Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
State Clearinghouse # 2006072060
Prepared for: California Department of Fish and Game
Prepared by:
March 2007
Final
Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
State Clearinghouse # 2006072060
Prepared for:
California Department of Fish and Game
Marine Region
20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 100
Monterey, CA 93940
Contact: John Ugoretz,
Nearshore Ecosystem/ MLPA Coordinator
831/ 649- 2893
Prepared by:
Jones & Stokes
268 Grand Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610- 4724
Contact: Jeff Thomas
510/ 433- 8962
March 2007
Jones & Stokes. 2007. Environmental Impact Report: California
Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Central Coast Marine Protected
Areas Project. Final. March. State Clearinghouse # 2006072060.
( J& S 06682.06.) Oakland, CA. Prepared for California Department
of Fish and Game, Marine Region, Monterey, CA.
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
i
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Contents
Page
Figures..................................................................................................... iv
Tables...................................................................................................... iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................... v
Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................................................ 1- 1
1.1. CEQA Compliance........................................................................... 1- 1
1.2. Format and Organization of Final Environmental
Impact Report ......................................................................................... 1- 1
1.3. Public Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report...................... 1- 2
1.4. Revisions to Draft Environmental Impact Report............................. 1- 2
1.5. Comments Received on Draft Environmental Impact
Report..................................................................................................... 1- 2
1.6. Preparation of Final Environmental Impact Report.......................... 1- 4
1.6.1. Lead Agency........................................................................... 1- 4
1.6.2. Final EIR Authors.................................................................... 1- 4
Chapter 2. Comments and Responses....................................................................... 2- 1
2.1. Introduction...................................................................................... 2- 1
2.2. Responses to Comments ................................................................ 2- 1
2.2.1. Master Response 1.0— Improper Implementation
of the MLPA ...................................................................................... 2- 2
2.2.2. Master Response 2.0— Inadequacy of Science
Standard ........................................................................................... 2- 3
2.2.3. Master Response 3.0— Inadequacy of
Socioeconomic Analyses.................................................................. 2- 5
2.2.4. Master Response 4.0— Failure to Consider
Existing Marine Protected Areas ...................................................... 2- 6
2.2.5. Master Response 5.0— Failure to Consider
Existing Fishing Management Measures.......................................... 2- 6
Letter A, from Steve Black
Response to Letter A, from Steve Black........................................... 2- 8
Letter B, from Bill Richmond
Response to Letter B, from Bill Richmond........................................ 2- 9
Letter C, from Paul Douglas
Response to Letter C, from Paul Douglas ...................................... 2- 10
Letter D, from California Department of Transportation,
District 4
Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
ii
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Response to Letter D, from California Department of
Transportation, District 4................................................................. 2- 11
Letter E, from Tom and Sheri Hafer
Response to Letter E, from Tom and Sheri Hafer .......................... 2- 12
Letter F, from Port San Luis Harbor District
Response to Letter F, from Port San Luis Harbor
District............................................................................................. 2- 14
Letter G, from PRBO Conservation Science
Response to Letter G, from PRBO Conservation
Science ........................................................................................... 2- 19
Letter H, from PRBO Conservation Science
Response to Letter H, from PRBO Conservation
Science ........................................................................................... 2- 21
Letter I, from Greg Glenn
Response to Letter I, from Greg Glenn........................................... 2- 22
Letter J, from Morro Bay National Estuary Program
Response to Letter J, from Morro Bay National Estuary
Program .......................................................................................... 2- 23
Letter K, from Willow Forest
Response to Letter K, from Willow Forest ...................................... 2- 25
Letter L, from Willow Forest
Response to Letter L, from Willow Forest....................................... 2- 27
Letter M, from David Valentine
Response to Letter M, from David Valentine .................................. 2- 28
Letter N, from NRDC, the Otter Project, and the Ocean
Conservancy
Response to Letter N, from NRDC, the Otter Project,
and the Ocean Conservancy .......................................................... 2- 29
Letter O, from California Fisheries Coalition
Response to Letter O, from California Fisheries
Coalition.......................................................................................... 2- 34
Letter P, from Moss Landing Harbor District
Response to Letter P, from Moss Landing Harbor
District............................................................................................. 2- 41
Letter Q, from Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Response to Letter Q, from Monterey Bay Aquarium
Research Institute........................................................................... 2- 42
Letter R, from Pacific Fishery Management Council
Response to Letter R, from Pacific Fishery
Management Council...................................................................... 2- 43
Letter S, from Bill James
Response to Letter S, from Bill James ........................................... 2- 44
Letter T, from Jesus Ruiz
Response to Letter T, from Jesus Ruiz .......................................... 2- 45
Letter U, from John Wolfe
Response to Letter U, from John Wolfe.......................................... 2- 46
Letter V, from Marc Shargel
Response to Letter V, from Marc Shargel ...................................... 2- 47
Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
iii
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Letter W, from Jakki Keal and Linda Yamane
Response to Letter W, from Jakki Keal and Linda
Yamane .......................................................................................... 2- 48
Chapter 3. Revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Report ............................ 3- 1
3.1. Introduction...................................................................................... 3- 1
3.2. Changes to Project Description since Issuance of
DEIR ....................................................................................................... 3- 1
3.3. Summary of Environmental Effects ................................................. 3- 2
3.4. Revisions ......................................................................................... 3- 2
3.4.1. Executive Summary................................................................ 3- 2
3.4.2. Chapter 2. Project Description................................................ 3- 3
3.4.4. Chapter 5. Physical Resources .............................................. 3- 6
3.4.5. Chapter 7. Social Resources .................................................. 3- 6
3.4.6. Chapter 11. References Cited ................................................ 3- 7
3.4.7. Appendix D. Side- By- Side Comparison Maps of
the Proposed Project and Alternatives 1and 2 by
Subregion ......................................................................................... 3- 8
3.4.8. Appendix F. Species Likely to Benefit from MPAs
in the Central Coast Study Region ................................................... 3- 9
Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
iv
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Figures
Follows Page
Revised Figure 2- 1a Proposed MPA Network ( Package P) —
Northern Study Region ........................................................................... 3- 6
Revised Figure, Appendix D, Subregion 4 ......................................................... 3- 8
Tables
On Page
2- 1. Commenters on DEIR ................................................................................ 2- 2
2- 2. Overall Summary for Proposed Project....................................................... 3- 3
2- 3. Individual MPAs in Proposed Project .......................................................... 3- 3
2- 5. Habitat Representation in Proposed Project ............................................... 3- 4
Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
v
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Acronyms and Abbreviations
B Beneficial
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
Commission California Fish and Game Commission
DEIR Draft environmental impact report
Department California Department of Fish and Game
FEIR Final environmental impact report
MLMA Marine Life Management Act
MLPA California Marine Life Protection Act
MMAIA Marine Managed Area Improvement Act
MPAs Central Coast Marine Protected Areas
NI No impact
NOA Notice of availability
SMCA State Marine Conservation Area
SMR State Marine Reserve
SMRMA State Marine Recreational Management
Area
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
1- 1
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1. CEQA Compliance
Section 15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines
requires that a final environmental impact report ( FEIR) consist of the following
elements.
• Draft environmental impact report ( DEIR) or a revision of the DEIR.
• Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR, either verbatim or in
summary.
• List of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR.
• Responses of the lead agency to significant environmental concerns raised in
the review and consultation process.
• Any other information added by the lead agency.
This FEIR for the Central Coast Marine Protected Areas ( MPAs) Project
( Proposed Project, or project) of the California Marine Life Protection Act ( MLPA)
Initiative has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The
DEIR together with the responses to comments on the DEIR constitute the FEIR for the
Proposed Project. The FEIR is an informational document prepared by the California
Department of Fish and Game ( Department) on behalf of the lead agency, the California
Fish and Game Commission ( Commission), that must be considered by decision-makers
before approving or denying the Proposed Project.
1.2. Format and Organization of Final Environmental Impact Report
This FEIR comprises three chapters containing the information required by
CEQA Guidelines, as outlined above. Chapter 1 describes the DEIR public review
process and provides a list of organizations, public agencies, and members of the public
that commented on the DEIR, as well as a list of persons involved in the preparation of
responses to comments, and a summary table of impacts and mitigation measures.
Chapter 2 contains comment letters received on the DEIR and the Commission’s
responses to those comments. Chapter 3 presents changes made to the DEIR in
response to comments. Changes to the DEIR are presented in errata format in Chapter
3 and are also referenced in the Chapter 2 responses.
When certified by the Commission, the FEIR will consist of the following
components, as required by CEQA.
• The DEIR, published on November 17, 2006.
• The FEIR, consisting of
California Department of Fish and Game Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
1- 2
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
o all comments received on the DEIR either orally or in writing,
o responses to those comments; and
o any changes or revisions to the DEIR.
1.3. Public Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report
Upon completion of the DEIR, the Commission filed a notice of completion with
the State Clearinghouse and issued a notice of availability ( NOA) consistent with CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15085 and 15087. The NOA provided notice of the public
comment period that began on November 17, 2006, and ended on December 31, 2006.
The DEIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for circulation to responsible and
trustee agencies. In addition, the Department distributed 83 copies of the NOA to state,
regional, and local agencies, as well as individuals. The DEIR also was made available
to the public via the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative website. The Commission, the
Department, and their consultants have responded to all comments on the DEIR
received during the public comment period.
Copies of the DEIR are on file at the following locations.
• Department of Fish and Game
Marine Region
20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 100
Monterey, CA 93940
• Other Department Marine Region offices
• Various public libraries
Call 831- 649- 2893 for a full list of locations.
1.4. Revisions to Draft Environmental Impact Report
In response to comments received on the DEIR, the Commission deleted, added,
and/ or revised text, tables, and figures. The changes do not result in any new
significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of an
environmental impact. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15088.5 of CEQA Guidelines, the
Commission is not required to recirculate the DEIR prior to certification.
1.5. Comments Received on Draft Environmental Impact Report
The following public agencies, organizations, and individuals submitted
comments on the DEIR.
California Department of Fish and Game Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
1- 3
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Public Agencies
• California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans)
• Moss Landing Harbor District
• Port San Luis Harbor District
Organizations
• California Fisheries Coalition
• Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
• Morro Bay National Estuary Program
• National Resources Defense Council/ The Otter Project/ The
Ocean Conservancy
• Pacific Fishery Management Council
• PRBO Conservation Science
Individuals
• Steve Black
• Paul Douglas
• Willow Forest
• Greg Glenn
• Tom and Sheri Hafer
• Bill James
• Jakki Keal and Linda Jamane
• Bill Richmond
• Jesus Ruiz
• Marc Shargel
California Department of Fish and Game Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
1- 4
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
• David Valentine
• John Wolfe
1.6. Preparation of Final Environmental Impact Report
The FEIR was prepared by the Commission, the Department and the consultants
listed below. All work reflects the Commission’s independent judgment and analysis.
1.6.1. Lead Agency
1.6.1.1. California Fish and Game Commission
1.6.1.2. California Department of Fish and Game
Marine Region
20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 100
Monterey, CA 93940
Contact: John Ugoretz,
Nearshore Ecosystem Coordinator/ Central Marine Region Manager
1.6.2. Final EIR Authors
1.6.2.1. Jones & Stokes
268 Grand Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610
Project Management Team
• Mike Rushton⎯ Project Director
• Jeff Thomas— Project Manager
• Michael Murrell Stevenson— Technical Manager
California Department of Fish and Game Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
1- 5
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Technical Team
• Chris Coelho
• John Durnan
• Alexander Hardy
• Heidi Lypps
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 1
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Chapter 2. Comments and Responses
2.1. Introduction
A public review process was held for the Central Coast MPAs Project DEIR. The
purpose of the public review process was to provide information and solicit input on the
content of the Proposed Project and DEIR. CEQA requires the Commission to make a
good- faith reasoned analysis and respond to comments received ( CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15088). This chapter contains copies of the comment letters received on the
Central Coast MPAs Project DEIR during the public review process and responses to
each comment.
