end where the beach homes do?.........:EyePop:

[CI Sportfishing]

Hello,
I wasn't sure where to post this, so please move if needed.

http://www.keepamericafishing.org/action/article_cp_sub/southern_californias_coastal_waters_will_remain_op en_on_october_1

Southern California's Coastal Waters Will Remain Open on October 1

Delay casts further doubt on when, if ever, the MLPA Regulations will go into effect.

Take Action

Please order your “Let Us Fish” fishing hat from KeepAmericaFishing and our partners, AFTCO and Guy Harvey Sportswear by making a minimum donation of $10 today!
Related News

View all related news articles

Contact: Dave Elm
United Anglers of Southern California, (949) 660-8757

Sacramento, CA – August 29, 2011 – A delay in the approval of California’s controversial South Coast Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) regulations means that anglers will now have more time on the water. October 1, 2011 was the date that the no-fishing zone regulations were to have gone into effect.

According to a press release issued by the California Department of Fish and Game on August 25, California's Office of Administrative Law (OAL), which must first review and approve the regulations before they go into effect, informed the California Fish and Game Commission that it has additional questions and requests for more information. After the Commission responds to the OAL's issues, it may be required to re-notice the regulatory package. The Fish and Game Commission will meet on September 15, to discuss alternative effective dates for implementation of the Southern California marine protected areas.

Adding further uncertainty to the timeline for these regulations is a pending lawsuit filed by members of the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO), which represents the interests of California's recreational anglers and boaters in the MLPA process. The lawsuit seeks to set aside the MLPA regulations for the North Central and South Coast study regions, citing a lack of statutory authority for the Fish and Game Commission to adopt the regulations, and, in the case of the South Coast regulations, numerous violations of the California Environmental Quality Act in the commission's environmental review of the regulations. A hearing on the North Central Coast portion of the case has been set for September 26, in San Diego. The opening brief describing the petitioners' claims in the lawsuit is available on the KeepAmericaFishing.org Web site.

"The delay in approving the MLPA South Coast regulations should provide some comfort to the many anglers and commercial fishermen who may have had concerns about whether come October 1, they'd be able to fish in their favorite areas," said Bob Fletcher, former president of the Sportfishing Association of California and a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "For example, lobster fishermen can now set traps in areas they have historically used with confidence that they won't be forced off the water on October 1. The outcome of the OAL's questions to the Commission, and eventually the lawsuit itself, may enable anglers to continue to enjoy tremendous fishing."

"Whatever the OAL's issues with the South Coast MPAs may be – we don't yet know what their questions to the Commission are at this point – it is clear to us that these regulations are the result of a flawed process, and should be overturned, said David Elm, chairman of United Anglers of Southern California, also a plaintiff. "I urge all anglers, and anyone who supports public access to public resources, to join our fight against the MLPA process in the courts by visiting www.OceanAccessProtectionFund.org and making a donation today."

Good news! Keep helping the fight!

Liz V.

[bsp]

Looks like we'll have to wait until September 15 to hear a final verdict on this, or at least an update on the outcome of the meeting. Reading the article on the DFG's website, I'll wait to celebrate until I see their decision.... I hope our areas stay open, but so far it seems as if there are only delays to the inevitable closure.

[Wingnut]

Hello,
I wasn't sure where to post this, so please move if needed.

http://www.keepamericafishing.org/action/article_cp_sub/southern_californias_coastal_waters_will_remain_op en_on_october_1

Southern California's Coastal Waters Will Remain Open on October 1

Delay casts further doubt on when, if ever, the MLPA Regulations will go into effect.

Take Action

Please order your “Let Us Fish” fishing hat from KeepAmericaFishing and our partners, AFTCO and Guy Harvey Sportswear by making a minimum donation of $10 today!
Related News

View all related news articles

Contact: Dave Elm
United Anglers of Southern California, (949) 660-8757

Sacramento, CA – August 29, 2011 – A delay in the approval of California’s controversial South Coast Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) regulations means that anglers will now have more time on the water. October 1, 2011 was the date that the no-fishing zone regulations were to have gone into effect.

