Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS21 - Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. S21 October 13, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Michelle Clemente, Marine Protection and Education Supervisor (949) 644 -3036 mclemente cCD.newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: Resolution 2009-_ Regarding the City of Newport Beach's Support of Specific Marine Protected Area Designations in the Marine Life Protection Act ISSUE: Should City Council adopt a Resolution stating the City's support of rocky intertidal habitat within the context of the State of California's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process? RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 2009 -_ relating to the protection of Rocky Intertidal habitat along the City's coastline via the designation of this habitat as a State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA). DISCUSSION: In the July 28, 2009 Study Session, Council was introduced to the Marine Life Protection Act of California (MLPA) via a PowerPoint that is attached to this Staff Report as Exhibit 4. Since that Study Session, the process has progressed, and on September 10, 2009 the Regional Stakeholder Group (RSG) concluded its meetings resulting in three Proposals (referred to here as maps) of the South Coast Region. The South Coast Region is currently in its final planning stages. The MLPA process' Blue Ribbon Task Force is expected to recommend a final proposal based on the three RSG Maps to the California Fish and Game Commission at an upcoming meeting planned for October 20 -22. Map by Map Comparison relating to Newport Beach: • About Map 1. This proposal, shown as Exhibit 1, includes the southern portion of Crystal Cove State Park from Reef Point to the Laguna Beach border (approximately 1 mile) in a 'no take' Marine Reserve that is above the minimum size guidelines, but MLPA Resolution October 13, 2009 below the preferred size that meets all science guidelines. This map also combines Robert E. Badham Marine State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) with the Crystal Cove SMCA and expands the boundary to approximately 1 mile offshore and to the western jetty of Newport Beach. It protects all intertidal species and sheephead. All other fishing is allowed including commercial urchin which is currently not allowed. The overall rationale for this design is to meet science and Department of Fish and Game (DFG) requirements and to maintain current protections. About Map #2. This proposal, shown as Exhibit 2, combines the Robert E. Badham SMCA with the Crystal Cove SMCA. It reduces the offshore extent of the Crystal Cove SMCA to approximately 0.5 miles offshore and extends the southern boundary to the south point of Emerald Cove in Laguna Beach. The boundaries do not meet DFG or State Park guidelines. All fishing activities are allowed including near shore trap fishing and take of Kellet's Welk from the intertidal area. The overall rationale for Map 2 is to reduce economic impacts. • About Map #3. This proposal, shown as Exhibit 3, combines Robert E. Badham SMCA with the Crystal Cove SMCA and expands the boundary to approximately 0.75 miles offshore and to the east jetty of Newport Harbor. Regulations for this proposal include: Commercial and recreational take of sheephead, rockfish, rays, sharks, marine plants and invertebrates prohibited except recreational take of lobster and urchin is allowed. Also, commercial take of lobster including incidental catch taken under the authority of a lobster permit and urchin is allowed. The take of species not mentioned above and allowed under general take regulations is allowed. However, when fishing from the east jetty of Newport Harbor, the take of all species is allowed under general take regulations. This map also features a Marine Reserve that includes all of Laguna Beach and meets DFG and State Parks design guidelines. The rational for this map is to meet science guidelines. Our Recommendation The City of Newport Beach has a history of active involvement and stewardship of our coastal heritage and natural resources. Ensuring areas are protected for future generations to experience and enjoy has always been a part of Newport Beach and is demonstrated in our commitment to the Robert E. Badham State Marine Conservation Area today. The Marine Protection and Education Office within the City's Harbor Resources Division works to protect habitat, maintain biological diversity and preserve natural areas for research, education and recreation as well as mitigate impacts of heavy human use. Similar efforts by California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) staff at Crystal Cove State Park within Newport Beach City limits, is included in the Resolution and supported by DPR. The rocky intertidal habitat is considered the rarest marine habitat in California, and Newport Beach demonstrates commitment to protecting this exceptional resource with programs that reach over 15,000 school age students annually. The City also works collaboratively with city, county, state, university and NGOs as a part of the Orange County Marine Protected Areas Council ( OCMPAC.) The OCMPAC Q, MLPA Resolution October 93, 2009 is dedicated to the implementation of education, enforcement and management programs within our local MPAs with the goal of being a model for rocky intertidal and marine conservation efforts. There is significant controversy over the impacts of the State's adoption of one of the three proposals. Habitat protection and other groups believe that Maps #1 and #3 are more appropriate, while sportfishing and other interests believe that Map #2 is best. This staff report does not ask the Council to pick one map to favor or oppose — doing so may matter little in the long run, because the State's process does not emphasize a locality's position over any other person or entity's position. Instead, the draft resolution asks that the City go on record supporting its past practice of protecting rocky intertidal areas. It can be argued that doing otherwise would negate the strong community investment in our marine protected areas that has been the City's hallmark for many years. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the proposed resolution that does not favor a specific map, but instead puts the City on record as supporting rocky intertidal zones along our coastline. Alternatives Staff recognizes that the proposed resolution, while reflective of the City's past protection of rocky intertidal areas, may go farther than some interests in the community, including the sportfishing interests, wish to go. Sportfishing interests believe that too many limits on take in these areas will harm them economically, and may not be substantiated by science (see Exhibit 5). The City Council will want to take their views into consideration while reviewing this item. Prepared by: Submitted by: MicheIIET Clemente Chris Miller Marine Protection and Education Supervisor Harbor Resources Manager Attachments: Resolution 2009- Exhibit 1: Proposed Map 1 Exhibit 2: Proposed Map 2 Exhibit 3: Proposed Map 3 Exhibit 4: MLPA Power Point Exhibit 5: Letter from Partnership for Sustainable Oceans 3 RESOLUTION 2009- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STATING THE CITY'S SUPPORT OF DESIGNATING THE ROCKY INTERTIDAL HABITAT OFF OF THE CITY'S LIMITS AS A STATE MARINE CONSERVATION AREA WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach supports the principles of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) and those principles' emphasis of thorough, science -based analysis the buttresses adaptive management of California's Marine Protected Areas (MPAs); and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that California's MPAs, including the Robert E Badham Marine Reserve (also known as the Robert E. Badham State Marine Conservation Area) and the Crystal Cove -Irvine Coast marine protected areas are special, distinct, and valuable ecosystems along California's coast, and have served a vital purposed to protect and conserve valuable natural marine resources; and WHEREAS, the City has supported the protection of MPAs via various actions, including the dedication of scarce resources via our Marine Life Refuge Protection Program (including its educational and enforcement approaches) and our participation in regional efforts to educate the region's visitors about MPAs and to protect MPAs from predation; now, therefore be it RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that: Given the City's long -time and strong support for our coast's MPAs, the City desires to maintain at minimum, these MPAs' current levels of resource protection pertaining to these MPAs' extraordinarily rare and valuable habitat known as "Rocky Intertidal" habitat; and 2. Given the City's support of the MLPA's principles of science -based analysis and adaptive management, the City also supports revisiting the relevance of MPAs every five years in order to asses and evaluate natural resource management in an adaptive manner: and 3. It hereby expresses the City's support for the designation of a continuous and consistent State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) from the east jetty of Newport Harbor to the southernmost boundary of the city's incorporated limits and extending up to 3.0 miles offshore with the following regulations, which shall include but not be limited to: The commercial or recreational take of sheephead, rockfish, rays, sharks, marine plants and invertebrates is prohibited except for the recreational take of lobster and urchin, which is allowed. The commercial take of lobster including incidental catch taken under the authority of a lobster permit and urchin is allowed. The take of species not mentioned above and allowed under General Take Regulations is allowed. When fishing from the east jetty of Newport Harbor, the take of all species is allowed under General Take Regulations. ADOPTED this 13'" Day of October, 2009. SIGNED: EDWARD D. SELICH Mayor of Newport Beach Leilani Brown City Clerk S MLPA Resolution October 13, 2009 Exhibit 1 Proposed Map 1 M SMR Sh toinut Kaahtayit9MP Foote Ane \Pe island j .Mm 8MR mlmaae Sans Clams S ml vMiry - Thmusand Oat Gi Yaueena o Los Angeles .Pamaw .OMx In .Millba .ynla Manna ' glewmd PolntD Point DUme1 film. ,Cmoea SMCA SMR rvarmosa seam ,gym l Yelm Vaen fnartr -.nee Palos VertleaL� i., such SMR � sama NM rvummgmn eeul lMne Mevlwrt ti _ 0eam -Pp-, ort ary Point Fermin BPlta