Each comment letter received on the DEIR has been assigned a letter ( A– W);
comments within each letter have been numbered consecutively in the right margin of
the letter adjacent to the individual comment ( e. g., A- 1, A- 2, B- 1, B- 2…). Each
comment letter is followed by the Department’s response to that letter. The responses
are numbered to correspond with the comments as identified in the right margin of the
letter. Where the response indicates that a change was made to the DEIR, the relevant
text change can be found in Chapter 3 of this FEIR.
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, this chapter provides responses
to substantive and significant environmental issues raised in the comments. Detailed
responses are not provided to comments on the merits of the Proposed Project. When
a comment is not directed to significant environmental issues related to the Proposed
Project and/ or the DEIR, the comment is noted but no response is warranted.
2.2. Responses to Comments
The following represents the Commission’s responses to all comments received
during the public comment period on the DEIR. Table 2- 1 lists the commenters and
indicates the order in which the comment letters and responses to those letters can be
found in this document. In addition to specific responses to individual comments, master
responses are provided to address several major recurring themes that have been
noted in comments received throughout this process. Unless otherwise noted, all code
sections cited are to the Fish and Game Code.
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 2
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Table 2- 1. Commenters on DEIR
Letter Commenter Date of Comments
A Steve Black December 3, 2006
B Bill Richmond December 5, 2006
C Paul Douglas December 8, 2006
D California Department of Transportation,
District 4
December 8, 2006
E Tom and Sheri Hafer December 13, 2006
F Port San Luis Harbor District December 18, 2006
G PRBO Conservation Science December 19, 2006
H PRBO Conservation Science December 20, 2006
I Greg Glenn December 23, 2006
J Morro Bay National Estuary Program December 26, 2006
K Willow Forest December 27, 2006
L Willow Forest December 28, 2006
M David Valentine December 28, 2006
N Natural Resources Defense Council, the
Otter Project, the Ocean Conservancy
December 18, 2006
O California Fisheries Coalition December 29, 2006
P Moss Landing Harbor District December 29, 2006
Q Monterey Bay Aquarium Research
Institute
December 29, 2006
R Pacific Fishery Management Council December 29, 2006
S Bill James December 30, 2006
T Jesus Ruiz December 31, 2006
U John Wolfe January 1, 2007
V Mark Shargel January 2, 2007
W Jakki Keal and Linda Yamane January 6, 2007
2.2.1. Master Response 1.0— Improper Implementation of the MLPA
An overarching theme of some comments has been that the MLPA process in
general, and the Central Coast project in particular, either exceeds the scope of the
statute, or otherwise impermissibly deviates from its requirements, particularly with its
use of the State Marine Reserve ( SMR) designation. Although these comments
constitute unsubstantiated narrative or opinion, a discussion here is useful to
understand the context within which the other themes are addressed.
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 3
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
At the outset, the MLPA is an environmental statute and remedial in nature;
remedial statutes are liberally construed so as to effectuate their object and purpose,
and the remedial effect of provisions should not be impaired by construction. ( 3
Sutherland Statutory Construction ( 6th ed.), § 60: 2, p. 199). This construction of Fish
and Game laws has been supported in published cases; conversely, statutory
interpretations of Fish and Game statutes will be rejected when they lead to absurd
results in light of the clear policy statement of legislative purpose. ( In re Makings ( 1927)
200 Cal. 474, 478- 479; Pennisi v. Department of Fish & Game ( 1979) 97 Cal. App. 3d
268 , 272- 273; Young v. Department of Fish & Game ( 1981) 124 Cal. App. 3d 257, 271;
Department of Fish & Game v. Anderson- Cottonwood Irrigation Dist. ( 1992) 8
Cal. App. 4th 1554, 1563).
In enacting the MLPA, the Legislature stated why it was necessary to modify the
existing collection of MPAs to ensure that they are designed and managed “ to take full
advantage of the multiple benefits that can be derived from the establishment of marine
life reserves.” ( Section 2851( h)). “ Marine life reserves,” which are now called State
Marine Reserves, are defined in the MLPA as no- take areas. ( Section 2852( d)). The
MLPA also directs the MLPA Program to have an “ improved” SMR component, and
contemplates that the process for the establishment, modification, or abolishment of
existing MPAs includes the creation of new MPAs. ( Sections 2853( b)( 6), 2853( c)( 5),
2855( a), 2857( c)). The agenda driving this process is the one expressed by the
Legislature in its detailed articulation of MLPA through its findings and declarations,
definitions, goals and elements, Master Plan components, and objectives and
guidelines. ( Sections 2851- 2853, 2856, 2867). Since the Legislature does not engage
in idle acts, the fact that it expressly authorized the Commission in Section 2860 to
regulate commercial and recreational fishing and any other taking of marine species in
MPAs, and not just marine reserves, presumes such authority can be exercised.
Of course, how the Commission exercises that authority is a matter solely within
its purview. In any case, the authorization of new SMRs cannot be reasonably
construed as reflecting a bias against fishing, when the MLPA expressly states that
such reserves “ may help rebuild depleted fisheries.” ( Section 2851( f)). Further, the
Marine Life Management Act ( MLMA) links the maintenance, restoration, and
enhancement of marine habitat to the primary fishery management goal of
sustainability. In that respect, the Legislature also emphasizes that even fishery
management decisions – which include the prevention of overfishing, the rebuilding of
depressed stocks, the facilitation of conservation and long- term protection, and the
restoration of marine fishery habitats – must not sacrifice long- term goals for short- term
benefits. ( Sections 7055( a), 7055( b), 7056( a), 7056( i)).
2.2.2. Master Response 2.0— Inadequacy of Science Standard
A recurring theme questions the adequacy of the science driving the MLPA
process, asserting that the science being used is not the “ Best Available Scientific
Information” ( BASI) and recommending that the process not continue until more
research and study is conducted. However, state law emphasizes timeliness over
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 4
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
certainty or perfection. By way of review, in 2004 the National Academy of Sciences
sponsored a major discussion of BASI in the context of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery
Management Act, and noted that " best" explicitly suggests that there is no better
scientific information available and implicitly suggests the use of the most relevant and
contemporary data and methods. However, the MLPA process is expressly based “ on
sound scientific guidelines” and “ the best readily available science.” ( Sections
2853( b)( 5), 2855( a)). The MLPA use of best readily available science is an important
qualification that emphasizes timeliness over certainty or perfection. Similarly, the
Marine Life Management Act, which predates the MLPA, qualifies its application of BASI
with the language: "... on other relevant information that the department possesses, or
on the scientific information or other relevant information that can be obtained without
substantially delaying the preparation of the plan." [ Emphasis added] ( Section 7072( b)).
The MLPA emphasis of timeliness over certainty or perfection of information is
further underscored by the concept of adaptive management, which recognizes that this
process proceeds in the face of " scientific uncertainty" and prospectively contemplates
that " monitoring and evaluation shall be emphasized so that the interaction of different
elements within marine systems may be better understood." ( Section 2852.) The
objective of adaptive management under the MLPA is not to reduce uncertainty through
increased scientific rigor, but rather to produce practical information that guides
management decisions. To date, the California experience with adaptive management
of marine resources is exemplified through the Marine Life Management Act ( Sections
90.1, 7056( g)) and the Nearshore Fishery Management Plan, which addresses the
critical concepts of the precautionary principle, and the variability of adaptive
management strategies in data poor, data moderate, and data rich circumstances.
That the Legislature, as a matter of public policy, has favored timeliness over
certainty of information does not mean that inadequate science should be used. In that
respect, external peer review is a strong guarantor of the adequacy of the science. The
MLPA mandates that an external peer review process be established, and allows use of
the process identified in Section 7062 of the Marine Life Management Act “ to the extent
practicable." ( Section 2858.) Section 7062( a) allows for submission to peer review of
documents " that include, but are not limited to [ marine living resources management
documents]." However, such submissions are discretionary.
Also, it is important to understand that the charge of the peer review entity is not
to authenticate the data presented to them, but to evaluate the scientific methodology
employed and the facial plausibility of the conclusions that can be drawn there from.
More importantly, the peer review entity is not expected to approve, disapprove, or
comment on the wisdom of those conclusions. This must be so, because reasonable
people can in good faith arrive at different conclusions using the same data and
methodology.
In that regard, the Department undertook such a peer review of the scientific
basis for the Master Plan. Consistent with the statutory direction of Section 7062, the
scientific design guidelines used in preparing alternative MPA recommendations were
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 5
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
reviewed by a panel convened by Oregon Seagrant. The reviewers were selected by
Seagrant independent of the Department, and asked to review: ( 1) the MLPA Master
Plan Science Advisory Team ( SAT) guidance on MPA network design; and ( 2) the
consideration of habitats in the design of MPAs provided by the SAT. The reviewers
were also asked: ( 1) in general, is the document logically organized and factual? ( 2)
are its recommendations clearly and unambiguously stated? ( 3) are there specific
statements that you feel are incorrect or misleading? and ( 4) is there anything of
importance that was not stated or covered? The three reviewers found the document
and advice appropriate and not lacking in any way.
Additionally, the scientific review and analysis of alternative MPA
recommendations was similarly reviewed. An independent panel convened by California
Seagrant reviewed the documents prepared by the SAT in analysis of various
alternatives. Again, the reviewers found the documents, recommendations, and
methodologies scientifically sound and concurrent with available information.
2.2.3. Master Response 3.0— Inadequacy of Socioeconomic Analyses
A variant of Theme One is that the socioeconomic information is fatally deficient.
However, nothing in the MLPA imposes an affirmative duty to generate socioeconomic
data beyond that which is required by other applicable laws, such as the Administrative
Procedures Act ( Government Code § 11346.3) or— to the extent a socioeconomic
change induces significant adverse environmental impacts— the California
Environmental Quality Act. The MLPA authorizes the establishment of a Master Plan
team of scientists, one of which “ may” have expertise in socioeconomics ( Section
2855( b)( 3)( A)). The preferred siting alternative must incorporate information and views
provided by people who live in the area and other interested parties, including economic
information ( Section 2857( a)). Here, the term “ economic information” relates back to
“ information” so we reasonably interpret this to mean that it is the “ people who live in the
area and other interested parties” that provide the economic information. Conversely,
neither the five MLPA Program elements in Section 2853( c), nor the eleven Master Plan
components in Section 2856( a)( 2), address socioeconomics. Socioeconomics, then, is
only one factor to consider in the development of a siting alternative ( Sections
2855( c)( 2), 2857( a)), which still must be consistent with the ecosystem- based goals and
elements ( Section 2853) and sound scientific guidelines ( Section 2857( c)) of the MLPA.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines ( 14 C. C. R. § 15131( a)), there is no duty to mitigate for
adverse socioeconomic impacts under the MLPA. The MLPA expressly addresses
mitigation of adverse impacts “ on marine life and habitat in MPAs,” and if the Legislature
had intended that socioeconomic impacts also be mitigated, it plainly would have said
so ( Section 2862). However, detailed socioeconomic information generated during the
siting process may be relevant in the subsequent implementation of regulations under
the Administrative Procedures Act.