According to a press release issued by the California Department of Fish and Game on August 25, California's Office of Administrative Law (OAL), which must first review and approve the regulations before they go into effect, informed the California Fish and Game Commission that it has additional questions and requests for more information. After the Commission responds to the OAL's issues, it may be required to re-notice the regulatory package. The Fish and Game Commission will meet on September 15, to discuss alternative effective dates for implementation of the Southern California marine protected areas.

Adding further uncertainty to the timeline for these regulations is a pending lawsuit filed by members of the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO), which represents the interests of California's recreational anglers and boaters in the MLPA process. The lawsuit seeks to set aside the MLPA regulations for the North Central and South Coast study regions, citing a lack of statutory authority for the Fish and Game Commission to adopt the regulations, and, in the case of the South Coast regulations, numerous violations of the California Environmental Quality Act in the commission's environmental review of the regulations. A hearing on the North Central Coast portion of the case has been set for September 26, in San Diego. The opening brief describing the petitioners' claims in the lawsuit is available on the KeepAmericaFishing.org Web site.

"The delay in approving the MLPA South Coast regulations should provide some comfort to the many anglers and commercial fishermen who may have had concerns about whether come October 1, they'd be able to fish in their favorite areas," said Bob Fletcher, former president of the Sportfishing Association of California and a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "For example, lobster fishermen can now set traps in areas they have historically used with confidence that they won't be forced off the water on October 1. The outcome of the OAL's questions to the Commission, and eventually the lawsuit itself, may enable anglers to continue to enjoy tremendous fishing."

"Whatever the OAL's issues with the South Coast MPAs may be – we don't yet know what their questions to the Commission are at this point – it is clear to us that these regulations are the result of a flawed process, and should be overturned, said David Elm, chairman of United Anglers of Southern California, also a plaintiff. "I urge all anglers, and anyone who supports public access to public resources, to join our fight against the MLPA process in the courts by visiting www.OceanAccessProtectionFund.org (http://www.OceanAccessProtectionFund.org) and making a donation today."

Good news! Keep helping the fight!

Liz V.

Thanks for the update! :Thumbs Up:

[bsp]

http://www.wonews.com/Blog.aspx?id=1452

No closures for a while! Great news! This doesn't mean that the MLPA BS is over and done with though. There's still a ways to go to defeat it, but this is a big step in the right direction.

[Tekktronic]

http://www.wonews.com/Blog.aspx?id=1452

No closures for a while! Great news! This doesn't mean that the MLPA BS is over and done with though. There's still a ways to go to defeat it, but this is a big step in the right direction.

Just to update: http://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/fish-and-game-commission-votes-on-new-effective-date-for-south-coast-mpas/

Text of DFG news item, dated Sept. 15, 2011:

Fish and Game Commission Votes on New Effective Date for South Coast MPAs
Dated: September 15, 2011

The California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) today selected Jan. 1, 2012 as the effective date for implementation of the marine protected areas (MPAs) in Southern California. The revised effective date is for the South Coast Study Region, which spans from Point Conception in Santa Barbara County to the U.S./Mexico border.

On Dec. 15, 2010 the Commission adopted regulations to create a suite of MPAs in this study region. Developed pursuant the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), this network of 49 MPAs and three special closures covers approximately 354 square miles of state waters and represents approximately 15 percent of the region.

The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) requested clarification and further information, thus disapproving the original regulatory package. This ineffectuated the Commission’s previously selected implementation date of Oct. 1. All of the information requested by OAL is expected to be provided in time for the Commission to put the potential re-adoption of the regulatory package on its October agenda.

If re-adopted, the new effective date of Jan. 1, 2012, selected today, allows time for OAL to review and approve the re-submitted regulations, finalizing the lawmaking process. It also allows the Commission and Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to better inform affected ocean users of the new regulations.