Chico Newp SMCA (Blue Cavern SM[A '; (_ 9MCA Santa Barbara Wei _ SMR l l SMa 1Emara1d Bay Cryat°i SMCA �- SMC on, �Y _ a� Be,, SMR CN Ca9MCAr SMIR ranual .a.SMLA Point Fernarmrt „( SMCA. � Loveh Cava SMCA Gguna beam 'san Clemens San ve—d- eww :me aaamme Bed9ultoe Lagoon Gdabatl SMR Errol[. facard o ' San Clemente Island Dal Mar Sa^ DkguNO Lapoa^ Legend #9V' � Pending Military Closure 21 SMR�i0 SMR San Clemente lcl d pet Mx Loa PSrMaeupoa Wrap ® Pending Military Closure m V JoOeC a SMR PBntling Military Ll 1 q I 9kIR °V Famoaa Moult„ - Proposed State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) ` v Jona SwN SMR SMR�ytgV ° „Pix Proposed Slate Marine Park(SMP) California Marine Life SMCA 0 San Diego - Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative G can 9..a„ .Caonade Proposed Stale Marine Reserve (SMR = No Take) 9MR South Coast Study Region Boundary This map represents a Marine Protected Area (MPA) array cabdllo generated by a work group within the MLPA South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group. Work Group 1 was charged SMR. Imceml aeon s by the Blue Ribbon Task Force to continue to achieve a high level of cross- Interest support and Improve achievement of SAT _ For more detailed maps pluses visit guidelines. This MPA proposal is under review; It Is NOT a Tjuana River Mouth MerYn Morin e� recommendation to the California Fish and Game Commission. SMCA www marinemaD.ordmarinemaD Prolaelion Informal on: N 0 4.5 9 18 Miles Printing Date: 09/21/2009 1 I r 1 I I I oraoaW as1 —mlemn Name: on. 1983 California Teals Albers Created By'. Daumko omin Ars 11:1,400,D0G Datum: Nodh American 1983 Marine Map, GeMgraphic Division UCSB L Dawrouz Lsgoon 9k9 Carpin_teda Salt Marsh SMR vuavw U U'P . Naplep SMCA Nslo Goleta Slough 9MR SMR vemmis . Camn\ oinl M g Oir Hu. ne,ne mlmaae Sans Clams S ml vMiry - Thmusand Oat Gi Yaueena o Los Angeles .Pamaw .OMx In .Millba .ynla Manna ' glewmd PolntD Point DUme1 film. ,Cmoea SMCA SMR rvarmosa seam ,gym l Yelm Vaen fnartr -.nee Palos VertleaL� i., such SMR � sama NM rvummgmn eeul lMne Mevlwrt ti _ 0eam -Pp-, ort ary Point Fermin BPlta Chico Newp SMCA (Blue Cavern SM[A '; (_ 9MCA Santa Barbara Wei _ SMR l l SMa 1Emara1d Bay Cryat°i SMCA �- SMC on, �Y _ a� Be,, SMR CN Ca9MCAr SMIR ranual .a.SMLA Point Fernarmrt „( SMCA. � Loveh Cava SMCA Gguna beam 'san Clemens San ve—d- eww :me aaamme Bed9ultoe Lagoon Gdabatl SMR Errol[. facard o ' San Clemente Island Dal Mar Sa^ DkguNO Lapoa^ Legend #9V' � Pending Military Closure 21 SMR�i0 SMR San Clemente lcl d pet Mx Loa PSrMaeupoa Wrap ® Pending Military Closure m V JoOeC a SMR PBntling Military Ll 1 q I 9kIR °V Famoaa Moult„ - Proposed State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) ` v Jona SwN SMR SMR�ytgV ° „Pix Proposed Slate Marine Park(SMP) California Marine Life SMCA 0 San Diego - Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative G can 9..a„ .Caonade Proposed Stale Marine Reserve (SMR = No Take) 9MR South Coast Study Region Boundary This map represents a Marine Protected Area (MPA) array cabdllo generated by a work group within the MLPA South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group. Work Group 1 was charged SMR. Imceml aeon s by the Blue Ribbon Task Force to continue to achieve a high level of cross- Interest support and Improve achievement of SAT _ For more detailed maps pluses visit guidelines. This MPA proposal is under review; It Is NOT a Tjuana River Mouth MerYn Morin e� recommendation to the California Fish and Game Commission. SMCA www marinemaD.ordmarinemaD Prolaelion Informal on: N 0 4.5 9 18 Miles Printing Date: 09/21/2009 1 I r 1 I I I oraoaW as1 —mlemn Name: on. 1983 California Teals Albers Created By'. Daumko omin Ars 11:1,400,D0G Datum: Nodh American 1983 Marine Map, GeMgraphic Division UCSB L (Blue Cavern SM[A '; (_ 9MCA Santa Barbara Wei _ SMR l l SMa 1Emara1d Bay Cryat°i SMCA �- SMC on, �Y _ a� Be,, SMR CN Ca9MCAr SMIR ranual .a.SMLA Point Fernarmrt „( SMCA. � Loveh Cava SMCA Gguna beam 'san Clemens San ve—d- eww :me aaamme Bed9ultoe Lagoon Gdabatl SMR Errol[. facard o ' San Clemente Island Dal Mar Sa^ DkguNO Lapoa^ Legend #9V' � Pending Military Closure 21 SMR�i0 SMR San Clemente lcl d pet Mx Loa PSrMaeupoa Wrap ® Pending Military Closure m V JoOeC a SMR PBntling Military Ll 1 q I 9kIR °V Famoaa Moult„ - Proposed State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) ` v Jona SwN SMR SMR�ytgV ° „Pix Proposed Slate Marine Park(SMP) California Marine Life SMCA 0 San Diego - Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative G can 9..a„ .Caonade Proposed Stale Marine Reserve (SMR = No Take) 9MR South Coast Study Region Boundary This map represents a Marine Protected Area (MPA) array cabdllo generated by a work group within the MLPA South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group. Work Group 1 was charged SMR. Imceml aeon s by the Blue Ribbon Task Force to continue to achieve a high level of cross- Interest support and Improve achievement of SAT _ For more detailed maps pluses visit guidelines. This MPA proposal is under review; It Is NOT a Tjuana River Mouth MerYn Morin e� recommendation to the California Fish and Game Commission. SMCA www marinemaD.ordmarinemaD Prolaelion Informal on: N 0 4.5 9 18 Miles Printing Date: 09/21/2009 1 I r 1 I I I oraoaW as1 —mlemn Name: on. 1983 California Teals Albers Created By'. Daumko omin Ars 11:1,400,D0G Datum: Nodh American 1983 Marine Map, GeMgraphic Division UCSB L L ©" a mesa o I 0 Mission Viejo Upper Newport Bay Rat SMCA D Laguna Niguel 1`4 Santa Margarita D na Point San Clemente 0 Iceanside + A California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Round 3 South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group MPA Proposal 1 Legend ® Pope, Military (thrum - Proposed Stete Menu, ConserveGpn Art. (SMCA) Proposed Seta Manes Park (SMP) _ Proposed State Manes Reserve (SMR= No Take) South Coast Study notion Boundary This map represent. a Marine Protected Area (MPA) array generated by a work group within the MLPA SoutM1 Coast Regional StakehoMer Group. Work Group 1 was charged by the Blue Ribbon Task Force to continue to achieve a high level of cross - interest support and Improve so Westmont of SAT guidelines. This MPA proposal Is under review; It Is NOT a recommendation to me California Fish and Game Commission. mori a 4.rnQp For more delynded maps please visit: Wwvv mannemaD orelmarinemaD Prolect'on Information: N aw„ Printing Date: 0921/2009 Name', NAD 1983 Cedif ers. Teale Albers Prolectlon: Albers ^ 1:350,000 c,adl,wlaa n "..I " """ °' Created By. ,\ Marine Nap, Cartographic Division UC50 DaWm: North American 1983 ,V MLPA Resolution October 13, 2009 Exhibit 2 Proposed Map 2 rd SMCA .c«.mm: Lover's Cove Goleta Slough SMCA r+,l•>aa SMR Legend ,r/ Del Mar `"° "'° ® Pending Military Closure Sam. earm<a (� //y, �� SMR "w` %gh Dieguito Lagoon San Clemente Island San Clemente Island ' use Mame SMR -Santa Clanu -Proposed Slate Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) Pending Military Closures 1 Point Conception La Jolla •\ SMR SMR Campus Point - Proposed Slate Manna Reserve (SMR = No Take) Ocean Beach Pier • h Famosa Slough SMR California Marine Life SMCA SMR - Proposed Mannaed Recreatenal Management Area (SMRMA) Protection Act(MLPA) Initiative Scorpion, vemuo 11 -vane, South St South Coast Study Raged Boundary Richardson Rock Harris Point Carrington Point SMR Sunset CIIHS .cwon,eo Freeway System (Stale) SMR SMR SMR SMR k puma a work group within hin she M oast byeworkgroupwithin Coast Painted Cava Anac Island .mo„aam tia 'ammm, mm�.,,a Cabrillo - SMCA SMR non nu.neme SMR SMR Imemial w� �—a�— des achievement of SAT guidelines. T g ideli s. of MPA design and Improve acM1lee; 40 Los Angeles fOGPIl10 rT1eP FGr mnnadetailedmapspleaserra It 1. This MPA Proposal lliundermelees;s Isnd la-- www.marinemaD.org /rnarinemaD recommendation to iM1e California FlaM1 and Game Commission. Game t Projection Information: ^ Point Mugu N 0 4 8 16 Miles Printing Date: 09/2112009 Judith Rock Name: NAD 1983 Calimrma Teals Albers l , , SMRMA SMR 1'.1,400,000 Cuaded. sme lnii Point ar.<n +mlanon .con,,,, Datum. Nonn Amencan 1983 SMCA ar rma v Monae, South Point Skuuk Point Gulllsland Footprint Anaeapalsland Point Vicente plus vaas toms SMR SMR SMR SMR SMCA SMR 'to,ie seam �,.. o�. i mi�m.ar am nsi iLaguna Northl Santa Barbara Island Abalone Cove Bolsa Chico SMCA I SMR Bird Rock SMCA SMCA tayuna x.,a<n SMCA Beg. Rock Upper Newport Bay SMR , SMCA 1-a.menm � Farnsworth I Blue Cavern Laguna SMCA SMR Casino Point SMR SMR Laguna South SMCA .c«.mm: Lover's Cove SMCA r+,l•>aa Er<miaiau Legend ,r/ Del Mar `"° "'° ® Pending Military Closure (� //y, �� SMR "w` %gh Dieguito Lagoon San Clemente Island San Clemente Island Wall Ma. SMR -Proposed Slate Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) Pending Military Closures 1 Pending Military Closures 2 t La Jolla •\ SMR - Proposed Slate Manna Reserve (SMR = No Take) Ocean Beach Pier • h Famosa Slough California Marine Life SMCA SMR - Proposed Mannaed Recreatenal Management Area (SMRMA) Protection Act(MLPA) Initiative ®San Diego South St South Coast Study Raged Boundary Sunset CIIHS .cwon,eo Freeway System (Stale) This mop ny a Won. Area (MPA) SMR k a work group within hin she M oast byeworkgroupwithin Coast Regional Regina) Group. Work Group2waschargetl Group 2 was c Cabrillo - e by the Blue Ribbon Task Force continue to a SMR Imemial w� �—a�— des achievement of SAT guidelines. T g ideli s. of MPA design and Improve acM1lee; fOGPIl10 rT1eP FGr mnnadetailedmapspleaserra It 1. This MPA Proposal lliundermelees;s Isnd la-- www.marinemaD.org /rnarinemaD recommendation to iM1e California FlaM1 and Game Commission. Game Projection Information: N 0 4 8 16 Miles Printing Date: 09/2112009 Name: NAD 1983 Calimrma Teals Albers l , , , I , , , I Projecliort Albers 1'.1,400,000 Cuaded. sme lnii Created By Datum. Nonn Amencan 1983 Marine Map. Cartographic Division UC58 r Upper Newport Bay O Mesa " I SMCA 1ei0 rinU _ st Rancho Santa Margarita i Laguna Hills J 7s Allso Vicio Laguna Niguel !.t Dana Point _ r 0 San Clcrrtanfe O t Laguna . r SMR ,r t Laguna South SMCA Oceanside .Q L : . , ; -i J T California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Round 3 South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group MPA Proposal 2 Legend ®Pending Military Closure - Pmposetl slate warms Conscri Ama ISi - Proposed Sete Manna Reserve (STAR - No Take) - Proposed Stele Marire Recrealgnel Menegemenl Area (SMRMA) Sautn Cont Study Region llr Mri This map represents a Marine Protected Area (MPA) array generated by a work group within the MLPA South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group. Work Group 2 was charged by the Blue Ribbon Task Force to continue to seek efficiency or MPA design and improve a chlevement of 54T guidelines. This MPA proposal Is under review; it is NOT a recommendation to the California Fish and Game Commission. movi a mop For more detailed maps please visit: www.marinemap.org/marineMa Proiectfon information: N err. printing Dale: 09121 /2009 Name: NAD 1983 California Teals Nbers By Projection Albers 1:350;00 Gratlmwas tmin mlenau Marne M." Cartographic Division UCSB Datum. North Amencan 1983 MLPA Resolution October 13, 2009 Exhibit 3 Proposed Map 3 )QL 1 MLPA South Coast Study Region: Round 3 - South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group MPA Proposal 3 am�[ Yxlmaaa. Point Conception) UCSB (Goleta Slough) SMR SMR SMR _ serve souse .am sm. Cull. . ea°ie1a - Naples Ilik _ Nlshopano SCA M SMR -- -- J Painted Cave •venmra son Wllry Richard nosRlchard nos Rockl fWrda Point Carrington Point SMCA SMR SMR SMR ,Scorpion -temea mr,,, :a„a Doss euma„k -.. . nraaem SMR wn nvaram: MUBu Lagoon 4, Los Angeles SMRMA sao azmarel,m We :.