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 6
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
2.2.4. Master Response 4.0— Failure to Consider Existing Marine Protected Areas
There is no authority for the proposition that the MLPA requires holistic
understanding of the resource contributions of existing MPAs before new ones may be
considered. Indeed, such a conclusion is precluded by a plain reading of the statute.
The MLPA only contemplates " an analysis of the state's current MPAs, based on the
preferred siting alternative, and recommendations as to whether any specific MPAs
should be consolidated, expanded, abolished, reclassified, or managed differently so
that, taken as a group, the MPAs best achieve the goals of Section 2853 and conform to
the guidelines in subdivision ( c) of Section 2857." ( Section 2856( a)( 2)( F)). This indicates
that the assessment of existing MPAs is driven by the configuration of the preferred
siting alternative, not the reverse. That assessment of existing MPAs is intended as part
of the ongoing process, as opposed to being a necessary precondition to future MPAs,
is further indicated in the Master Plan component requiring " recommendations for
monitoring, research, and evaluation in selected areas of the preferred alternative,
including existing and long established MPAs, to assist in adaptive management of the
MPA network" ( Section 2856( a)( 2)( H)). Also, the MLPA requires that the Fish and Game
Commission " promptly act" on petitions to " add MPAs" and states that " nothing in this
chapter" restricts any existing authority to designate new MPAs prior to the completion
of the Master Plan." ( Section 2861( a), ( c)). If a comprehensive assessment of the
resource contributions of existing MPAs was required before new MPAs could be
created, then these provisions would be rendered null.
2.2.5. Master Response 5.0— Failure to Consider Existing Fishing Management
Measures
The MLPA expressly states that MPAs and fisheries management are
complementary. ( Section 2851( d)). Similarly, the Marine Life Management Act declares
that conservation and management programs prevent overfishing, rebuild depressed
stocks, ensure conservation, facilitate long term protection and, where feasible, restore
marine fishery habitats." ( Section 7055( b); see also Section 7056( b), ( c)). Although
MPAs and fisheries management are complementary, they are not equivalent. The
purpose of habitat protection in the MLMA is to advance the " primary fishery
management goal" of sustainability ( Section 7056). Moreover, that which is being
managed is a specific fishery— which may be based on geographical, scientific,
technical, recreational and economic characteristics ( Section 94)— and so may only
provide limited protection of a particular habitat.
Conversely, although the MLPA considers fishery habitat ( Section 2851( c), ( d)), it
also encompasses broader, ecosystem- based objectives that are not limited to only
fishery management. If only existing fishery conservation and management measures
were considered in designing the MLPA networks, then arguably only some of the
ecosystem goals and objectives might be met. Other goals and elements would be
undervalued ( e. g. improving " recreational, educational and study opportunities provided
by marine ecosystems" and protecting " marine natural heritage... for their intrinsic
value." ( Section 2853( b)). The MLPA also states that one of the purposes of the marine
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 7
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
reserve component is to generate baseline data that allows the quantification of the
efficacy of fishery management practices outside the reserve ( Section 2851( e), ( f)). This
would be difficult to implement if the MPA design itself must consider those very same
existing conservation and management measures.
Moreover, it is important to remember that the MLMA is the most comprehensive
revision of state marine fishery management procedures in history. The subsequent
enactment of the MLPA the following year strongly suggests the Legislature recognized
that fishery conservation and management measures alone were inadequate to the task
of broad ecosystem protection. Finally, had the Legislature intended existing fishery
conservation and management measures to be considered in designing MPAs, then it
plainly would have said so, as it did in the MLMA. ( Section 7083). As it is, the fact that
the MLPA allows the Commission to " regulate commercial and recreational fishing and
any other taking of marine species in MPAs" ( Section 2860( a)) strongly suggests that
fishery measures are not intended to be considered in the design of MPAs but may in
fact be subject to limitations beyond those already existing under fishery management
regimes. In particular, the Nearshore Fisheries Management Plan ( NFMP) developed
pursuant to MLMA is specifically designed to adapt management in the presence of
MPAs. Similarly, other fishery management changes, if necessary, would occur after
the implementation off MPAs through the MLMA process. Thus, while the design of
fishery management measures should properly consider the existence of MPAs, the
reverse is not true.
The conclusion that existing fishery management measures are not properly
considered in designing MPAs are further bolstered by three " real world" considerations.
First, the direction from the Legislature is to use " the best readily available information"
and studying the interaction of existing fishery management practices would add
another dimension of complexity that retards, not facilitates, the process ( See Theme
1.0). Second, the subject of interaction with existing fishery management processes
reflects exactly the kind of " scientific uncertainty" acknowledged by the Legislature
when it authorized the application of adaptive management to the MLPA process ( See
Theme 2.0). Third, the unfortunate reality is that existing fishery management processes
do not always work. Indeed, as evidenced by the disastrous collapse of the west coast
groundfish and the red abalone fisheries, they can fail entirely. Fishery conservation and
management measures alone do not necessarily guarantee either fishery sustainability
or ecosystem health.
Nevertheless, to the extent practicable, information on existing fisheries
management measures was considered in the development of siting alternatives.
Presentations were made by Department and federal fisheries management experts,
data on the locations and types of existing measures were provided, and changes were
made to various proposals in response to comments on other ongoing management.
The fact that the final siting alternatives overlap significantly with existing fisheries
closures is one indication of the efforts taken to prevent duplication of protection while
still meeting the MLPA goals described above.
1
Jeff Thomas
From: Steve Black [ steveblack11@ cox. net]
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 4: 37 PM
To: mlpacomments@ dfg. ca. gov
Cc: Steve
Subject: MLPA CEQA COMMENTS
My name is Steve Black, I am writing to you from San Diego, California, I am Executive
chef for the Sheraton San Diego Hotel & Marina and I am a private fisherman concerned with
the possible direction the upcoming MLPA movement could put me in the future. As a chef
for a large convention hotel, I am very sensitive to the seafood that I list on our menus.
I have been a private fisherman starting since my days back in Boston in 1985 and
understand very well the state of most American and world fisheries these days as it is a
very interesting subject to me. With the exception of a few requests that are
particularly for Chilean Seabass, all of the fish on my menus are environmentally friendy.
Farm raised Salmon, Alaskan Halibut, Pacific Swordfish ( this is questionable), Mahi Mahi,
farm raised Shrimp and Crabmeat are the most common and popular fish selections in our
outlets and primarily in Banquets where we use quite a bit of seafood.
I have seen how our fisheries, locally and worldwide, have become less abundant and more
of a precious resource in my brief 11 years as a fisherman and am completely in agreement
to start up the MLPA's, but I have a few concerns. First I would like to see the private
group of fishermen separated from the Commercial group as it relates to future rights to
fish in an MLPA. While the private group of fishermen surely have an affect on each of
our fishery resources, I feel it is the Commercial group that has done the most damage all
along. A private boat, with a few rods, reels and hooks does not do the indiscriminant
damage that a commercial boat does.
With their sophisticated vessels, electronics, gear and techniques, the commercial
fisherman have decimated fisheries along every coast line of the United States. From
abundant schools of baitfish all the way up to the regal Bluefin Tuna, Swordfish, Marlin
and large Groupers. if it swims and they can make money, they will fish for it regardless
of what dies along with their targeted species. And with the commercial fishermen having
done the majority of the damage, I feel it would only be fair to have them pay the
sacrifice that it will take to help get our fish stocks back where they all should be. I
am hopeful that when the MLPA's go into effect, that it will completely exclude the
Commercial group of fishermen from entering them and leave us private guys to still be
able to fish our prime coastal areas, with newly defined severe size and bag limits. The
current bag limits that are in affect today are much too generous. Let's face it, who
needs to keep 10 Calico Bass? Who needs to keep 10 Yellowtail or 5 Halibut? And even
worse is the complete lack of responsibility to still have some fish not fall under ANY
size or bag limit. What moron needs to keep a whole boatload of Albacore? You get my
point. Ask any private fisherman and I would bet that if given a choice, he would vote
for still being able to fish in an MLPA zone to only be able to fill a limit of 2 or 3
Calico Bass and 2 Yellowtail rather than be thrown out of any given area or off of the
water completely. As for the commercial fishermen who are shut off and cry foul, that is
where government subsidation comes into play as their part in helping to rebuild the parts
of the world's oceans that we at least have control over. I say tough luck to the
Commercial guys as it is their greed that has put them in their current position. Look at
George's Bank a good 10 years after severe restrictions have been put in place it still
does not have enough spawning size codfish and so the noble Atlantic Codfish continues to
struggle to get back to acceptable stock levels. Do you think that was done by the
private guys fishing with a single rod and reel? At least their neighbors, the Atlantic
Striped Bass have faired better after tight restrictions.
So please think of who has put us here where we are today and please hand out the
" punishment", level of ownership and responsibility that is relative to the answer of that
question to the group responsible. If I can help clarify or answer any questions you may
have, please feel free to contact me at any time at the following addresses.
Respectfully, Steve Black
2
Steve Black
4787 51st Street
San Diego, Ca.
92115
Work- 619- 692- 2238
Cell- 619- 666- 3858
steve. black@ sheraton. com
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 8
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Response to Letter A, from Steve Black
Response to Comment A- 1: The proposed MLPA MPA component does
include areas, State Marine Parks that exclude commercial take while allowing
recreational take. It is generally true that commercial fishermen take the majority of all
fish species combined by weight. This fact, however, does not hold true for individual
species. In particular, recreational anglers take the majority of many nearshore species
and do have an impact on resources. While marine protected areas will help sustain fish
species and populations, the primary goal of the MLPA is not fisheries management.
Rather the MLPA seeks to represent and replicate a variety of habitats within a network
of scientifically designed protected areas. See also Master Response 1.0.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
1
Jeff Thomas
Subject: FW: MLPA_ StrgCmte: Fwd: MLPAComments: Stop global warming - Don'tAdopt MLPA
From: Bill Richmond [ Bll_ Rchmnd@ yahoo. com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 8: 27 AM
To: mlpacomments@ resources. ca. gov; fgc@ fgc. ca. gov; Melissa Miller- Henson;
refish@ earthlink. net
Subject: MLPAComments: Stop global warming - Don't Adopt MLPA
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to ask you to think about what you are doing with the MLPA and not to vote
for it.
The Governor has been on us in the auto industry to lower emissions and greenhouse gasses
from cars. To lower the amount of fuel we consume and the amount of pollutants into the
sky, we need to drive less often and go shorter distances.
With the MLPA, you are making us do just the opposite. It will have the effect of
increasing pollution by shutting so many areas down. The increased air pollution will lead
to increases in global warming. How can you vote for a plan that makes more emissions?
You are making me, and every other fisherman, drive much much further on boats and in cars
that pollute just to get to areas we still can fish. That is stupid when I can catch the
same fish a lot closer. Is the MLPA more important to Californians than global warming? I
dont think so and I doubt the governor thinks so either.
Did anyone analyze the environmental impact of this part of your MLPA process? Or the cost
of extra fuel? I did not read anywhere in your papers that the MLPA looked at this and it
a huge oversight in your analysis. I request that you provide a full accounting of
additional gas that will be burned by closing 25 percent of the coast and what the
governor thinks of that. The MLPA is only making people expend needless amounts of fossil
fuels getting to further distances.