For more information on the south coast MPAs or MLPA, please visit www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/southcoast.asp.

Here's also a link to proposed regs and map of MPAs from the DFG:

Proposed DFA regs: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/sc_regulations.pdf
Map of MPAs from the DFG: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/scmpas121510.pdf

Quick questions, though :???: :???: :???::

1. Can I still fish off Newport Pier as well as on the beach? It says Upper newport Bay in the regs, but says nothing about Newport Pier or Newport Beach per se. Clarification on this, please.

2. After reading the proposed regs, I noticed that it says Option 1, Option 2, etc. or IPA under Options selected by the Commission. Can someone break this down to me in greater detail? I don't wanna be hitting the surf and breaking some stupid law and getting a ticket or worse.

Thanks guys! And Fish On!! :Fishing Catch:

-Tekktronic-

[Wingnut]

The implementation hearing is this Thursday 10/6/11...
Keep your fingers crossed, we NEED to win this one! :Neutral:

[vince]

Is the hearing open to the public ? we need to show force at these meetings ! Afterall, taxpayers are the ones putting up the bill ...

[DockRat]

15 days for anglers’ input on MLPA

10/6/11 -- On October 3, the California Fish and Game Commission opened a 15-day public comment period for revised proposed regulations for the South Coast marine protected areas developed under the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process. Revisions were made because the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL), which must first review and approve the regulations before they go into effect, rejected the regulatory package previously provided by the commission.

The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans, which represents the interests of California's recreational anglers and boaters in the MLPA process, is currently reviewing the revised regulations and will provide suggested issues to consider when commenting on the regulations prior to the October 18, deadline. Comments will also be accepted at the October 19 Fish and Game Commission meeting in Monterey, Calif. It is important that anglers respond to the revised MPA regulations since they may significantly affect their ability to access the most productive ocean areas.

During its September meeting, the commission outlined a proposed timeline to re-notice and finalize the South Coast MLPA regulations, resubmit them to OAL, and seek an anticipated effective date of January 1, 2012. This projected effective date is not only dependent on OAL approval, but also may be affected by the outcome of a pending lawsuit filed by members of the PSO.

The lawsuit seeks to set aside the MLPA regulations for the North Central and South Coast study regions, citing a lack of statutory authority for the Fish and Game Commission to adopt the regulations, and, in the case of the South Coast regulations, numerous violations of the California Environmental Quality Act in the commission's environmental review of the regulations. A hearing on the North Central Coast portion of the case, originally set for September 26, will now take place on October 6, in San Diego.

For information on how to contribute to the legal effort, please visit: OceanAccessProtectionFund.org.

[Nipple Twister]

Use your smartphone, some work better then others, to show your location in regards to current MPAs and will be updated with the newer MLPA boundries if/when it takes affect...........www.dfg.ca.gov/m/MPA

[DockRat]

I didn't see Palos Verdes on the above website ?
DR

[melillo3]

From: http://theocnow.com/2011/10/19/judge-rejects-lawsuit-against-mpas/#more-36074

Judge rejects lawsuit against MPAs

6:51 pm, Oct 19th, 2011 Kelly Parker Countywide Laguna Beach News

A San Diego Superior Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit that aimed to thwart the implementation of marine protected areas (MPAs) along the California coast, including areas of Laguna Beach waters.

The California League of Conservation Voters on Tuesday cheered Judge Ronald Prager’s decision to reject the suit filed by the United Anglers of Southern California, according to a news release from the league.

The suit was also backed by the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans, a fishing equipment group. Opponents included state conservation groups and the Fish and Game Commission.

“This slam-dunk win for the state and our oceans is the end of the line for the special interests who have burdened taxpayers with lawsuits and delaying tactics and have run a short-sighted campaign of scare tactics instead of looking out for the long-term health of our oceans,” California League of Conservation Voters Chief Executive Officer Warner Chabot said in a statement.