� M omarn I^dr"eea - xnersme Judith Rock IAnaeapa Island SMR Si FOOtprtnt� Lachusa Point Dame SMR - Nmnase Wca .1i,e - .ee,ow SMR Anacapalel and , SMCA Mahem South Point Skuk n Point Gull island', SMCA vdos vanes ssvm 'on ^ee SMR SMR SMR Palos Verdes meeeeam l SMRsw.er,a }I - numeeme e..m Imae. nnm n - wm rlUpper Newport Bay ) Bolsa Chka, SMR SMR J North Cologne'1 _ _ _ lasurr. 11-re _ Santa Barbara island) Bill L ( Blue Cavern ))(Newport CO.M., Laguna Beach) l SMR _ °. SMR SMCA SMR .enCini,- sell [Dema Point es% Long Point SMCA .M" SMR /! ///f (Farnsworth _ shall San Nicolas _ 'Y� SMR --- Alpha Area Military Closure e"I"ROS Lagoon J SMR can :wa e.rw,arao San Clemente Island - Pending Military Closure 21 Swamps` frurk. � San Eliljo Lagoon SMCA . SMR Legend San Clemente Island ® Pending Military Closure Pending Military Closure l _ aI M +' � San Dleguilo Lagoon ) SMR San Diego-Scripps Coastal - Proposed State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) SMCA - Nstlahuayl _ AL I SMR - Proposed Slate Marine Reserve (SMR =No Take) California Marine Life _ South La Jolla Retire Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative all O San Diego - Proposed Slate Manna Recreational Management Area (SMRMA) Cm-de CaSMRRO South Cowl Study Region Boundary This map represents a Marine Protected Area (MPA) array r` generated by a work group within the MLPA South Coast - Regional stakeholder Group. Work Group 3 was charged Impena� by the Blue Ribbon Task Force to continue to address SAT _ TIfYa118 RIVBr Netrth Y guidelines and strive to achieve preferred SAT guidelines. SMCA For more detailed maps please vlsl l'. TOPID TAP This MPA proposal is under review; n is NOT a _ _ _ ktw6co WWWmarinemap.Orq / mariin-, recommendation to iM1a California Fish antl Game Commission. Prolsctlon Information: N o 5 t0 20 Miles Printing Date: 0911 812009 Name: NAG 1983 California Teale Albers . I r r r I ,N\ r Gmam„ree 6min Irv, -Is Created By: Pro)eceom Albers 1:1.400,000 obtain North American 1983 Marine Map, Cartographic Division UCSB �.a Mesa a I c c Upper Newport Bay SMR ancho Santa Margarita 14 0 Viejo Aliso Vejo Newport Coast SMCA Laguna Beach SMR o L = :guna Niguel 14 Dena Point 0- San Clemente Q Dana Point SMCA Oceanside L n California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Round 3 South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group MPA Proposal 3 Legend Pending Military Closure - Pr000sed Scale Manna Conservation Area (SMCA) - Pmpaard Slate Marne Reserve (SMR = No Tand) - Proposed Stag Manna Renealidnal Management Nee (SMRMA) Soum Coast study Regan Boundary This map represents a Marine Protected Area (MPA) array generated by a work group within the MLPA south Coast Regional Stakeholder Group. Work Group 3 was charged by the Blue Ribbon Task Force to canon us to address SAT guidelines and strive to achieve preferred SAT guidelines. This MPA proposal Is under malew; It Is NOT a recommendation to the California Fish and Game Commission. morlri mop } For more detailed maps please visit: www. rnari nelnaD.oralrnarinGirl ProleQion Information: N Printing Date: 09121!2009 Name. NAD 1983 California Teals Albers n ' Projection: Albers (\ 1:350,000 r r Created By: Datum: North American 1963 /V °' `° ` "` Marina Map, Cartographic Division UCSB MLPA Resolution October 13, 2009 Exhibit 4 About the MLPA Marine Life Protection Act Power Point ,5 Nt1NIF 1 11.1111111 -11s What We'll Cover @ What is the MLPA? • Quick Glossary of Terms • Legislative intent and problem MLPA attempts to address • MLPA Initiative • Adopted Process • Advisory Bodies • What are the MPA Proposals for the South Coast Region? • Summary of the Six MPA Proposals • Where are we in the process? • Going Forward • When /If the City should weigh in, in what format. • What agencies have weighed in to date. •, How to get more information. I, Quick Glossary of Terms * MLPA = Marine Life Protection Act. • The legislation in 1999 (AB 993, Shelly) that set the MLPA Initiative going. MLPA Initiative • The "public- private" process by which DFG and others are implementing the MLPA. MPA = Marine Protected Areas BRTF = Blue- Ribbon Task Force • Seven (7) members, a statewide group RSG = Regional Stakeholder Group • Sixty -four (64) members, a South Coast Region - specific group • Divided into "Gem" Work Groups— Lapis, Opal, Topaz * SAT = Science Advisory Team • Twenty members (20), a South Coast Region- specific group SIG —Statewide Interests Group • Sixteen members, a statewide group iIV- Improving CA's System of Marine Managed Areas (January 2000) In 1997 the California Resources Agency said that: California's array of ocean and coastal managed area designations (such as Reserves, State Reserves, Refuges, State Parks, and Natural Reserves) is complex and often confusing; and The M marine /estuarine and 6 terrestrial classifications and sub - classifications ... have evolved over the last 50 years on a case -by -case basis through legislative and administrative actions and by public referendum. I's What is the MLPA? The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) of 1999 (AB 993, Shelly) directs a redesign of California's system of marine protected areas (MPAs) to function as a network. Six Goals of the MLPA are: • Protect the natural diversity and abundance of marine life, and the structure, function and integrity of marine ecosystems. • Help sustain, conserve and protect marine life populations, including those of economic value, and rebuild those that are depleted. • Improve recreational, educational and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems that are subject to minimal human disturbance, and to manage these uses in a manner consistent with protecting biodiversity. • Protect marine natural heritage, including protection of representative and unique marine life habitats in CA waters for their intrinsic values. • Ensure California's MPAs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures and adequate enforcement and are based on sound scientific guidelines. • Ensure the State's MPAs are designed and managed, to the extent possible, as a network. V What is the IVILPA Initiative? A public- private process established by DF&G (in cooperation with others at the CA Resources Agency) to implement the MLPA. Attempts to "best readily" use available science via the advice and assistance of: • Scientists • Resource managers • Stakeholders • Members of the public. I What is the MLPA Initiative.? Funding. Over the last seven years, about $18 million has gone into funding the MLPA Initiative. Funding comes from these sources: • State Budget ($4.8 million in FY og -io for MLPA Planning). • Resources Legacy Fund Foundation - a Foundation that distributes funds from these five foundations to the MLPA Initiative: • Annenberg (www annenbergfoundation.org) • Campbell (www campbellfoundation.org) • Marisla (no website - located at 105 Crescent Bay in Laguna Beach) • Moore (www moore.org) • Packard (wwwpackard.org) • RLFF's web page notes its concern about "unsustainable fishing practices... • There is no source yet identified for implementation and enforcement of the MPAs that result from the MLPA Initiative (fishing interests say that enforcement will be "$35 -6o million annually "). Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) ® What are MPAs? • MPAs are separate geographic marine or estuarine areas designated to protect or conserve marine life and habitat. • The three recognized types of MPAs are: • State Marine Park (SMP); • State Marine Reserve (SMR); and • State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA). 19 State Marine Park (SMP) The "Some Take" MPA. An SMP is a marine or estuarine area that is designated for "spiritual, scientific, educational, and recreational opportunities," as well as one or more of the following goals - to: • Protect or restore outstanding, representative or imperiled marine species, communities, habitats and ecosystems; • Contribute to the understanding and management of marine resources and ecosystems by providing the opportunity for scientific research in outstan ding, representative or imperiled marine habitats or ecosystems; • Preserve cultural objects of historical, archaeological and scientific interest in marine areas; or to • Preserve outstanding or unique geological features. IJPV nR 1i 1 ImI State Marine Park (SMP) Restrictions /Allowable Uses: • Restrictions (367io(b) PRCJ: it is unlawful to injure, damage, take or possess any living or nonliving marine resources for commercial exploitation purposes. Any human use that would compromise protection of the species of interest, natural community or habitat, or geological, cultural or recreational features, may be restricted by the designating entity or managing agency. • Allowable uses f367io(b) PRCJ: all other uses are allowed, including scientific collection with a permit, research, monitoring and public recreation (including recreational harvest, unless otherwise restricted). Public use, enjoyment and education are encouraged, in a manner consistent with protecting resource values. P- State Marine Reserve (SMR) The "No- Take" MPA. An SMR is an area designated to achieve one or more of the following goals - to: • Protect or restore rare, threatened or endangered