With gas prices as they are, the Department and Commission should be sincere to the goal
of curbing emissions and stop the MLPA. Keep all the coast open to fishing. Thank you.
Bill Richmond
Culver City
_____
Everyone is raving about the all- new Yahoo! Mail beta.
< http:// us. rd. yahoo. com/ evt= 42297/* http:// advision. webevents. yahoo. com/ m
ailbeta>
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 9
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Response to Letter B, from Bill Richmond
Response to Comment B- 1: The potential impact of increased emissions from
vessel traffic on air quality is discussed in Section 5.1 of the DEIR. The EIR makes
conservative assumptions regarding the extent of additional vessel transit, as well as
using very conservative significance thresholds, resulting in a conclusion of a significant
and unavoidable impact. It is likely that this conclusion is an overestimate. It is
impossible to determine whether vessels will travel further to fish in areas beyond an
MPA or, conversely, whether they will travel less far and fish nearer to port, reducing
emissions. Fuel consumption and added costs of gasoline are not appropriate for CEQA
analysis.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
A Case for No Take Zones
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing in regards to the MLPA program of proposed marine reserves and recent CEQA
documents made available for public comment.
I am first and foremost a lover of the ocean. I am an avid fisherman, but I also appreciate the ocean
in many other ways, including surfing and diving. I have worked in the past in commercial fishing. I have a
long family history of commercial fishermen. I have Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from UC Santa
Barbara in aquatic biology. I no longer work in these fields, but instead spend long hours working in
hospitals. I look forward to the times when I can go fishing way more than I ever used to. Fishing means the
world to me. I mention these things so you know where I am coming from.
I have been observing the MLPA process for years. I have a pretty good understanding of the current
state of the process, and as well, the current state of California’s marine environments including the health of
its fisheries. I know that many of our state’s marine resources are depleted to unprecedented levels. Others
are less depleted. I would summarize the goals of the MLPA as “ conservation, sustainable use, and
restoration of our marine resources”, put simply. At the same time, the goal is to “ minimize[ e] adverse
socioeconomic impacts” as it is implemented.
I support the concept of having a combination of reserves, parks, and conservation areas, so that there
are areas that are essentially pristine and untouched ( reserves), as well other areas which allow fishing. I
think that No- Take areas which allow recreational fishing are a really important component to this whole
process. As such, they would not conflict with the goals set out by the MLPA regarding conservation and
restoration, but at the same time also are compatible with its goal of minimizing adverse economic impacts.
As you are no doubt aware, sportfishing is a big deal economically throughout coastal California.
Fishing licenses, fishing gear, boats, lodging, etc. are all a part of it. The more areas that become “ off limits”
to fishing the fewer people will be out there fishing. This will affect a lot of people in a lot of ways from an
economic standpoint. Further, more off- limits areas will mean more fishermen will be confined to specific
areas – increasing fishing pressure there.
I feel that we should be encouraging fishing, not discouraging it. But by that I do not equate
“ fishing” with “ taking”. Clearly, everyone on all sides of this issue must compromise for the good of the
resources. Everyone, including fishermen, wants healthy marine ecosystems. On the part of the fishermen,
they ( we) need to start thinking differently about fishing. In our father’s/ grandfather’s time it was about
going out and harvesting a bunch of fish. Those days are over.
Please strongly consider the importance of No- Take areas in this process. For every one fisherman
that actually takes the time to put his/ her concerns in writing, there are thousands of others out there that feel
the same. Please remember that fishing does not always mean harvesting. Encouraging a broader system of
catch and release fishing is the best way for us to allow people to fish and at the same time help restore our
depleted marine resources for the benefit of current and future generations.
Sincerely,
Paul L. Douglas, MD
2283 9th Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94116
( 415) 681- 7159
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 10
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Response to Letter C, from Paul Douglas
Response to Comment C- 1: Comment noted. While catch and release fishing
may work in some cases, it does not always provide the same benefits as a no- take
area. In any fishing, there will always be incidental mortality, leading to ecosystem
effects. Additionally, for many marine species, catch and release fishing leads to high
direct mortality due to catch stress and trauma from pressure change when bringing fish
to the surface. The MLPA is not specifically a fisheries management- based statute. See
Master Reponses 1.0 and 5.0. Rather, it focuses on including a variety of habitats in
scientifically designed protected areas. Also, economic impact is not appropriate for
CEQA analysis. See Master Response 3.0.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 11
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Response to Letter D, from California Department of Transportation, District 4
Response to Comment D- 1: The Proposed Project does not include any
construction of any type and will not impact traffic patterns or require an encroachment
permit.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Jeff Thomas
From: Melissa Miller- Henson [ melissa@ resources. ca. gov]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 5: 01 PM
To: mlpacomments@ dfg. ca. gov
Cc: mlpa_ strgcmte@ resources. ca. gov
Subject: Fwd: MLPAComments: CEQA document
Page 1 of 1
1/ 18/ 2007
From: Tom Hafer [ somethingsfishy@ charter. net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4: 41 PM
To: MLPAComments@ resources. ca. gov
Subject: MLPAComments: CEQA document
The CEQA document is a regurgatation of the central core people driving this project. The conclusions in this were
preconcieved with no true discussion of the impacts of this project. They have one page of concerns that are not
expanded upon. All of these concerns are very important for the success of this project but these people do not want
to deal with them. This project is so political now, that anyone that puts any roadblock in would probably be fired.
The public came up with justifiable concerns, that need more than 1 page of recognition. The Proposed Package
was picked as " enviromentally superior". Now why is CEQA making that decision? Maybe if they seriously looked
into the concerns of the true stakeholders they would change their minds. The Proposed Package is taking all of the
best fishing reefs on the Central Coast. They are leaving us the smallest reefs and the sand. They are taking most of
the fishing areas close to port, requiring fisherman to go farther in more hazardous conditions, but under hazards you
say NI. They are displacing fisherman and so they are unable to spacially distribute their effort, resulting in the
potential for severe impact to the small reefs left to fish, but under biological resources you say B. The
socioeconomic studies in this project did not even include the recreational sport fisherman. They also did not discuss
the loss of cultural heritage. These areas they are taking, like Pt. Sur, Piedras Blancas, Pt Buchon, and Purisma have
been crucially important to the local fishing community for ages, going back to the Chumash Indians and the Abalone
fisherman, but in your report you say under culture NI.
They also had other big gaps in information that should have been required before " OKing" this project, for
instance baseline spacial abundance studies and habitat mapping that have been simply dropped as unimportant
when most scientist feel it is crucial for valid research. Concerns regarding funding haven't been looked at. The long
term costs are estimated for just the Central Coast to be over 13 million dollars a year. They have inadequate funds
dedicated to this for the long term. Isn't that part of CEQA to insure there is proper funding for a project? Does it
matter that there is an Alternative that had unanimous Stakeholder support by the fishing community, harbor
depts, and by the local government that would have been easier to enforce with their support and the fact that most of
the Package 1 reserves were designed near areas easy to monitor from the shoreline like JFB and Alder Creek, not
like the proposed projects reserves that are very difficult to observe from the road for instance Pt Sur and Piedras
Blancas. This will require the state to spend more money on unpopular " spy devices" on everyones fishing vessels.
Sure package 1 didn't take as much as the others but why do we need more? We don't even know if these are
going to work? They may just be a playground for dominate species to eat up the smaller rockfish. We don't know.
The presence of humans has been here for hundreds of years. Taking them out, is also an unknown impact.
Tom and Sheri Hafer
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 12
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Response to Letter E, from Tom and Sheri Hafer
Response to Comment E- 1: The Proposed Project is the result of more than 5
years of planning efforts and, particularly, the work of a comprehensive stakeholder
involvement process, considering a wide variety of public concerns. These concerns,
where relevant to CEQA, were also considered in the impact analysis.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment E- 2: Alternative 2, rather than the Proposed Project, is
identified as the environmentally superior alternative under CEQA.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment E- 3: While many rocky reef areas are included within
the Proposed Project, examination of existing fishing effort from both the commercial
and recreational fisheries show that many preferred locations will remain open to
fishing. Additionally, specific consideration was taken with regards to distance from port
and ability of vessels to fish in areas protected from the weather. Oceanic hazards are
addressed in Section 7.6 of the DEIR. Rather than making a conclusion of “ NI,” the EIR
concluded that oceanic hazards were less- than- significant.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment E- 4: As discussed in Chapter 6 of the DEIR, it is not
expected that displaced effort will lead to significant adverse environmental impacts.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment E- 5: Effects of the project on cultural resources are
described in detail in Chapter 7 of the DEIR. No impacts to cultural resources have
been identified.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment E- 6: The information used to prepare the DEIR was
adequate for the purposes of making a determination of project impacts; no gaps in
information have been identified that preclude impact analysis.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment E- 7: Project funding is not an appropriate topic for
CEQA analysis. In any case, that the MLPA contemplates a Master Plan with alternative
MPA networks, but expressly only requires recommendations for funding shows that
funding is not a prerequisite to project approval [ See subsections 2856( a)( 2)( D) and
( K)].
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 13
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment E- 8: Because Alternative 1 falls short meeting the
MLPA intent for a cohesive biological network and Alternative 2 contains elements that
are difficult or unrealistic to enforce and implement, the Proposed Project is the most
likely to achieve the full range of MLPA goals and objectives, and has therefore been
identified as the Commission preferred alternative. There is no indication that any
alternative has unanimous support of the fishing community.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment E- 9: In existing MPAs, it has been shown that larger
predators do not consume all the smaller fish and that ecological balance is maintained
[ Mumby et al., 2006]. In California MPAs, studies show increases in previously fished
species inside MPAs while unfished species abundance does not change with respect
to areas outside ( Tetreault and Ambrose, 2006).
No changes to the DEIR are required.
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 14
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Response to Letter F, from Port San Luis Harbor District
Response to Comment F- 1: The significance criteria in the DEIR are founded
upon those found in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and the DEIR selects the
appropriate topics and criteria for analysis. Section 7.4 of the DEIR ( beginning on page
7- 28) addresses the Proposed Project’s effects on recreational facilities. Specifically,
Impact REC- 1 addresses the potential for physical deterioration of recreational facilities,
concluding that there is no significant impact. The potential for significant physical
impacts to other public facilities as a result of the project is speculative, and the
commenter does not provide any evidence to substantiate such a claim. The DEIR
analysis is not flawed and conforms to the legal requirements of CEQA.
Please refer to Section 8.4 of the DEIR for a discussion of cumulative impacts.
In particular, existing fishing regulations were considered to be part of the baseline
conditions for the Proposed Project and was analyzed as such. Please refer to the
discussion above regarding the role the Proposed Project would have on public
facilities.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 2: The significance criteria in the DEIR are founded
upon those found in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and the DEIR selects the
appropriate topics and criteria for analysis. Impact REC- 2 ( beginning on page 7- 41 of
the DEIR) specifically addresses effects on recreational fishing. Specifically, the DEIR
concludes that while some restrictions would be placed on recreational fishing, that
many opportunities would remain for recreational fishing, and that the Proposed Project
avoids many desired recreational fishing locations. The DEIR concludes that impacts to
recreational fishing are less than significant. The DEIR analysis is not flawed and
conforms to the legal requirements of CEQA.
Please refer to Section 8.4 of the DEIR for a discussion of cumulative impacts.