Implementation of the MPAs include regulations adopted last December that ban fishing and, in some cases, prohibit taking plants, animals and other marine life, including shells, from certain coastal areas. The MPAs, which extend from beaches in Santa Barbara County to the U.S./Mexico border, are scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1.

In Laguna, the issue of MPAs has been contested among city officials, residents and local anglers. All but one of the City Council members voted in support of the regulations.

“Commercial lobster fishermen will lose 30% to 40% of their income with the 7-mile closure of Laguna’s coastline,” Councilman Kelly Boyd said in July. “As for recreational fishing, sea mammals eat way more than a fisherman catches, and under the restrictions, a man can’t even take his grandson grunion hunting.”

For more information on marine protected areas, visit http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/southcoast.asp.

–Kelly Parker, @KellyParkerTCN, Coastline Pilot

From: http://theocnow.com/2011/10/19/judge-rejects-lawsuit-against-mpas/#more-36074

Judge rejects lawsuit against MPAs

6:51 pm, Oct 19th, 2011Kelly ParkerCountywide Laguna Beach News

A San Diego Superior Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit that aimed to thwart the implementation of marine protected areas (MPAs) along the California coast, including areas of Laguna Beach waters.

The California League of Conservation Voters on Tuesday cheered Judge Ronald Prager’s decision to reject the suit filed by the United Anglers of Southern California, according to a news release from the league.

The suit was also backed by the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans, a fishing equipment group. Opponents included state conservation groups and the Fish and Game Commission.

“This slam-dunk win for the state and our oceans is the end of the line for the special interests who have burdened taxpayers with lawsuits and delaying tactics and have run a short-sighted campaign of scare tactics instead of looking out for the long-term health of our oceans,” California League of Conservation Voters Chief Executive Officer Warner Chabot said in a statement.

Implementation of the MPAs include regulations adopted last December that ban fishing and, in some cases, prohibit taking plants, animals and other marine life, including shells, from certain coastal areas. The MPAs, which extend from beaches in Santa Barbara County to the U.S./Mexico border, are scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1.

In Laguna, the issue of MPAs has been contested among city officials, residents and local anglers. All but one of the City Council members voted in support of the regulations.

“Commercial lobster fishermen will lose 30% to 40% of their income with the 7-mile closure of Laguna’s coastline,” Councilman Kelly Boyd said in July. “As for recreational fishing, sea mammals eat way more than a fisherman catches, and under the restrictions, a man can’t even take his grandson grunion hunting.”

For more information on marine protected areas, visit http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/southcoast.asp.

–Kelly Parker, @KellyParkerTCN, Coastline Pilot

[exfactor]

It's all over now, just a matter of resubmitting some environmental issues the OAL brought up, and probably will be starting in 2012. When all the fishermen go to other places, they will start targeting those areas next. The state, and county lakes are all raising their prices speculating the increased activity, and soon our freedom to fish will be a thing of the past. Mark my words, someone will find a way to charge us to be able to enjoy our great outdoors soon. Its been a great ride for the last 40 years, now, I'm not sure where to turn.

[tree]

This is going to be an unpopular post, but what's wrong with the MLPA?
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/scmpas121510.pdf

that's the map of what they want to do... and to be honest is it that bad? Tiny little spots of the ocean closed off, but look @ how much coastline is still available.

I understand Laguna Beach being closed sucks, but Newport beach is down the way, as well as Huntington etc.

as far as coastal waters, i see some areas are ok for taking finfish by hook and line.

What I know less about are the big blotches of red offshore @ the Islands. I bet it sucks for sportfishing boats.

[exfactor]

When everyone's fishing at your lake because they can't go to their beach spot, you'll see. those tiny red spots take up 16% of the Ca. coastline bro. It's called freedom, and slowly they will take that away from us.