native plants, animals or habitats in marine areas; • Protect or restore outstanding, representative or imperiled marine species, communities, habitats and ecosystems; • Protect or restore diverse marine gene pools; or • Contribute to the understanding and management of marine resources and ecosystems by providing the opportunity for scientific research in outstanding, representative or imperiled marine habitats or ecosystems. i. State Marine Reserve (SMR) 9 Restrictions /Allowable Uses: • Restrictions j367io(a) PRCJ: it is unlawful to injure, damage, take or possess any living, geological or cultural marine resource, except under a permit or specific authorization from the managing agency for research, restoration or monitoring purposes. While, to the extent feasible, the area shall be open to the public for managed enjoyment and study, the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state. Therefore, access and use (such as walking, swimming, boating and diving) may be restricted to protect marine resources. • Allowable uses (367io(a) PRQ: research, restoration and monitoring may be permitted by the managing agency. Educational activities and other forms of non - consumptive human use may be permitted by the designating entity or managing agency in a manner consistent with the protection of all marine resources. State Marine Reserve -- Example State Marine Reserve • Example: • Heisler Park SMR, Laguna Beach, CA • Prohibited Take: • Commercial and Recreational: All • Allowed Take: • Commercial and Recreational: None 3 34 t State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) The "Tailored" MPA. An SMCA is an area designed to achieve one or more of the following goals - to: • Protect or restore rare, threatened or endangered native plants, animals or habitats in marine areas; • Protect or restore outstanding, representative or imperiled marine species, communities, habitats and ecosystems; • Protect or restore diverse marine gene pools; • Contribute to the understanding and management of marine resources and ecosystems by providing the opportunity for scientific research in outstanding, representative or imperiled marine habitats or ecosystems; • Preserve outstanding or unique geological features; or Provide for sustainable living marine resource harvest. CA State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) Restrictions /Allowable Uses: • Restrictions (367io(c) PRCI: it is unlawful to injure, damage, take or posses any specified living, geological or cultural marine resources for certain commercial, recreational, or a combination of commercial and recreational purposes. In general, any commercial and /or recreational uses that would compromise protection of the species of interest, natural community, habitat or geological features may be restricted by the designating entity or managing agency. • Allowable uses (367io(c) PRCI: research, education and recreational activities, and certain commercial and recreational harvest of marine resources may be permitted. W State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) State Marine Conservation Area: • Badham SMCA • Prohibited Take, Commercial and Recreational: • All marine aquatic plants; • All invertebrates EXCEPT lobster; • All fishes EXCEPT rockfish (family Scorpaenidae), greenling, lingcod, cabezon, yellowtail, mackerel, bluefin tuna, kelp bass, spotted sand bass, barred sand bass, sargo, croaker, queenfish, . California corbina, white seabass, opaleye, halfmoon, surfperch (family Embiotocidae), blacksmith, Pacific barracuda, California sheephead, Pacific bonito, California halibut, sole, turbot and sanddab • Allowed Take (Commercial and Recreational): 9 Lobster, rockfish, greenling, etc... W The Five Study Regions North Coast (California /Oregon border to Alder Creek near Point Arena) ® North Central Coast (Alder Creek near Point Arena to Pigeon Point) • Central Coast (Pigeon Point to Point Conception) • South Coast (Point Conception to the California /Mexico border) • San Francisco Bay (waters within San Francisco Bay, from the Golden Gate Bridge northeast to Carquinez Bridge) W IVILPA Initiative Process Development of Multiple MPA Proposals by the Regional Stakeholder Group (RSG). RSG divided themselves into Work Groups (the "Gem" Groups). 2. Initial Review /Comments on the Multiple MPA Proposals by Science Advisory Team, DFG and MLPA Initiative staff, the public, and the Blue ,Ribbon Task Force (BRTF). 3. Revision /Refinement of MPA Proposals - narrow to 6, then to 3 MPA Proposals by RSG, with input from the above reviewers. 4. Review of the RSG's 3 MPA Proposals by BRTF. BRTF makes a recommendation of one MPA concept (could be an amalgamation of the three) to the CA F &G Commission 5. Adoption of an MPA Concept by the California Fish and Game Commission. [a / E Q Key Individuals — RSG On the Regional Stakeholders Group: • Calla Allison, Marine Protection Officer, City of Laguna Beach (alternate for Ken Kearsley) • Jim Dahl, Council Member, City of San Clemente (alternate for Leslie Daigle) • Leslie Daigle, Council Member, City of Newport Beach and Regional Council Member, Southern California Association of Governments • Mary Jane Forster- Foley, President, MJF Consulting Inc. (alternate for David Weeshoff) • Ray Hiemstra, Associate Director, Orange County Coastkeeper (alternate for Kate .Hanley) • Ken Kearsley, former Mayor, City of Malibu • Merit McCrea, Captain, Condor Cruises and Research Technician, Marine Science Institute (alternate for Norris Tapp) • Bob Osborn, Member, United Anglers of Southern California (alternate for Wendy Tochihara) • Sarah (Abramson) Sikich, Coastal Resources Director, Heal the Bay • Bruce Steele, Captain, F/V Halcyon • Norris Tapp, Captain, F/V Freelance Key Individuals —SAT and BRTF e On the Science Advisory Team • Dr. Steven Murray, California State University, Fullerton • Dr. Stephen Stohs, NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center • Dr. Stephen Weisberg, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) e On the Blue - Ribbon Task Force (BRTF): • Don Benninghoven, former ED of the League of California Cities • Meg Caldwell, Stanford University • Susan Golding, former Mayor of San Diego • Dr. Jane Pisano, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Schedule —South Coast Region RSG Last Meeting (May 21, 2009, Santa Ana) • Goal= Round #2 Review, narrow down to 6 MPA Proposals for Round #3 Review. • Heard about and took straw votes on 7 proposals: • Lapis work group's proposals #i and #2 • Topaz work group (one) • Opal work group (one) • "External" Proposals A, B, C ( "C "was ruled out) ® Upcoming Meeting (Aug 3 -4, 2009, Carlsbad) • Goal = Narrow down to 6 MPA Proposals for Round #3 Review, eventually narrow to 3 MPA Proposals to submit to BRTF. • Discuss /approve process for Round #3 Evaluations. • Next meeting = September 9 -10 (Location TBD) to begin Round #3 Evaluations. May take multiple meetings. * RSG's timing goal= forward 3 MPA proposals to BRTF in September 2009 . • BRTF to present its South Coast Region recommendations to F &G Commission in December 2009. 0 Ed . Central and Southern Orange County r LAPIS #1— RSG Work Group DRAFTED AND SUBMITTED BY X, W STAKEHOLDERS GROUP LAPIS #2 — RSG Work Group DRAFTED AND SUBMITTED BY REGIONAL STAKEHOLDERS GROUP - Maintains Upper Newport Bay as is. Maintains Crystal Cove conservation area, and prohibits all commercial fishing there except for lobster and urchin„ and prohibits some recreational fishing as well. +Expands Heisler reserve from Emerald Bay to Bluebird Canyon and three miles offshore. • Keeps existing conservation area roughly the same in mid Laguna, prohibiting commercial take accept lobster and urchin. -Significantly expands the existing conservation area in south Laguna, prohibiting all commercial fishing except lobster, urchin and pelagic finfish, and all recreational fishing. except pelagic finfish. • Creates Dana Point reserve — no take area. - Maintains existing Qoheay conservation area. OPAL - RSG Work Group DRAFTED AND SUBMITTED BY OPAL GEM GROUP, REGIONAL STAKEHOLDERS GROUP A f t fttf. interfidal areas. Prohibits recre+.it t except for lobster and crab . Simplifies boundaries with s1 1 Prohibits ct' of crab, lobster, and kelp, but 1 ws commercial take 1 other species. Expands I Bay to Mountain Yt.t and out offshore. three miles Conservation t Laguna f Dana Point Prohibits Aonal fishing except lobster and pelagic TOPAZ - RSG Workgroup -Maintains Upper Newport Bay as is. *Slightly increases protections at Crystal Cove conservation area, prohibit- ing commercial fishing except for urchin, halibut, and aEgae. Several t ies `:.a 3 SHIP of recreational take are permitted. ,.Y,... a� CS + "J '''� •�'stB seam ,;, ,., • Expands the Heisler reserve from Crystal Cove in the north to south of TmArch Montage resort. Maintains existing conservation area at Doheny, but reduces recreational u..., , N. fishing to shore tiring only. t vr'; ♦?Wile Reh+t 411 Ai, !t t its' { +iha J F 2an�opnw ':. 