In particular, existing fishing regulations were considered to be part of the baseline
conditions for the Proposed Project and were analyzed as such. Please refer to the
discussion above regarding the role the Proposed Project would have on recreational
fishing.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 3: The significance criteria in the DEIR are founded
upon those found in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and the DEIR selects the
appropriate topics and criteria for analysis. The DEIR concludes that there would not be
significant impacts on harbors, and the project would not make a considerable
contribution to a cumulative impact on harbors. The commenter does not provide any
evidence to support a contrary conclusion. Please refer to Response to Comment F- 1
for a discussion of public services and facilities. The DEIR analysis is not flawed and
conforms to the legal requirements of CEQA.
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 15
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 4: The significance criteria in the DEIR are founded
upon those found in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and the EIR selects the
appropriate topics and criteria for analysis. The DEIR concludes that there would not be
significant impacts on recreational fishing, and the project would not make a
considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on recreational fishing. The commenter
does not provide any evidence to support an alternate conclusion. The DEIR analysis is
not flawed and conforms to the legal requirements of CEQA. Regarding impacts to
public facilities, please see earlier responses, and the analysis of number of recreational
fishing trips potentially impacted. This low level of impact could not reasonably be seen
as leading to a significant or cumulatively significant impact on facilities.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 5: State agencies with activities that include
protection of the environment as part of their regulatory program may request
certification of their regulatory program from the Secretary for Resources. With
certification, an agency may prepare functional equivalent environmental documents in
lieu of EIRs or Negative Declarations. The regulatory program of the Commission has
been certified by the Secretary for Resources [ CEQA Guidelines subsection 15251( b)].
Therefore, the Commission is eligible to submit an Environmental Document in lieu of
an EIR ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15252). However, in the case of the Proposed
Project, the Commission has elected to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report.
See pages 1- 15 to 1- 17 of the DEIR for a description of the CEQA process.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 6: Yes, the MLPA specifically states that the
Department shall prepare a Master Plan and the Commission shall adopt a program
based on that plan which includes " recommended alternative networks of MPAs,
including marine life reserves ( now known as state marine reserves) in each
biogeographical region..." 2856( a)( 2)( H). See Master Response 1.0.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 7: Pursuant to CEQA requirements, the No Project
alternative is presented on pages 2- 23 through 2- 26 of the DEIR, and evaluated in
Chapter 9 of the DEIR ( specifically, pages 9- 4 and 9- 5).
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 8: The influence of marine mammals, including sea
otters and sea lions is described in section 6.1 of the DEIR beginning on page 6- 14.
Human harvest of apex or top- level predators removes individuals of certain species
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 16
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
from the ecosystem, upsetting the overall balance of the ecosystem and potentially
leading to habitat changes ( Halpern, Cottenie and Broitman, 2006).
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 9: No impacts were identified that would make such
mitigation necessary.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 10: Please refer to Impact VT- 1 ( page 7- 56 of the
DEIR) and Impact AIR- 2 ( Page 5- 10 of the DEIR) for a discussion of oceanic hazards
and air pollution impacts, respectively. The DEIR concluded that ocean hazards
resulting from the project would be less- than- significant. With respect to air quality, the
DEIR makes conservative assumptions regarding the extent additional vessel transit, as
well as using very conservative significance thresholds, resulting in a conclusion of a
significant and unavoidable impact. It is likely that this conclusion is an overestimate. It
is impossible to determine whether vessels will travel further to fish in areas beyond an
MPA or, conversely, whether they will travel less far and fish nearer to port, reducing
emissions.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 11: Please see Response to Comment F- 10, as well
as Impact BIO- 1 ( page 6- 25 of the DEIR), which concluded that concentration of fishing
effort, if it were to occur, would have a less- than- significant impact on marine species
and habitats. See Master Response 3.0.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 12: By taking a habitat approach, as opposed to
single species management, the project takes an ecosystem approach.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 13: The overlap with other fishery management
regulations is described in Impact BIO- 2 ( page 6- 28 of the DEIR). The specific in- depth
analysis of past regulations that is requested by the commenter is beyond the scope of
the CEQA analysis for the current project, and is not required by the MLPA. See Master
Response 5.0.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 14: Please refer to page 3- 2 of the DEIR for a
discussion of Land Use impacts. There have been no conflicts identified. Specifically,
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 17
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
the Proposed Project provides for resource protection and conservation that would be
consistent with the natural resource protection goals of the California Coastal Act.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 15: Chapter 4 of the DEIR provides an overview of
socioeconomic considerations related to commercial and recreational fishing. Economic
effects are not required to be analyzed under CEQA; however, economic effects that
lead to changes in the physical environment do require analysis, as do changes in
recreational opportunities. No significant adverse impacts associated with a “ loss of
opportunity” were identified that would require mitigation. Specifically, please refer to
Impact PH- 2 ( page 7- 19 of the DEIR), which addresses urban decay, and Impact REC-
2 ( page 7- 41 of the DEIR), which addresses recreational opportunities. See Master
Response 3.0.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 16: Commenter does not provide evidence of how
impacts to coastal communities land use and planning policies or ordinances might
occur; the DEIR has concluded that there are no significant impacts in this regard.
Please refer to page 3- 2 of the DEIR, and the discussion under Impact PH- 2.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 17: Commenter does not provide evidence of an
impact to the fishing heritage. Conversely, a stated goal of the MLPA is sustainability,
which would lead to long- term stability of fishing. No significant adverse impacts are
anticipated that would require mitigation. See Master Response 3.0.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 18: Please refer to the discussion provided in
Section 7.3 of the DEIR ( beginning on page 7- 20).
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 19: Earlier analysis and the best readily available
science were used as relevant and necessary to determine the environmental impacts
of the Proposed Project. See Master Response 2.0.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 20: The project, including project objectives, has
been described in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section
15124. Please refer to Chapter 2 of the DEIR.
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 18
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 21: It is unclear what specific issues the comment is
referencing. Please refer to Section 8.4 of the DEIR ( beginning on page 8- 2), which
provides a full analysis of cumulative impacts.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment F- 22: Please refer to Section 7.3 of the DEIR for a
discussion of monitoring and enforcement. With respect to the Air Force, please see the
existing MOU with the Department and the language in proposed regulations for a new
MOU between the Department and the Air Force.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
PRBO Conservation Science
3820 Cypress Dr. # 11
Petaluma, CA 94954
707- 781- 2555
www. prbo. org
December 19, 2006
RE: MLPA Central Coast CEQA
Dear CDFG and Commission representatives,
We are writing in regards to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the California Marine
Life Protection Act Initiative Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project. First, we would like
to commend you on the effort and accomplishments of the project thus far. We would like to
present some comments on the CEQA document, and suggestions for how some adverse
environmental impacts may be reduced.
First and foremost, market squid fishing within MPAs would potentially result in both direct and
indirect negative environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Given the
importance of squid as a forage resource for both commercially and non- commercially valuable
predators, the impacts of squid fishing would be potentially significant and likely cumulative
throughout the food web. We strongly recommend removing provisions to allow market
squid fishing in the Greyhound Rock State Marine Conservation Area ( SMCA).
As you are well aware, The MLPA identifies a set of goals for the project, including “ protecting
the natural diversity and abundance of marine life, and the structure, function, and integrity of
marine ecosystems” ( Goal 1), as well as “ ensuring … California's MPAs … are based on sound
scientific guidelines” ( Goal 5). Unfortunately, fishing for mid- trophic level forage species
supporting healthy food web function directly opposes these goals, yet is proposed in
several MPAs for the central California coast region. Specifically, allowing market squid fishing
within MPAs would go against Objective 1.4 ( protect natural trophic structure and food webs in
representative habitats), Objective 1.5 ( protect ecosystem structure, function, integrity, and
ecological processes to facilitate recovery of natural communities from both natural and human-induced
disturbances), and Objective 5.3 ( effectively use scientific guidelines in the master plan
framework).
Forage species in central California are a less diverse group ( fewer species types) than the
predators they support. Absence or dearth of even one or a few types of forage species may
translate into reproductive failure or mortality for predators. In addition to marine birds
and mammals, recreationally and commercially valuable predatory fish populations rely heavily
on squid. Thus, allowing squid fishing and/ or fishing for other forage species may result in
“ take” of marine predators that rely on these prey. Specifically, squid fishing may result in the
“ perturbation of the ecosystem in such a way that it leads to increased mortality of a species”. As
stated in the CEQA document, “ the indirect effects of extraction of one or more species allowed
in SMCAs and SMPs are poorly understood with regard to how other species in the ecosystem
are affected ( e. g., predators, prey, competitors).” In general, fishing for forage species is not
PRBO Conservation Science
3820 Cypress Dr. # 11
Petaluma, CA 94954
707- 781- 2555
www. prbo. org
good practice. The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, for example, in
acknowledging existing scientific understanding of food web dynamics and attempting
ecosystem- based management ( EBM), recognizes the importance of prohibiting fishing for
forage species.
In addition to market squid, certain other forage species fall under the category of pelagic finfish
as defined in the CEQA, such as northern anchovy, another important prey species in central
California. Such species often have short generation times and high sensitivity to environmental
variation. Population fluctuations may therefore be extreme. Dynamics of many forage species
are not well understood, resulting in high risk when attempting a fishery, especially one in
the highly variable California Current system which is not regulated in terms of
environmental variation ( e. g. squid under the Market Squid Fishery Management Plan). In
contrast, managed take of certain predatory fishes ( e. g., salmon) under carefully considered
circumstances may not pose as great a threat to the overall health of the ecosystem. Overall, a
more beneficial strategy when balancing ecological and socio- economic issues is to allow
carefully regulated fishing of some predatory fish rather than depleting the forage base.
Thirdly, it has already been established that important foraging areas for predators occur in the
lee of coastal headlands, such as Pt. Año Nuevo, including the area encompassed by Greyhound
Rock SMCA. The Año Nuevo SMCA by itself covers only a minor portion of the Pt. Año
Nuevo upwelling plume relative to forage opportunities needed for the density of seabirds and
marine mammals which inhabit the Año Nuevo area. Fishing for market squid is effectively
“ fishing down the food- web,” and this type of fishery can have devastating effects on
ecosystem integrity and upper trophic level wildlife. Thus several MLPA goals are not met if
squid fishing is allowed in Greyhound Rock SMCA.
Finally, the Greyhound Rock SMCA has the potential to provide significant protection to
the marine bird and mammals in this biodiversity hotspot. Legislation such as the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act do nothing to protect the forage base for
upper trophic predators. In the case of squid, the Market Squid Fishery Management Plan also
neglected to take into account the needs of seabirds and marine mammals in the Año Nuevo and
Greyhound Rock area. However, both the Marine Life Management Act and Magnuson- Stevens
Act specify that the needs of ecologically dependent species must be taken into account when
setting fishery quotas and implementing other regulatory actions. Thus, the MLPA process is an
appropriate arena to address and provide for these needs. We do not support the take of squid
in the Greyhound Rock SMCA, given that most seabirds and marine mammals which
breed in the vicinity of Año Nuevo ( and are thus restricted in their foraging range due to the
need to continually return to care for young) consume squid as an important part of their
diet.
