marine life protection act unresolved feasibility issues for the regional stakeholder group revised...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Marine Life Protection Act
Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the
Regional Stakeholder Group
Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal
Presentation to the Fish and Game Commission
April 7, 2010 • Folsom, CA
Department of Fish and Game
![Page 2: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Unresolved Feasibility Issues
• Marine Protected Area (MPA) Boundaries
• Improper MPA Designation
• Naming Convention for MPAs and Special Closures
• Permissive Take Regulations
Revised North Coast Proposal (RNCP)
![Page 3: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
MPA Boundaries - Pyramid Point SMCA
RNCPSolution to Meet
Department Guidelines
Issue: Southern boundary splits an easily-accessible beach; landmarks available nearby
Option: Move southern boundary ~1/3 mile to northern tip of Prince Island
![Page 4: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
MPA Boundaries - South Humboldt Bay SMRMA
RNCPOption to Meet
Department Guidelines
Issue: “Floating corners” are problematic inside contained bodies of waters (estuaries)
Option: Site boundaries on visible landmarks
College of the Redwoods Exit
![Page 5: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
MPA Boundaries - Sea Lion Gulch SMR
RNCPSolution to Meet
Department Guidelines
Issue: Recognizable landmarks are the preferred boundary in areas with shore-based users
Option: Move northern boundary ~1 mile north to align with lighthouse and southern boundary ~1/2 mile north to Cooskie creek
College of the Redwoods Exit
Cooskie Creek
Punta Gorda Lighthouse
![Page 6: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
MPA Boundaries - Skip Wollenburg/Ten Mile SMCA
RNCPSolution to Meet
Department Guidelines
Issue: Boundary splits a beach when landmarks are nearby
Option: Move southern boundary south ~ ¾ mile to the mouth of Inglenook Creek
Inglenook Creek
![Page 7: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Issue: Eastern boundary not on landmark or simple coordinates. Simple coordinates should be used when landmarks are unavailable.
But: The boundary was placed where State Park land (brown) includes the river, to avoid overlap.
MPA Boundaries – Big River SMP
RNCPSolutions to Meet
Department Guidelines
123° 46.00”
Option 1: Move eastern boundary east to simple coordinate (nearest whole minute)
Option 2: Retain boundary to avoid overlap with State Parks land
123° 46.00”123° 46.00”
![Page 8: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
MPA Designation Issue – Big River SMP
• Previous Commission guidance: Designate as SMRMA when waterfowl hunting may occurs
• Option: Re-designate MPA from an SMP to a SMRMA
RNCP
![Page 9: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Naming Conventions – MPAs
• Feasibility Guideline: Name MPAs for the geographic location, not after individuals or groups Skip Wollenburg/Ten Mile River SMR
Skip Wollenburg/Ten Mile State Marine Conservation area (SMCA)
Skip Wollenburg/Ten Mile SMCA
• Solution: Retain geographic name only
![Page 10: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Naming Conventions – Special Closures
• Guidance: Use consistent naming conventions throughout the State
False Klamath Rock Seasonal Special Closure
Steamboat Rock Seasonal Special Closure
Rockport Rocks Seasonal Special Closure
Vizcaino Seasonal Special Closure
• Solution: Remove “Seasonal” from name closures
![Page 11: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Permissive Take Regulations
• Take allowances result in lower level of ecological protection Big River SMP
Navarro River SMRMA
• Solutions: Improve level of protection by
Big River SMP: Removing surfperch by hook and line gear from shore
Navarro River SMRMA: Removing take of salmon by hook and line gear
![Page 12: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Summary: Request for Commission Guidance
• Guidance on options for unresolved feasibility concerns: MPA boundaries (5 MPAs) MPA designation (1 MPAs) MPA naming conventions (3 MPAs) Special closure naming conventions (4 special
closures) Permissive take (2 MPAs)
![Page 13: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
END
![Page 14: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
![Page 15: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Blue Ribbon Task Force Final Motions
• Commission received seven BRTF motions:1) Forward RSG’s RNCP *2) Forward BRTF’s Enhanced Compliance Alternative (ECA) 3) Incorporate tribal uses into MPAs *4) Establish MPA co-management with California
tribes/communities 5) Add recreational take of Pacific lamprey and eulachon to
appropriate estuarine MPAs6) Retain three existing MPAs per State Parks recommendation7) Change designation of Ten Mile SMRMA and Navarro River
SMRMA to an SMR and a SMCA, respectively
Commission has only provided guidance on #1 and #3 to date
![Page 16: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
BRTF Motion #6 - Existing MPAs
MacKerricher SMCA
Russian Gulch SMCA
Van Damme SMCA
*Existing MPAs in dark blue; modified MPAs to meet DFG feasibility guidelines in light-transparent blue.
Motion to retain with more feasible boundaries
![Page 17: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
![Page 18: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Take Options - California Tribes & Tribal Communities
• Option 1: Nearshore Ribbons
• Option 2: State Parks Cultural Preservation Designation
![Page 19: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Take Options - California Tribes & Tribal Communities
• Option 1- Nearshore Ribbons
Example: Samoa State Marine Conservation Area
![Page 20: Marine Life Protection Act Unresolved Feasibility Issues for the Regional Stakeholder Group Revised North Coast Marine Protected Area Proposal Presentation](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070413/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93ad3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Special Closure Access Options – California Tribes & Tribal Communities
• Special closure access options
Option 1: Possibly use State Parks Cultural Preservation Designation
Option 2: Revise the regulation to allow only seasonal access to everyone
Option 3: Revise the regulation to apply to everyone, or do not adopt a special closure