13 i DRAFTED AND SUBMrrTED BYR£GIONAL STAKEHOLDERS GROUP T_ I EXTERNAL 414 A 11 — Fisheries Info Committee 19 2-F-11 IN 15D*Iko -increase Upper Newport Bay's protection, prohibiting all fishing except Upper Newportsby, shore-based, hook and line fishing. SMCA -low. Prohib- increases protections at Crystal Cove from low to moderate its recreational fishing except for lobster and crab. Simplified boundaries. Stops commercial take of crab, lobster, urchin, Wp, but allows commercial take of ail other species *Expands Heisler reserve from Crescent Bay to Arch Cove, and three miles staf Cox Laguna Coas t offshore, SMCA • Makes Dana Point conservation area slightly shorter along coast, but sligmy farther 0A Laguna " Decreases the seaward extent of Doheny cons Ova t bn area. -Consolidates several contiguous conservation areas under one name. Daheny Beach $MCA DRAFTED AND SUBMITTED BY FISHERIES FOR FISHERIES INFORMATION NETWORK EXTERNAL "B" — United Anglers DRAFTED AND SUBMITTED BY BY UNITED ANGLERS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1 -C-1 tMainta'Ms Upper NmpM 4r f e d- e all other protected areas except a e a e- e which would and roughly r• Municipal Input A Municipal Input Other jurisdictions' positions regarding the six "arrays" (or offering their own concept) • City of Dana Point has not acted yet, but is involved in the process. "Will eventually take a position ... supportive of a compromise acceptable to all parties, if possible..." • City of Huntington Beach has not acted (and is not significantly impacted - Bolsa Chica is kept an SMP in all arrays). • City of Laguna Beach (4 -1) City Council supports a no -take MPA (an SMR) off of all of the Laguna Beach coastline to 3 miles out. • City of San Clemente - not significantly impacted. • City of Seal Beach - not significantly impacted. Schedule —South Coast Region RSG * Last Meeting (May 21, 2009, Santa Ana) • Goal = Round #2 Review, narrow down to 6 MPA Proposals for Round #3 Review. • Heard about and took straw votes on 7 proposals: • Lapis work group's proposals #1 and #2 • Topaz work group (one) • Opal work group (one) • "External" Proposals A, B, C ( "C "was ruled out) * Upcoming Meeting (Aug 3 -4, 2009, Carlsbad) • Goal = Narrow down to 6 MPA Proposals for Round #3 Review, eventually narrow to 3 MPA Proposals to submit to BRTF. • Discuss /approve process for Round #3 Evaluations. • Next meeting = September 9 -io (Location TBD) to begin Round #3 Evaluations. May take multiple meetings. • RSG's timing goal = forward 3 MPA proposals to BRTF in September 2009 . • BRTF to present its South Coast Region recommendations to CA F &G Commission in December 2009. Ip Council Direction — What's Next? @ City could: • Weigh in on a preferred MPA proposal between now and Sept -Oct. Public meeting - invite key stakeholders: 9 OC CoastKeeper, State Parks (for CCSP) • Sportfishing interests that use LNB as a starting point • Other advocacy groups • Take a position specific to UNB, CCSP, and the Badham Reserve area. • Take no position. P For More Information e DFG's MLPA Home Page: , 1-1. 1..' - 'T i - j k.A. in-i City Staff Contacts: • Michelle Clemente, Marine Life Refuge Supervisor t (► io C,�I Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Newport Beach City Council Tuesday, October 13, 2009 Regular Meeting The Issue Should City Council adopt a Resolution stating the City's support of rocky intertidal habitat within the context of the State of California's Marine Life Protection Act process? Staff Recommendation Council adopt a Resolution relating to the protection of rocky intertidal habitat within the City's incorporated limits via the designation of this habitat as a State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA). Prong �PVa NrwPOn ear SMCA - , x1l craw rmr uI croulco" FmMcean Atllll114 -1 mmw SMCA Rand 7 South coat R Sai*kW&90 WAPMPOW I SUR u i —J !, Dana Point, r+ SMCA lop } UKO-1006 sssssss`_� S", Cast 5k" i ' Sts"th"' Group MPA PIOPOWI 2 Pro na Upper Mawport ear sMA RaM�ae�An 11►Da)MiWn %wow 3 Newport Coast _, ne ^'t SaaN� SMCA 1 W aW Laguna Beach SMR Dana point SMCA V kea �Y ^•s�tle Where are we... The South Coast Study Region is currently in the final stages of planning. October 20 -22, the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force determines recommendation to be presented to Fish and Game. In Summary Council does not have to chose one map over the other. Resolution will support the City's past practice of protecting rocky intertidal areas through strong community investment over many years. Lori Donchak, Mayor Jim Dahl, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Anderson, Councilmember Bob Baker, Councilmember G. Wayne Eggleston, Councilmember George Scarborough, City Manager Office of Mayor and City Councilmembers Phone: (949) 361 -8322 Fax: (949) 361 -8283 E -mail: CityCouncil@san-clemente.org October 8, 2009 Catherine Reheis -Boyd, Chairwoman South Coast Study Region Blue Ribbon Task Force California Department of Fish and Game Headquarters 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Support for Proposal 2 Dear Chairwoman Reheis -Boyd: On behalf of the City of San Clemente, I am pleased to see the Blue Ribbon Task Force study proposals which seek to improve the health and value of California's coastal waters, while making a very valuable contribution to marine conservation. Thank you for your outstanding efforts. As a coastal community, San Clemente's population derives a tremendous recreational benefit and scenic enjoyment from the beaches. San Clemente also benefits economically as this pristine natural resource and historic fishing Pier serve as great tourist draws to our community. The ocean also provides a large amount of resources to state and national interests, proving it is critical to our entire country's economic growth, recreational needs and environmental stability. Locally, we strive to decrease urban runoff and improve the quality of the ocean for the benefit of people and marine life and habitats. Certainly, there is no single solution to conserving the marine environment; however, we support marine protected areas as they are a potentially valuable tool for marine conservation to help prevent degradation, foster marine biodiversity, and maintain a more sustainable fishing industry. Your work towards increasing the effectiveness of these areas through the development of various proposals is highly beneficial in accomplishing these goals. Out of the proposals set forth, we support proposal 2, which was crafted by anglers, commercial fisherman, city officials, harbor masters, the Department of Defense and wastewater representatives. This proposal has tremendous conservation value for Orange County and the rest of the study area. In Orange County, the proposal shares coastal access points equally between those wanting to visit a marine reserve for viewing purposes and those wishing to practice sustainable fishing. City of San Clemente 100 Avenida Presidia, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 361 -8200 www san- clemente org Page 2 South Coast Study Region Blue Ribbon Task Force Furthermore, proposal 2 is the only proposal that places a premium on capturing the entire spectrum of habitats and depth zones in the area, while allowing access to coastlines vital to the local marine economy. On the contrary, proposals 1 and 3 are inefficient, maximizing the closure of coastline and near -shore waters but capturing relatively little deeper water. If enacted, proposals 1 and 3 would devastate the marine economies of nearby ports in Newport Bay and Dana Point. In placing 16% of southern California's ocean environment in protected areas, proposal 2 provides significant additional protections for California's currently healthy and sustainable ocean resources. It is an integrated proposal, maximizing conservation goals while at the same time, minimizing the impact on those who enjoy the sport of fishing, those who depend on fishing for their livelihood, and the economy of California. Additionally, proposal 2 will have the least economic impact for both recreational and commercial fishermen. Proposal 2 strikes the best balance between protecting the environment and minimizing economic impact. California's recreational fishing community contributes more than $2.2 billion annually to the state's economy, including $160 million in state and local taxes and supports nearly 20,000 jobs, including over 14,000 in southern California. In 2008, recreational fishing garnered over $2 million in sales and nearly $115 million in tax revenue. This is a major contributor to a struggling California economy. I respectively request that the Blue Ribbon Task Force recommend proposal 2 to the Fish and Game Commission at its October 20 -22 meeting in Long Beach. California. I appreciate your consideration and once again. I thank you and your fellow task force members for the time and commitment you have given to such an important endeavor. Sincerely, 4- 2() 6 t AC - Lori Donchak Mayor October 9, 2009 Mr. Ken Wiseman Executive Director Marine Life Protection Act Initiative c/o California Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Wiseman: Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the selection of a preferred alternative for the south coast study region by the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force. As the two coastal representatives on the Board of Supervisors, this issue is very important to the communities we to represent. Since its enactment in 1999, the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) has helped safeguard our state's marine life and habitats, ecosystems, and natural heritage. We appreciate the MLPA Initiative efforts to preserve marine life and the environment along our coast and believe that the initiative can successfully balance its goals with the County of Orange's commercial, economic, and recreational needs, as well as our beach nourishment and maintenance responsibilities. We respectfully request that the M LPA Blue Ribbon Task Force take into consideration the following needs that are important to the citizens of the Orange County as it reviews and deliberates over submitted proposals and ultimately provides its recommendation of a preferred alternative: The preferred alternative should provide for allowable uses to include the County of Orange's operations and maintenance activities at all creek and river outlets along our coast to support our efforts to continue to protect public health and safety as we work towards eliminating beach closures due to high indicator bacteria counts stemming from pollution levels in our watersheds. COUNTY OF ORANGE 'spa, I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ROBERT E. THOMAS HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA P.O. BOX 687 SANTA ANA.CA 92702.06a7 October 9, 2009 Mr. Ken Wiseman Executive Director Marine Life Protection Act Initiative c/o California Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Wiseman: Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the selection of a preferred alternative for the south coast study region by the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force. As the two coastal representatives on the Board of Supervisors, this issue is very important to the communities we to represent. Since its enactment in 1999, the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) has helped safeguard our state's marine life and habitats, ecosystems, and natural heritage. We appreciate the MLPA Initiative efforts to preserve marine life and the environment along our coast and believe that the initiative can successfully balance its goals with the County of Orange's commercial, economic, and recreational needs, as well as our beach nourishment and maintenance responsibilities. We respectfully request that the M LPA Blue Ribbon Task Force take into consideration the following needs that are important to the citizens of the Orange County as it reviews and deliberates over submitted proposals and