PRBO Conservation Science
3820 Cypress Dr. # 11
Petaluma, CA 94954
707- 781- 2555
www. prbo. org
In summary,
• Marine ecosystem health relies on protection of the forage base for the marine food web
of which market squid are a major part
• The Greyhound Rock area is particularly important source of forage species ( especially
for breeding marine birds and mammals with restricted ranges) because of its location
in a headland shadow and the resulting major upwelling plume
• Market squid fishing would likely result in significant negative ecosystem impacts and
thus we strongly recommend prohibiting market squid fishing in the Greyhound Rock
SMCA;
We urge the CDFG and the Commission to work to meet the MLPA goals listed above and to
fully consider all the scientific input to this process. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
comment, and please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Julie A. Thayer
Marine Ecologist
707- 781- 2555, x317
jthayer@ prbo. org
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 19
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Response to Letter G, from PRBO Conservation Science
Response to Comment G- 1: The project does not allow increased take of
market squid and, overall, protects many areas where squid spawn and aggregate. In
fact, 11 square miles directly adjacent to the north are completely protected in the Año
Nuevo SMR. The Department acknowledges that squid are an important forage
resource to both commercially and non- commercially important predators. Market squid
are managed as a part of the Federal Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management
Plan, and the Department’s Market Squid Fishery Management Plan. Under the
Department’s management plan, fisheries control rules which include weekend closures
as well as spawning reserve areas, including the proposed central California reserves,
are designed to maintain a sustainable resource and create forage reserves and areas
of uninterrupted squid spawning. Squid are abundant throughout the study region and
data are not available linking fishing for squid to the type of food web impacts claimed.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment G- 2: The MLPA goals are for the entire program and
do not necessarily have to be achieved in each individual MPA. There are many MPAs
in the proposal that provide for full no- take ecosystem protection in areas where market
squid are found. The comment does not provide justification or citations for how the
proposal would fail to meet these goals and objectives as a whole. See Master
Response 1.0.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment G- 3: The project does not allow increased take of squid
or other forage species and, overall, protects many areas where such species spawn
and aggregate. Therefore, the impacts that the comment refers to would not occur as a
result of the project, and there is no impact under CEQA.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment G- 4: The Proposed Project does not intend to be used
as the sole management tool for any species. The Proposed Project addresses habitat
and ecosystem concerns, as noted by the commenter in early statements. Fisheries
management decisions will include both the effects of the Proposed Project ( anticipated
to be beneficial) and other management actions as well as status of populations. The
project would not result in, nor does the comment show evidence of, depleting the
forage base.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment G- 5: Please see previous responses. The comment
does not provide evidence to substantiate the statement. The project meets the MLPA
goals as a whole.
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 20
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment G- 6: Comment noted. As stated previously, the
Proposed Project neither increases the overall take of market squid, nor does it provide
decreased protection for seabirds and marine mammals. To the contrary, the Proposed
Project includes many areas in full no- take protection where feeding aggregations of
seabirds and marine mammals occur.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
PRBO Conservation Science
3820 Cypress Dr. # 11
Petaluma, CA 94954
707- 781- 2555
www. prbo. org
December 20, 2006
RE: MLPA Central Coast CEQA
Dear CDFG and Commission representatives,
We are writing in regards to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the California Marine
Life Protection Act Initiative Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project. First, we would like
to commend you on the effort and accomplishments of the project thus far. We would like to
present some additional brief comments on the CEQA document.
1) Appendix F - Species To Benefit. This section lacks a list of seabirds or marine mammals
which are critical components of marine ecosystems that can benefit from MPA
establishment. Not all marine birds and mammals are far- ranging, pelagic species. Pelagic
cormorants, Brandt’s cormorants, pigeon guillemots, and harbor seals all have short
foraging ranges (< 20km) while breeding and all feed heavily on sedentary demersal and
benthic species. These and other predators could benefit significantly from protection of
their prey base through MPAs. These species in occur in multiple proposed MPAs, including
Año Nuevo SMR, Greyhound Rock SMCA, and Vandenberg SMR.
Seabirds and marine mammals can also benefit from decreased disturbance resulting
from decreased fishing activities within MPAs. Disturbance can occur both at sea during
resting or foraging activities, as well as on the colony when fishing vessels may approach too
closely or night- lighting ( as from market squid vessels) disorients nocturnal seabirds or
exposes them to predators.
2) Chapter 6 – Biological Resources, Seabird Colonies. Rhinoceros Auklet is conspicuously
missing from this section. This California species of special concern breeds in only 3 main
locations in the state, one of which is Año Nuevo Island within Año Nuevo SMR.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MLPA Central Coast CEQA. If you have any
questions, please don’t hesitate to use the contact information given below.
Sincerely,
Julie A. Thayer
Marine Ecologist
707- 781- 2555, x317
jthayer@ prbo. org
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 21
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Response to Letter H, from PRBO Conservation Science
Response to Comment H- 1: Comment noted. The Department appreciates this
additional information regarding the benefits of the Proposed Project.
Revisions to the DEIR
Appendix F has been replaced with a more current version that includes
seabirds and marine mammals ( Refer to Chapter 3 of this Final EIR).
Response to Comment H- 2: Comment noted. The Department appreciates this
additional information regarding the Rhinoceros Auklet. The project is not anticipated to
result in adverse impacts to the Auklet, as it does not propose any actions that would
directly result in take of the Auklet, or result in reductions in its habitat or forage base.
For this reason, no additional analysis of the Auklet is warranted.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
12/ 23/ 2006
1
MLPA Central Coast CEQA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Marine Region
20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, S
Monterey, California 93940
Regarding the Central Coast MLPA, Cambria SMR:
As an avid kayak fisherman who frequents the proposed Cambria SMR area
and I would like to relay the following observations.
From my conversations with both John Ugoretz and fellow fisherman who
frequent the Marine Terrace area of proposed Cambria SMR, there has
been little scientific support or reliable study of the actual usage by
fisherman or location of this site. When I originally contacted John he
commented that the local fishing practices that I had described to him was
“ contrary to what he had heard to date”. His descriptions regarding local
fishing practices were almost certainly taken from the limited point of view of
a person that uses the Leffingwell Landing area several miles to the north.
He was completely unaware of the actual fishing activities in the area or the
traditional boundaries of the fishing grounds themselves that the proposed
Cambria SMR was based on. In addition, I was told that the location of the
northern boundary was based solely on what seemed to be a good visible cue
for boaters and the comments of one man from a local fishing club. As a
boater who has frequented this area I can definitively say that this “ visible
cue” is pointless, and anyone familiar with the area knows this fact. Fog
regularly shrouds the shoreline when even a short distance offshore and the
basic concept of a visual cue in this area itself is somewhat senseless as the
northern line of the SMR juts out from a rugged coastline at an fairly oblique
angle.
12/ 23/ 2006
2
All of this points to a lack of scientific evidence or study and much of this
seems simply arbitrary. How could a reliable study be completely unaware of
the traditional fishing at the site in question? And how could a boundary
location be assigned that ignores the functionality of its intended purpose?
Why was the more near shore SMR option chosen when this option could only
target the relatively low impact kayak fisherman but have no effect on the
big party boats that are frequent in the deeper waters? There can be only
one reason; this was a political decision, not one based in science. And
definitely not a decision based on any familiarity of the location in question.
Another point regards the impact on fisheries on the now shrinking areas
available to fisherman. What are the impacts to the now more concentrated
fishing of the areas adjacent to these MPAs?
The Cambria SMR is a political chip in game that pits busy people like me
against well funded lobbyist that have but one political purpose. Please ask
questions regarding the scientific premise underlying this specific SMR. I
believe you will find as I have, this is a political move masquerading as
science.
Thank you for your time. You may reach me with any questions at
( 805) 440­8701
or info@ sandscapes. com.
Regards,
Greg Glenn
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 22
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Response to Letter I, from Greg Glenn
Response to Comment I- 1: Comment noted.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment I- 2: See Response to Comments F10 and F11.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
December 26, 2006
Mr. John Carlson, Executive Director
California Fish & Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Carlson, members of the Commission, and Department MLPA Staff:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the draft EIR and CEQA documents for
the Central Coast MLPA network. These comments and questions are focused on the
proposed designations within the Morro Bay State and National Estuary.
The preferred alternative would classify over 90% of the Morro Bay Estuary as the
Morro Bay State Marine Recreational Management Area ( SMRMA). The Morro Bay
National Estuary Program ( Estuary Program) has a number of serious concerns with
this proposed designation, and believes that a State Marine Conservation Area ( SMCA)
is a more appropriate designation for this nationally significant estuarine system. The
draft EIR and CEQA documents do not adequately address our concerns, nor do they
explain the underlying rationale for this unusual designation. Our comments and
specific questions follow.
A SMRMA is not a Marine Protected Area because it is not “ primarily intended to
protect or conserve marine life and habitat”. A SMRMA is a Marine Managed Area
focused on recreational uses. A SMRMA is therefore not primarily intended to protect
or conserve marine life and habitat; should not be considered as part of a network of
MPAs, and is not consistent with goals 1 through 4 of the Marine Life Protection
Program, each of which include clear language about creating a network of MPAs to
protect, sustain, and conserve marine resources.
The proposed SMRMA would place recreational uses as the primary and underlying
management priority for most of Morro Bay. The Morro Bay Estuary provides
tremendous recreational opportunities, but it is also widely recognized as
encompassing rare and important physical and biological marine resources that
warrant recognition and protection through the MLPA process. The significance of
these resources has been well documented and supported throughout this Central
Coast MLPA process, and is reflected in our status as a State and National Estuary.
Briefly, the Morro Bay Estuary hosts a diverse array of rare and productive habitats including
intertidal mudflats, eelgrass beds, and salt marshes; serves as a nursery and spawning ground
for diverse fish species, is habitat for endangered species including tidewater gobies, southern
steelhead trout, peregrine falcons, and the black rail among others, and is an important stop on
the Pacific Flyway recognized as an Important Bird Area because of the incredible diversity and
abundance of bird species found in and around the estuary. It is one of only two significant
estuaries in the Study Region.
In recognition of these significant resources, and the threats facing them, Morro Bay was
nominated by the Governor of California and accepted by the Administrator of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency as one of only 28 Estuaries in the National Estuary Program
( NEP). Through the Estuary Program, a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan to
protect and restore the resources of Morro Bay was developed with broad participation and
input from agencies and local stakeholders, including the Department of Fish and Game, and
the Morro Bay National Estuary Program is working actively to implement that plan.
Recreational resources are recognized as an important component of the estuary in this plan,
but Morro Bay warrants a designation that recognizes more than just the recreational value of
the estuary.
The draft CEQA/ EIR documents includes language suggesting the SMRMA designation would be
consistent with the longstanding waterfowl hunting activities that continue in portions of the
Estuary. There is no explanation of why waterfowl hunting, appropriately managed by the
Department, would conflict with an SMCA designation. It is not clear in the documents whether
waterfowl are ‘ marine resources’ under the purview of any MPA or MMA designation in the first
place. If they are, the SMCA designation clearly allows the Commission and Department
significant leeway to allow or restrict specific recreational and commercial uses, including
sustainable harvest of living marine resources. The determination of appropriate sustainable
waterfowl hunting regulations is already ongoing through a separate and well- established
process. A Morro Bay SMCA could and should simply allow waterfowl hunting as set through
that process.
The specific questions that we would like to see addressed in the final EIR/ CEQA include:
1. Given the significance and rarity of estuarine systems within the Central Coast Region,
and Morro Bay in particular, how is an SMRMA designation for Morro Bay consistent with
the Goals of the Central Coast MPA Project which include creating a network of Marine
Protected Areas and sustaining marine resources, when a Recreational Management
Area is by definition not an MPA, and its primary intent is not to protect or sustain
natural resources?
2. A Marine Recreational Management Area designation suggests that this area will be
managed to maximize one or more recreational activities. What activity or activities
does the Department intend the Morro Bay SMRMA to be primarily managed for, and
how is this consistent with the goals of the Project?