ultimately provides its recommendation of a preferred alternative: The preferred alternative should provide for allowable uses to include the County of Orange's operations and maintenance activities at all creek and river outlets along our coast to support our efforts to continue to protect public health and safety as we work towards eliminating beach closures due to high indicator bacteria counts stemming from pollution levels in our watersheds. • The preferred alternative should provide for allowable uses to include dredging activities for current and future beach nourishment and replenishment maintenance projects as well as maintenance of existing structures and construction of new piers, docks, bridges and wharfs. The preferred alternative should also include allowable uses to preserve recreational fishing, swimming, surfing, kite- boarding, snorkeling, scuba diving, boating and other recreational activities along the Orange County coastline and bays as well as providing minimal to no impact on the current commercial activities in the County's three harbors. • The preferred alternative should address and explain enforcement strategies and /or costs of any new regulations and what agencies will bear the burden of new responsibility and what, if any funding will be made available from the State of California to implement a preferred alternative. As stated above, we appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the selection of a preferred alternative by the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast Study Region. In making the recommendation of a preferred alternative, it is our hope that the Blue Ribbon Task Force will rely on sound scientific data and seriously consider the economic impacts that each of the proposals will have on the commercial fishing and boating industries along our coastline as well as the recreational opportunities and coastal access currently enjoyed by the residents and citizens of Orange County. Sincerely, -10 ten_ Patricia C. Bates Chair, Board of Supervisors Fifth District John M. W. Moorlach Supervisor Second District I I NATIONAL MARINE. FISHERIES SERVICE 2008 REPORT TO CONGRESS THE STATUS OF U.S. FISHERIES As mandated by the Sustainable Fisheries Act amendment to the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 May, 2009 U.S. Ikpartu ,, r' National Oceanic and Atmospheric . ,,!W , ... National Marine FishcnLS scrn i,, Office of Sustainable 1 isncric> ke,ul[2 :I are .uhlecl la m rr82hinL 2111 art not • 111 .lack% are o. crfi2hed 153 are not 4 are rebuilt A Message from the Acting NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service's Report on the status of the U.S. fisheries for 2008 Science - Service - Stewardship I am pleased to present the 2008 report on the status of U.S. marine fish stocks. The report shows that three stocks are no longer subject to overfishing, three stocks have Increased in biomass and are no longer overfished, and four stocks have fully rebuilt. However, four stocks have been found to be subject to overfishing and four stocks have been determined to be overfished. In all, 41 stocks are subject to overfishing and 46 stocks are overfished. Some of these stocks are managed under international agreements and action by the international community Is critical to ending overfishing for these stocks. NMFS recognizes the importance of ensuring that the fishery resources under our management are healthy and productive. The commercial seafood industry and recreational saltwater fishing provide our Nation with food, jobs, and other benefits that we want to continue for future generations when we end overfishing. We continue to work hard with the eight regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) to achieve the goals of ending overfishing, rebuilding our fish stocks to sustainable levels, and ensuring the benefits of productive stocks for future generations. Much progress has been made over the past several years in Increasing the sustainability, of our stocks. This progress is Indicated by the Fish Stock Sustainatxlity Index (FSSI). The FSSI measures the performance of key stocks and increases as we conduct additional stock assessments, end overfishing, and rebuild stocks to the level that provides maximum sustainable yield. This Index Increased from 357.5 in 2000 to 555.5 in 2008. In addition, in January 2009 we published guidance for implementing annual catch limits in all fisheries as required under the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The guidance accounts for scientific uncertainty in estimating catch limits for a stock, and calls for strong accountability measures to prevent annual catch limits from being exceeded and to address such a situation quickly should It occur. We believe these guidelines lay a strong foundation for ending overfishing and allowing stocks to rebuild. This report briefly discusses the possible implications of the guidance on rebuilding. In closing, it is Important to note that the majority of our domestic assessed fish stocks are either not subject to overfishing (84 %) or not overfished (77 %). We appreciate the support of Congress, stakeholders, and constituencies as we work to increase our knowledge of unassessed stocks, rebuild fisheries and maintain healthy resources for the benefit of the Nation. lames W. Balsger, Ph.D. National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries TABLE. OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................ ............................... I Introduction......................................................................................... ..............................3 Usingthe Best Available Data ................................................... ..............................3 Overview of Overfishing Status ........................... ... . ............ ................ „ 5 Changes in O%erfishing Status ............................................................. ............................... 5 Overview of Overfished Status ...........................................».... ..............................6 Changes in Overfished Status .............................................................. ............................... 6 Changes in Approaching an Overfished Condition ........................... ............................... 6 BiomassLevels ............................................................»..................... ..............................7 Changes in Biomass Levels ................................................................... ............................... 7 Biomass and Mortality Trends in Stocks under Rebuilding Plans ...... 9 Implementing Annual Catch Limits ........................................ ..............................9 Status Determinations by Region .......................................... .............................10 NortheastRegion ................................................................................. ............................... 10 SoutheastRegion ................................................................................. ............................... SouthwestRegion ................................................................................ ............................... 12 NorthwestRegion ................................................................................ ............................... 13 PacificIslands Region ......................................................................... ............................... 14 AlaskaRegion ...................................................................................... ............................... 15 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species .................................................... ............................... 16 National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Executive Summary The Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires that NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) report annually to Congress and the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) on the status or Fisheries (Sec. 304(e)(1)). This report fulfills that requirement. The information in this report was generated by the NMFS' regional offices and science centers based on the most recent stock assessments as of December 31, 2008. Status determinations are generally made during a formal review of a scientific stock assessment using the best available scientific information and status determination criteria specified in a fishery management plan. Stocks discussed in this report are characterized under two broad categories: (1) subject to overfishing and (2) overfished. A stock that is subject to overfishing has a fishing mortality (harvest) rate above the level that provides for the maximum sustainable yield. A stock that is overfished has a biomass level below a biological threshold specified in its fishery management plan. For 2008, NMFS reviewed 531' individual stocks and stock complexes and made determinations of both overfishing and overfished status for 191 stocks and complexes; an additional 68 have either an overfishing or overfished determination. Two hundred fifty -one stocks or stock Summary of Chances complexes have known overfishing determinations: 210 (84 %) are not Subject to overfishing, 2008: 41 (16 0/9) subject to overfishing and 41 (16 %) Subject to overfishing, 2007: 41 (17 %) are subject to overfishing. These verfished, 2008: 46 (23 °h) percentages are a slight improvement pverfished, 2007: 4s (240{0) from last year's report, in which 17% were subject to overfishing and 83% were not. This slight improvement in the percentages reflects new assessments which have added to the number of stocks with known overfishing determinations. Three stocks are no longer subject to overfishing: finetooth shark - Atlantic, Summer flounder - Mid - Atlantic Coast, and Hawaiian Archipelago Bottomfish Multi- species Complex. Four stocks have been listed as subject to overfishing in 2008: thorny skate - Gulf of Maine, pink shrimp - Gulf of Mexico, blacknose shark - Atlantic, and shown mako - Atlantic. One hundred ninety -nine stocks have known overfished determinations: 153 (77 %) are not overfished2 and 46 (23 %) are overfished. These percentages represent a slight improvement from last year's report, in which 24% were ' Cp.npne to 528 nom 2007 Room 5 uas4a SaIop m .e a , N K , do was nYn an0 SaRp at aM Guff d Meuap mutmn sn+pper st0dls wde ponwKba 0eo one A . tar a M ,no0aye of 1 #odn 7 