3. The draft documents imply that the SMRMA designation for Morro Bay is related to
waterfowl hunting. Please be more explicit about this rationale.
a. Are waterfowl a ‘ marine resource’ under the MLPA?
b. Would changing the designation to a SMCA, with all the same uses and
restrictions as currently proposed for the Morro Bay SMRMA, impact waterfowl
hunting at all?
c. Why is an SMRMA designation for this area of Morro Bay superior in any way to a
SMCA designation?
The Estuary Program looks forward to seeing these questions addressed in the final EIR and
CEQA documents.
In closing, we respectfully suggest that changing the proposed Morro Bay SMRMA to the
Morro Bay SMCA will:
• Resolve the significant problem that a SMRMA is not an MPA designation;
• Ensure that the Morro Bay designation is consistent with the MLPA goals to protect and
conserve marine resources;
• Provide broad leeway to manage sustainable commercial and recreational uses
including waterfowl hunting; and
• Recognize the significance of this rare estuarine environment and help protect and
conserve the incredible diversity and abundance of marine resources that depend on it.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments and response to our questions.
Sincerely,
Daniel Berman
Program Director
Morro Bay National Estuary Program
Cc: Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman
Director Ryan Broddrick
BRTF Chairman Phil Isenberg
DFG Policy Advisor John Ugoretz
Morro Bay National Estuary Program Executive Committee
Bay Foundation of Morro Bay
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 23
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Response to Letter J, from Morro Bay National Estuary Program
Response to Comment J- 1: The Department disagrees. The Marine Managed
Area Improvement Act ( MMAIA) definition of a marine managed area found in Public
Resources code states specifically " Marine managed area" ( MMA) is a named, discrete
geographic marine or estuarine area along the California coast designated by law or
administrative action, and intended to protect, conserve, or otherwise manage a variety
of resources and their uses." [ Emphasis added, PRC, 36602( d); see also FGC Section
2852( c)]. The definition of a state marine recreational management area is " a non-terrestrial
marine or estuarine area designated so the managing agency may provide,
limit, or restrict recreational opportunities to meet other than exclusively local needs
while preserving basic resource values for present and future generations." [ PRC
36700( e)]. Both of these definitions clearly show a primary intent of preserving marine
life and habitats, even though subsequent uses may vary. Further, the MMAIA is
expressly incorporated by reference into the Fish and Game Code, and contemplates
coordination with the MLPA ( FGC Sections 1591, 2854).
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment J- 2: The Department disagrees. The intent of the
proposed SMRMA is to provide additional protection for subtidal resources while
allowing for the continued take of waterfowl under existing regulations.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment J- 3: Comment noted.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment J- 4: The Department disagrees. The commenter
admits that it is unclear whether waterfowl are living ' marine resources'. If not, their take
would not be permissible in an MPA. Also, the specific issue of hunting waterfowl within
this area has been raised as a potential unintended restriction if an MPA classification is
used. Thus, the use of a SMRMA is more appropriate as it can specifically be
established by the Commission to allow hunting.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment J- 5: See Response to Comment J- 1 above. The
proposed regulations provide for a significant increase in protection within this important
ecosystem. Thus, the Morro Bay SMRMA helps achieve the MLPA Goals and central
coast objectives.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 24
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Response to Comment J- 6: See Response to Comment J- 1 above. The
primary intent of the area is to protect and conserve resources. This intent can be
fulfilled while still allowing the specific recreational activities of fishing for finfish in a
limited area and the hunting of waterfowl.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment J- 7: There is no definitive statutory guidance as to
whether all waterfowl are " marine resources" pursuant to the MLPA and the MLPA does
not provide a definition of " marine resources" or " living marine resources". The Marine
Life Management Act defines " marine living resources" as "... all wild mammals, birds,
reptiles, fish, and plants that normally occur in or associated with salt water..." ( FGC
Section 96). Thus, waterfowl that are normally associated with Morro Bay could be
considered marine resources. Changing the designation of the area to an SMCA in the
northern portion may not have an impact on waterfowl hunting. In the southern portion,
however, an SMCA designation would be inappropriate as the area is essentially no-take
and would have to be a state marine reserve. Since no take of living marine
resources is permitted within state marine reserves, hunting of waterfowl could be
prohibited. In order to simplify the regulations, having a single area which can very
specifically allow waterfowl hunting is more appropriate.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
1
Jeff Thomas
From: Melissa Miller- Henson [ melissa@ resources. ca. gov]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6: 32 AM
To: mlpa_ strgcmte@ resources. ca. gov; mlpacomments@ dfg. ca. gov
Subject: Fwd: MLPAComments: Central Coast MPA CEQA document
----- Original Message-----
From: owner- mlpacomments@ resources. ca. gov on behalf of Willow Heatherbrook
[ whippoorwhil_ whistle@ hotmail. com]
Sent: Wed 12/ 27/ 2006 3: 07 PM
To: mlpacomments@ resources. ca. gov
Cc: fgc@ fgc. ca. gov
Subject: MLPAComments: Central Coast MPA CEQA document
I have the following comments on the EIR:
Page 6- 24: It states-
If one assumes the same amount of fishing pressure in the project region before and after
an MPA is established, then the amount of fishing outside the MPA will increase in
proportion to the size of the MPA for the species restrictions applied to the MPA. That
is, the fishing that used to occur inside what is now an MPA will be distributed outside
the MPA in the remaining, non- protected area in proportion to the size of the MPA. This
can be simply calculated. If R is the fraction of area in MPAs within the study region,
then fishing intensity outside the MPAs will increase by a factor 1/( 1– R). For example, if
15% of the habitat is closed to fishing in MPAs, the intensity of fishing outside would
increase by 1/( 1– 0.15) = 1.18. That is, if the same number of users were fishing the same
numberof hours in the remaining 85% of the habitat, the fishing intensity would be 18%
higher than before. In this example, in the short term, displacement would increase
mortality rates outside the MPAs probably by 18%. However, if MPAs enhance populations
beyond their boundary through movement of adults or young, these increases could be offset
or eliminated by MPA benefits. The increased production within the MPA boundaries
necessary to counter the increased fishing intensity outside can be calculated as well.
The formula is
1+[ 1/( 1– R)]. For the example above, the result equals 2.18. This means
1+ that
production inside the boundary of the MPAs must increase by a factor of 2.18 to just
balance the added losses outside the MPAs. A higher level of production would be needed to
help rebuild depleted populations, one of the goals of the MPLA. The relative time for the
Proposed Project or alternatives to achieve the goals of the MLPA must also be considered
in the impact analysis.
Comment:
This section grossly underestimates the impacts of displaced fishing effort by use of this
very flawed assumption. This assumption used to address potential impacts is that all
habitats along the central coast is equal in its productivity and fishing popularity. The
arbitrary and erroneous assumption underestimates the significant impacts that will occur
when fishing effort is displaced from the prime habitats protected in the MPAs is pushed
into habitats of much lower productivity. This fishing effort will destroy the fish
populations in the open areas. The current analysis is flawed and the CEQA document must
use a more realistic analysis of the proposed project. Otherwise significant
environmental harm could result from the project outside the proposed MPAs
Page 6- 26: It states-
2
Data from existing reserves show that in spite of the increased fishing effort around
reserves, the abundance of targeted species is highest in reserves and declines in
proportion to distance from reserves. If the concentrated fishing effort around reserves
caused local declines, the abundance of targeted species would be high within and distant
from reserves but low at the edges of reserves. However, numerous reserves have been
studied worldwide and this pattern of decline has not been detected ( e. g., Roberts and
Hawkins 2000). Therefore, the positive effects of reserves on abundance appear to
counteract potential negative effects of displacement or concentration of fishing activity
around reserves.
Comment:
This section is conclusory without specific facts to support the assertions.
There is no mention or discussion of how relevant the findings in these
parts of the world are to the specific proposed project. The reader can’t
determine with any reasonable ability based on information provided that the
same benefits, and more importantly, what harm may be caused to the
surrounding areas with the adoption of the proposed project.
Page 6- 27: It states –
If concentrated fishing at the edges of MPAs reduces habitat quality, a
corresponding decrease in abundance and diversity of species adjacent to
MPAs would be expected. As indicated above, this trend is not observed at
the edges of reserves from previous studies worldwide, which consistently
support higher abundance and diversity of fishes and invertebrates than
other sites distant from reserves. No published data on existing MPAs have
shown negative environmental impacts. Therefore, displacement- related
impacts of the Proposed Project resulting in adverse impacts to marine
species populations and habitats would be less than significant.
Comment:
This section is conclusory without specific facts to support the assertions.
Just because there are no published data showing negative environmental
impacts of reserves does not by itself prove or make reasonable the
conclusion that there will be no displacement- related negative impacts.
Page 6- 30: It states –
As illustrated in Table 6.1- 3, the Proposed Project and alternatives provide
a
substantial resource protection in addition to that provided by the
groundfish closures. Alternative 2 has the highest total numbers of MPAs
with no overlapping regulatory protections, while the Proposed Project and
Alternative 1 both have slightly fewer MPAs with no overlap. Conversely, all
of the alternatives show some degree of overlap with the groundfish
closures, which serves to reduce some the potential negative impact to
fishermen from the implementation of the MPAs. Alternative 2 has the lowest
number of MPAs with a combined full or partial overlap. The Proposed Project
and Alternative 1 are fairly similar in their combined full and partial
overlap, but the Proposed Project would result in substantially more fully
overlapping MPAs.
Comment:
It is not clear how the fact that all of the alternatives showing some
degree of overlap with the groundfish closures will help reduce some of the
potential negative impacts to fishermen with implementation of MPAs. The
CEQA document must explain why this would reduce the potential negative
impacts.
3
Page 6- 31: It states:
Proposed Project: Beneficial Impact
There will be substantial biological resource benefits because of the
increased
habitat protection that would occur under the proposed MPA network
component. There also is likely enough area protected within proposed MPAs
to provide some benefits to some overfished rockfish populations that depend
on these habitat types for some part of their life history, and to prevent
further degradation of marine habitats that are vital to marine ecosystems
of the central California study region.
Comment:
This conclusion is not supported by the facts provided. No where is it made
clear what the risk to the habitat is relative to the nature of the proposed
MPAs and the proposed regulations. The document does not explain how
promulgating regulations that prevent hook and line halibut fishing protects
any habitat. Other than banning a few fishing methods such as bottom
trawling, which is already illegal in coastal waters, it is not at all clear
how any of the regulations will in any way protect habitat.
In fact, it is not clear how the proposed project in any meaningful way can
achieve Goal 4 as described on page 2- 2. The CEQA document must explain in
more detail how the proposed project is going to protect the identified
habitats and from what threats.
Page 8- 2: It states –
The Proposed Project would not have any direct growth- inducing impacts
because no development is proposed. It would not indirectly induce growth
because it proposes no extension of infrastructure or other environmental
modifications that could foster population or economic growth. The
protection of species and habitats proposed by the Proposed Project does not
enable or encourage development elsewhere.
Comment:
This is an unsubstantiated conclusion. It is not clear how this conclusion
is warranted without any analysis. It would seem reasonable from much of
the literature cited from other MPAs throughout the world that they tend to
attract more visitors than the area did before the establishment of the MPA.
If this phenomenon holds true for the proposed project, there could be
significant increases in visitors which could result in all kinds of growth
inducing impacts. The CEQA document must look at the transportation,
development, and air quality impacts that might result from the
establishment of the proposed MPAs. The analysis under section 8.4.5.2. Air
Quality completely ignores the potential increase in motor vehicle traffic
from people wanting to visit these MPAs. The CEQA analysis must evaluate
these impacts.
Willow Forest
Arcata, CA
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE Web site and company branded e- mail from Microsoft Office Live
http:// clk. atdmt. com/ MRT/ go/ mcrssaub0050001411mrt/ direct/ 01/
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 25
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Response to Letter K, from Willow Forest
Response to Comment K- 1: While the commenter is correct that displaced
fishing effort is unlikely to be uniformly distributed, the specific locations of displacement
are speculative. In contrast, the assumption used in the DEIR of uniform distribution is a
defensible methodology that is not arbitrary. It presents the average displacement
effect, and in fact makes the conservative assumption that fishing effort does not reduce
as a result of the project. As a result, the methodology used in the DEIR likely
overstates the extent of displacement. In addition, the commenter assumes that areas
outside MPAs are " habitats of much lower productivity" yet provides no evidence to
support the claim. To the contrary, the Proposed Project includes a small percentage of
most habitat types, and it is unlikely that all habitats within MPAs are presently highly
productive. Finally, existing data does not show that displaced fishing effort leads to
reductions in fish populations in non- designated areas. Refer to the discussion in Impact
BIO- 1 in the DEIR ( beginning on Page 6- 25). Potential impacts are considered less than
significant.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment K- 2: The DEIR uses the best readily available data in
evaluating the effects of displacement. No empirical evidence has been found to
suggest that displacement results in adverse impacts to marine species populations and
habitats, nor does the commenter provide any such evidence. See Master Response
2.0.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment K- 3: The impacts discussed by the commenter are
speculative and not supported by published data. CEQA requires that impact analysis
not be based on speculation, but rather on empirical evidence suggesting than an
impact is reasonably foreseeable. Because no such empirical evidence exists, the
conclusion of a less- than- significant impact is appropriate.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment K- 4: Potential impacts to fishing would be greatest in a
scenario where all of the MPA area was in locations where fishing is presently allowed
or unrestricted. By overlapping existing closure areas, the impacts of the project are
less than they would be under such a scenario.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment K- 5: As noted on page 2- 2 of the DEIR, the objectives
used to achieve the goal are to " represent" habitats within MPAs and to protect species
associated with those habitats. The Proposed Project achieves both of these objectives,
thus making progress to achieving the broader goal. While hook and line fishing may
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 26
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
not directly impact habitat, it does remove individuals of certain species from the
ecosystem, thus upsetting the overall balance and potentially leading to habitat changes
( Halpern, Cottenie and Broitman, 2006).
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment K- 6: The assertion that the designation of MPAs would
attract more visitors to the area is unsubstantiated. While the tourism and recreation
industry along the coast is anticipated to grow independent of MPA establishment,
attributing potential growth to the Proposed Project is speculative. Please refer to the
discussion in Impact PH- 1 in the DEIR ( beginning on page 7- 18). As such, an
evaluation of the effects on transportation, development and air quality of increased
visitation is not warranted.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
1
Jeff Thomas
From: Willow Heatherbrook [ whippoorwhil_ whistle@ hotmail. com]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8: 46 AM
To: mlpacomments@ dfg. ca. gov
Subject: Comments on Central Coast MPA CEQA document
I noticed that the ISOR for the regulations includes changes to MPAs outside the proposed
project as described in the CEQA document. I have grave concerns about harm to the ocean
in these areas to the north and south of the central coast MPAs. The CEQA document is
inaddequate and needs to be redrafted to include an appropriate analysis for the proposed
MPA changes outside the Central Coast Study Region. I believe it only fair that the
public have an understanding of the threats and what rules we could consider to protect
our ecosystems.
Willow Forest
Arcata, CA
_________________________________________________________________
From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes has it all.
http:// tv. msn. com/ tv/ globes2007/
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 27
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Response to Letter L, from Willow Forest
Response to Comment L- 1: Changes proposed in the ISOR to areas outside
the central coast are of a clarifying and editorial nature. They do not change the level of
protection or restrictions in MPAs outside the central coast. Please refer to the
discussion of cumulative impacts beginning on page 8- 2 of the DEIR, which includes
consideration of MPA designations outside the Central Coast Study Region.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
David W. Valentine, Ph. D.
7305 Monte Vista Avenue
La Jolla, CA 92037
( 858) 442- 6036 ( cell)
Dave_ valentine_ 92037@ yahoo. com
28 December 2006
Mr. John Ugoretz
Nearshore Ecosystem Coordinator
Department of Fish and game
20 Lower Regsdale Drive, Suite 100
Monterey, CA 93940
Subject: MLPA DRAFT EIR Comments
Gentlemen;
Few would argue about the laudable goals of the MLPA as expressed in Section
2853( b). However, it is the manner in which to best achieve conservation and
yet maintain a reasonable level of extractive use which is contentious. MLPA
supporters seem certain that zero extractive use is the appropriate means of
achieving these goals. Concerned citizens impacted by forced closures do not
share the same arrogance as those who elect to preserve for the sake of
preservation or who wish to have access to state and federal funds to “ study” the
problems ad nauseum.
Much has been made of the successes reported in MPA’s in Florida and
Australia but almost nothing of those in California. It should be recognized that
MPAs in these two regions are not similar to those in California. The basic
ecological structure of coral reef communities has little in common with kelp bed
communities. Comparing these as if they are is fallacious. Kelp communities are
far more resilient than coral communities.
The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary ( CINMS) has been in existence
over two decades. Yet the CINMS is not being used as the scientific centerpiece
for additional MPAs. This is a damaging comment on either the effectiveness of
sanctuary programs in general, this sanctuary in particular, or the manner in
which previous monitoring programs have been established and the data
analyzed. With 20 years worth of good data from 16 different sampling locations
at 5 Channel Islands one should be able to make definitive statements as to
what one might predict the effects of more MPAs to be. This was not done in the
Draft EIR. Only the most general statements were made none of which were
compelling or supported by “ scientific” findings. I personally find this very
disappointing.
To reach the above conclusions I reviewed more than just the draft EIP. I
reviewed the Master Plan Framework and the “ Draft Monitoring Evaluation and
Adaptive Management Framework ( Framework) and supporting documents
All the documents I have reviewed demonstrate a high level of editorial care but
lack scientific content. There are hints of science but these were likely included
after heated encounters between scientists and politicians who believe that the
only way to “ save” our seas is to close them to recreational and commercial
uses. This apparent dichotomy is perhaps best illustrated in the “ Channel
Islands Marine Protected Areas Monitoring Plan” document. There is a glimmer
of insight when one reads the section titled “ Sources of Uncertainty” but this is
soon shattered after reading the section on “ Effectiveness and Timeliness of
MPAs”.
The fact that extremely good editing camouflages sections of scientific insanity
leading to visions of grandeur are questioned. For instance, the “ Monitoring
Plan” is not a plan per se, but a discourse on MPA principles taken from other
MPAs around the world which have marginal applicability to California.
Conclusions are based on unverified, un- validated, non- sensitized computer
models which may be of questionable utility. The plans espoused will not gather
date on “ natural abundance”, or “ natural diversity”.
The subject of “ Benchmarks” is broached in the Framework, as is a gratuitous
reference to “ statistical significance”. The concept sounds wonderful to a
layperson but not to anyone with a smattering of statistics. A change of 20
percent can be noise level while 1% can be statistically significant
Let us start at ground “ zero”. Why do MLPA staffers believe a given area is over
stressed? Based on CF& G fishery statistics? Is the objective of the MLPA
movement to restore depleted fisheries or restore stressed ecosystems? Has
not the CF& G fulfilled fisheries objectives by setting bag, season, and size limits
on a species by species basis? Has not the CF& G demonstrated their ability to
effectively manage a fishery from over exploitation using standard fisheries
techniques? Coincidentally, this is also a criticism leveled by the Science and
Statistical Committee ( SSC) of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, who
noted that the MPA authors “ appear to ignore the trade- off between reserves and
traditional fisheries management” ( Final Environmental Document)
I like exercising more positive control over our marine resources but find it very
discouraging that closure is strongly favored over regulation. Good scientists
often err and tend to believe that “ correlation is causation”. It is not. Spuriously
correlating a decline in fisheries productivity with general ecosystem decline is
not good science. This, though, seems to be what the MPLA infers.
As far as I can determine no one has been able to document a biologically
significant impact of any of the Channel Islands MPA sites on “ biodiversity” or an
increase or decrease in “ important” ecological components using any rational
ecological measure. And this after twenty years of study. Given this it seems
prudent to put more effort into determining what documented “ facts” can be
supported with all of the data which have been gathered so far.
Let us manage our marine resources so that the greatest number of people can
garner the maximum benefit and yet assure that these resources will be available
to our descendants.
Yours truly,
<<< sent via email, no signature>>>
David W. Valentine, Ph. D.
Retired Marine Scientist
File: MLPA EIR COMMENTS
Documents Reviewed
AB 993 as filed on 10 October 1999
October 2002
Final 2002 Environmental Document, Marine Protected Areas in the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration’s Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary, Volume I.
February 2004
Channel Islands Marine Protected Areas, Monitoring Plan
10- 11 August 2005
MLPA Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group Draft Final Profile
August 15, 2005
Appendices to the Draft Master Plan Framework
August 22, 2005
Draft Master Plan Framework (“ redline” edition)
January 24, 2006 Draft
Initial Draft management Plan Framework
January 24, 2006
Draft Monitoring, Evaluation and Adaptive Management Framework
Undated
Channel Islands Monitoring Workshop, Participant Worksheet Results
California Department of Fish and Game Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project
2- 28
March 2007
J& S 06682.06
Response to Letter M, from David Valentine
Response to Comment M- 1: It is true that coral reef communities are different
than kelp beds. Scientific studies have shown, however, that the effects of MPAs are
actually more dramatic within temperate rocky reefs than in coral reef ecosystems.
Thus, while direct comparison may not be correct, potential for rehabilitation in
temperate reefs may actually be greater ( Gaines, et. al., 2003; Murray, et. al., 1999)
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment M- 2: The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
is not an MPA by the State of California definition. Only one small no- take area that was
previously designated is available to use for comparison, the Anacapa Island Natural
Area. Recently, 12 new MPAs were established within the Sanctuary, but they have
only been in existence since 2003. Data from the Natural Area were used in the
designation process and studies from this MPA area cited ( e. g., Ambrose, et. al., 1993;
Carrol, et. al., 2000)
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment M- 3: The Department disagrees. See various scientific
references throughout.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
Response to Comment M- 4: The Department disagrees. See response M- 2,
only the previously designated Anacapa Natural Area has been studied in excess of 20
years. This area has shown increases in abundance of species which play key roles in
kelp forest ecosystems, such as spiny lobsters.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
December 28, 2006
MLPA Central Coast CEQA
California Department of Fish & Game
20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 100
Monterey, CA 93940
To the California Department of Fish and Game:
On behalf of the Ocean Conservancy, the Natural Resources Defense Council ( NRDC), and The
Otter Project, and our more than 160,000 combined California members, we offer these
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( DEIR) for the California Marine Life
Protection Act Initiative Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project. Our organizations have
been involved with implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act ( MLPA) for many years,
and we support the Proposed Project because it will provide substantial benefits to the state of
California by protecting marine life and underwater habitats. We believe that the DEIR provides
a legally s