X"% KK1p0lS 5 stMS Itwt pe app°aCMep an ovedKMC cmMmpn National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries overfished and 76% were not. This slight improvement in the percentages reflects new assessments which have added to the number of stocks with known overfished determinations. Three stocks are no longer overfished: monkfish - North, monkfish - South, an(! summer flounder - Mid - Atlantic Coast. Two stocks have become overfished: smooth skate - Gulf of Maine and blacknose shark - Atlantic. Two stocks, previously listed as unknown, have been determined to be overfished: red snapper - South Atlantic, and gray triggerfish - Gulf of Mexico. Four stocks have fully rebuilt to 100% of their BMsr levels: monkfish - North, monkfish - South, bluefish - Atlantic Coast, and king mackerel - Gulf of Mexico. Management of two additional stocks has resulted in biomass levels of at least 80% of their maximum sustainable levels: Hawaiian Archipelago Bottomfish Multi- species Complex and yellowfin tuna - Western Atlantic. NMFS measures progress towards the sustainability of our nation's fisheries through the Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI). The FSSI measures the performance of key stocks and increases as additional assessments are conducted, overfishing is ended and stocks rebuild to the level that provides maximum sustainable yield. This index increased from 357.5 in 2000 to 555.5 in 2008, see Figure 1 below. While change from one year to the next may not be dramatic, the 55% increase in the FSSI in 8 years represents significant progress in improving our knowledge of stock status and sustainably managing our fisheries. More information about the FSSI can be found at: http: / /www. nmfs. noaa. qov /sfa /statusoffishenes /SOSmain. tit m. Fish Stock Suatalnabillty Index (FSSI) sss 531.0 _ 195.5 506.5 �... 131.5 � W.5 Seas .� .tNl.' X03 2.xN 7JU5 2UtM 2XI .v_a Celender rear Figure 1. FSSI score, 2000 -2008. 2 National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Introduction This report describes the state of our nation's marine fisheries and the effectiveness of fisheries management under the Magnuson - Stevens Fir` Conservation and Management Act, Public Law 94 -294 (MSA), as an.- 1996 by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) and again in 2007 by the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA). The SFA emphasized the need to end overfishing, rebuild stocks, and establish management plans designed to ensure biologically and economically sustainable fisheries. A stock that is subject to overfishing has a fishing mortality (harvest) rate above the level that provides for the maximum sustainable yield. A stock that is overfished has a biomass level below its prescribed biological threshold. The MSRA requires annual catch limits that end overfishing be established by 2010 for all stocks subject to overfishing and by 2011 for all other stocks. This report fulfills the Congressional requirement in Sec. 304(e)(1) of the MSA for an annual report on the status of fisheries within each Council's geographic area of authority and to identify fisheries that are overfished or approaching a condition of being overfished. This report lists the managed marine fish stocks in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 3, including stocks that straddle international boundaries and highly migratory stocks. In response to the Congressional requirement, the report categorizes stocks according to their status. The report answers four questions which help determine the effectiveness of management measures in meeting the provisions of the MSA: 1. What stocks are subject to overfishing? 2. What stocks are overfished? 3. What stocks are approaching an overfished condition? 4. How do this year's determinations compare to previous years? Information on fishing mortality and biomass trends for rebuilding stocks, which can show if the management measures to end overfishing are working and if the biomass of the stock is rebuilding as planned, can be found at the NMFS website: http:// www. nmfs. rioaa. gov/ sfa/ statusoffisheries /SOSmain.htrn. Additional information on many rebuilding stocks, as well as other important fish stocks, can be found at the NMFS Fish Watch website: http: // www .rinifs.rioaa.gov /fishwatch /h. Using the Best Available Data To categorize marine fish stocks for this report, NMFS reviewed each stock relative to the status determination criteria (SDC) contained in the relevant � The U.S UClu Ve EcOnMK Z" pbl! ly e S ft n 7 m 100 mki Orlshwe Y CovefS m OW 2 .11rc S ,,. ,,� National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries fishery management plan (FM p)4. Sometimes the SDC do not apply to an individual stock, but to a group of similar species harvested together or sharing a similar life history. These groups are referred to as stock complexes, units, or assemblages. Such groupings may be particularly useful when data are sparse lacking because they provide a level of protection for all related stocks and _i data collection on them. In some cases, the status of a stock complex is determined using the SDC for one stock in the complex. In other cases, the SDC apply to the complex as a whole. Stock complexes are used in the Southeac' Pacific Islands, and the Alaska Regions, as well as by the NMFS Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) division. The reporting level (stock or stock complex) is based on the level used in the assessment. Based on a review of the best scientific information available for each stock or stock complex, relative to its SDC, NMFS determined whether an overfishing and overfished condition exists, including whether or not the stock is approaching an overfished condition. NMFS used many resources to make these determinations, including final, peer- reviewed documents such as Stock Assessment Review Committee reports and recommendations of each Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee. For species not included in a federal FMP (i.e., species managed by international agreement), the stock status determination was made in accordance with the relevant FMP or agreement. More information on the stock complexes and methodology used to include them in this report can be found in Appendix 1, located on the NMFS website, htt p: / /www. nmfs. noaa. gov /sfa /statusoffishenes /SOSma ln. htm. NMFS continues to make progress in improving the scientific knowledge of marine fisheries and in the ability to use that knowledge to manage for the sustained use of these resources. NMFS is also working to increase the number of stocks that are assessed. NMFS assessed 2175 stock and stock complexes in 2008, 7 for the first time. In 2008, 7 additional stocks now have known overfishing determinations and 8 additional stocks now have overfished determinations. Of those, 6 are not subject to overfishing and 6 are not overfished. This year's report is based on assessments completed as of December 31, 2008. Results from fishery stock assessments in progress on that date will be summarized in next year's report. Species or stock names used in this report now reflect accepted scientific nomenclature. These are the same stocks listed in previous reports, but the linked species and stock area name may be different from what was previously reported. The status of all 531 stocks and stock complexes is summarized in Table 1. 6S m NOetF Mt S9uthaaN Regwn hM NaNS Oetlmrnabom based On Otero that are not COn ,a n OM FMP Deu R Kt Dent S tdk mlwm available br s data Poor s . Na SDC are 9ero y Wecow n"a We Report. faONV Oscar in the FMP F.WN 'Number Includes"assessment of f 9 stocks M" NO "tt MubspecMS FMP, rewlt5 of whict, wel vwt De used to Croke detemranatms umd tho FMP rt an W to r~ tDe SDC MOIMIN m q asSe55n1eM. It aliO IKMWIS Paerlk COIN 4rWfMR511 SfOCkS b nhl(]I tWl hShnp n� rt Ms tes were u for the FrU tl a to dete m " ove Wng status Of the sto k 4 National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Overview of Overfishinc Status • 251 stocks or stock complexes have a known overfishing status. Of these: 210 (84 %) stocks or stock complexes are not subject to overfishing. 41 (16 %) stocks or stock complexes have a fishing mortality rate that exceeds the overfishing threshold (i.e., is subject to overfishing). • 280 stocks or stock complexes have overfishing thresholds not defined or applicable, or are unknown with respect to their overfishing status. Chances in Overfishinc Status • In the Northeast Region - Summer flounder - Mid - Atlantic Coast is no longer subject to overfishing. Thorny skate - Gulf of Maine is now subject to overfishing. • In the Southeast Region - o Pink shrimp - Gulf of Mexico is now subject to overfishing6. u Red Drum - Southern Atlantic Coast was removed from the list of stocks subject to overfishing. Management authority for this stock was transferred to the ASMFC' during 2008 and is no longer under federal management jurisdiction. Its status is now reported under stocks contained in non - Federal FMPs and is unchanged as subject to overfishing. • In the Northwest Region - o Gopher rockfish - Northern California is not subject to overfishing (was previously unknown). • California scorpionfish - Southern Califomia is not subject to overfishing (was previously unknown). • Starry flounder - Pacific coast is not subject to overfishing (was previously unknown). • In the Pacific Islands Region - o Hawaiian Archipelago Bottomfish Multi- species Complex is no longer subject to overfishing. • In the Alaska Region - u Red king crab - Norton Sound is not subject to overfishing (was previously unknown). • In the Highly Migratory Species Division - o Finetooth shark - Atlantic is no longer subject to overfishing. • Blue shark - Atlantic is not subject to overfishing (was previously unknown). • Skipjack tuna - Western Atlantic is not subject to overfishing (was previously unknown). Biacknose shark - Atlantic is now subject to overfishing. Shortfin mako - Atlantic is subject to overfishing (was previously unknown). • There are no changes in the other regions. s m GO of MiotM pkt shrktp was determined W be sub)ect to �A srtiinq because me 200/ M assessment estsmated (Went stud lives to be IM dsm too nsbgn sht"'V tto ' d aoaMent dedale is atelr due to a rMtctson in no Alan rattld bun a true decease in aban6ante The aSeMMR 6 Q inlay WW" Rn'K'w and ttR O fthnq MWI d bilk F n , r M reVe5e4 fapl. r ASMF(; - AtlMdc SMe6 Manna FMbenas C rnn.1ion National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Overview of Overfished Status • 199 stocks or stock complexes have a known overfished status. Of these: 153 (77 %) stocks or stock complexes are not overfished - 5 of these stocks are approaching an overfished condition. 46 (23 %) stocks or stock complexes are overfished. • 332 stocks or stock complexes have overfished thresholds not defined or applicable, or are unknown with respect to their overfished status. Chances in Overfished Status • In the Northeast Region - o Summer flounder - Mic o Monkfish - North is no u Monkfish - South is no o Smooth skate - Gulf of - Atlantic Coast is no longer overfished. longer overfished and is now rebuilt. longer overfished and is now rebuilt. Maine is now overfished. • In the Southeast Region - o Vermillion snapper - Southern Atlantic Coast is not overfished (was previously unknown). • Royal red shrimp (Gulf of Mexico) is not overfished (was previously unknown). • Red snapper - South Atlantic is overfished (was previously unknown). • Gray triggerfish - Gulf of Mexico is overfished (was previously unknown). • In the Alaska Region - o Red king crab - Norton Sound is not overfished (was previously unknown). • Rougheye rockfish - Bering Sea /Aleutian Islands is not overfished (was previously unknown). • Rex sole - Gulf of Alaska is unknown with respect to its overfished status (was previously not overfished). • In the Highly Migratory Species Division - o Blue shark - Atlantic is not overfished (was previously unknown). o Skipjack tuna - Western Atlantic is not overfished (was previously unknown). o Blacknose shark - Atlantic is now overfished. • There are no changes in the other regions. Changes in Approaching an Overfished Condition The basis for determining whether a stock is approaching an overfished condition is an examination of the current stock biomass and trends in fishing effort and the conclusion that the stock is likely to become overfished within 2 years. The definition for the biomass threshold in the FMP, along with trends in fishing National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries effort, is the basis for determining whether a stock is approaching an overfished condition. For Pacific salmon stocks, the criteria are based on maximum sustainable yield /maximum spawner potential objectives for natural stocks or stock complexes. • In the Highly Migratory Species Division - o Shortfin mako - Atlantic is approaching an overfished condition (was previously unknown). • There are no changes in the other regions. Biomass Levels The Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI) is a performance measure for the sustainability of 230 U.S. fish stocks selected for their importance to commercial and recreational fisheries. The FSSI establishes, as an indicator of sustainability, an 80% threshold of the current stock biomass compared to the biomass that supports the maximum sustainable yield (B /BMs,)• Stocks with biomass above that level are considered to be within the range of natural Fluctuation around the BMsy level, which is defined as a long -term average. The following stocks have biomass levels determined, in 2008, to have changed relative to this threshold. Changes in Biomass Levels • In the Northeast Region - Monkfish - North is now rebuilt. o Monkfish - South is now rebuilt. • In the Southeast Region - * Vermillion snapper - Southern Atlantic Coast - B /BMsY is above 80% (was previously not estimated). u Pink Shrimp - Gulf of Mexico - B /BMsY is now below 80 %. • In the Pacific Islands Region - Hawaiian Archipelago Bottomfish Multi- species Complex - B /BMsY is now above 80 %. • In the Alaska Region - o Rougheye rockfish - Gulf of Alaska - B /BMsY is above 80% (was previously not estimated). • Red king crab - Norton Sound - B /BMsY is now above 80 %. • Southern Tanner Crab - Bering Sea - B /BMsY is now below 80%. • In the Highly Migratory Species Division - o Blue shark - Atlantic - B /BMsY is above 80% (was previously not estimated). Shortfin mako - Atlantic - B /BMsY is above 80% (was previously not estimated). Yellowfin tuna - Western Atlantic - B /BMsY is now above 80 %. • There are no changes in the other regions. National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Table 1. Description of FSSI and nonFSSI Stocks b Council 2008. 4 V ] p Y Y w = N Overfthing ves No Nof Naf N/A Kown Defined OYernfhed q1-2 4 0 � Yes No No[ Known Not limned N/A NEFMC FSSI 34 9 21 2 7 0 I6 17 1 0 0 0 11o11iSSl 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total 35 9 22 2 2 0 17 17 1 0 0 0 MAFMC FSSI 11 1 to 0 0 0 2 8 1 0 0 0 ftwssl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total II 1 10 0 0 0 2 8 1 0 0 0 NEFMC/ MAFMC FSSI 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 IIanfssl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 SAF14C FSSI 21 10 10 1 0 0 5 6 9 0 0 1 1bnrssl 63 0 10 51 2 0 0 1 55 7 0 0 Taal 84 10 20 52 2 0 5 7 64 7 0 1 GMFMC FSSI 17 5 8 4 0 0 3 6 0 6 0 0 NoOSSI 36 0 6 29 1 0 0 1 1 34 0 0 Total 53 5 14 33 1 0 3 7 1 42 0 0 SAFW -/ GMFMC FSSI 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 7 2 I 0 0 NonFSS1 3 0 1 1 I 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 Total 13 0 11 1 1 0 0 8 3 2 0 0 CFMC FSSI 8 4 1 3 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 I NonFSsl 14 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 1 Total 22 5 I 16 0 0 4 0 16 0 0 2 PFMC FSSI 48 1 33 13 l 0 4 30 11 3 0 0 Nonssl 120 0 17 50 0 53 0 16 51 0 53 0 Total 168 1 50 63 l 53 4 46 62 3 53 0 WPFMC FSSI 16 0 7 9 0 0 1 7 8 0 0 0 NonFSSI 20 0 3 15 2 0 0 1 17 2 0 0 Total 36 0 10 24 2 0 1 8 25 2 0 0 PFMq WPFMC FSSI 6 1 2 3 0 0 0 3 l 0 0 0 fanrssl 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Total 10 1 2 7 0 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 NEFMC FSSI 35 0 33 2 0 0 1 29 0 5 0 0 NW SS1 36 0 22 8 6 0 0 2 0 34 0 0 Total 71 0 55 10 6 0 1 31 0 39 0 0 PFMC/ NEFMC FSSI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NonFSSI 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 HMS FSSI 21 9 N628 2 0 0 9 8 2 0 0 2 ffonFSS1 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 Total 24 9 4 0 0 9 9 4 0 0 TOTAE FSSI 230 40 39 3 0 45 121 40 17 0 NonFSSI 301 1 173 12 53 1 24 144 78 53 m Total 531 41 210 212 15 53 46 148 184 95 53 • FSSI = Fish Stock Sustamabilnty, Index; NEFMC = New England Fishery Management Counal; MAFMC = Mid Atlantic Nsnery Management Council; SAFMC = South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; GMFMC - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; CFMC Caribbean Fishery Management Council; PFMC - Pacific Fishery Management Council; WPFMC . Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; NPFMC = North Pacific Fishery Management Council; HMS = Atlantic Highly Migratory Species. National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Biomass and Mortality Trends in Stocks under Rebuil, Plans Section 304(e)(7) of the MSA requires that the Secretary review any fishery management plan, plan amendment, or regulations required by this subsection at routine intervals that may not exceed two years for adequate progress toward ending overfishing and rebuilding affected fish stocks. In the 2007 repo, Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries, NMFS presented an analysis of trends in fishing mortality (F) and biomass (B) for stocks under rebuilding plans. That analysis used the most current scientific stock assessments for 39 rebuilding stocks and presented a series of figures to illustrate the trends. The analysis, and its findings, has been updated using the most recent assessments completed since that time, where available. The results are updated and presented on the NMFS website at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm. Implementing Annual Catch Limits In early 2009, NMFS put in place guidelines to aid the regional Councils in implementing annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) within the fisheries in their jurisdiction ". These guidelines will facilitate compliance with requirements of the MSA to end and prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, and achieve optimum yield. ACLs and AMs are required for stocks that are subject to overfishing by 2010, and for all other stocks by -)n' Congress provided two exceptions to the ACL requirements: • unless otherwise provided for under an international agreement in which the United States participates, and • shall not apply to a fishery for species that have a life cycle of approximately 1 year unless the Secretary has determined the fishery is subject to overfishing of that species Of the 41 stocks subject to overfishing, NMFS believes that some stocks might be covered by the above exceptions. However, final determinations have not yet been made, and other stocks might also be considered under these exceptions. ITe OVEdins tin Ee e.[M/lA lief! •.•.. .,.,. ._ a. ... •.. •.. •.•... 9 National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Status Determinations by Region Northeast Region Thirteen FMPs containing 49 stocks or complexes are managed by NMFS and the New England and Mid - Atlantic Fishery Management Councils: Atlantic Sea Scallop; Northeast Multispecies; Northeast Skate; Atlantic Herring; Red Crab; Monkfish; Spiny Dogfish; Summer flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass; Atlar.: Bluefish; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish; Tilefish; and Atlantic Salmon. Within these FMPs, 10 stocks are subject to overfishing, 21 stocks are overfished, and no stocks are approaching an overfished condition. See Table 3. Table 3. Northeast Region stocks that are subject to overfishing, are overfished, or are ap proaching an overfished condition. Council FMP Overfishing Overfished Approaching Atbn0i. sahnou - Atlantic salmon' coo - Gulf of Maim cod - Gun of Maine coo Georges Mank cod - Georges Bank - haddock - Gulf of Marne haddock - Georges Bank - American plake yellowtail flounder - yelkfwead flounder - Georges Bank Georges Bank yelluwta'I flounder - yellowlad flounder - southcrn New England Southern New England (SNE) /Md-Atlanbc (MA) SNE/MA Northeast yellowted flounder - Cape yellowtao flounder - Cape - Multispecies Cod/Gulf of Maine Cod /Gulf of Maine NEFMC white hake - Georges white hake - Georges flank/Gulf of Marne flank/Guff of Marne windowpane flounder - SNE/MA winter flounder - SNE/MA winter flounder - SNE/MA winter flounder - Georges - Bank ocean pout - Atlanfrc halibut thorny skate - Gulf of thorny skate - Gulf of Maim Maine Northeast Skate winter skate - Georges Sank/SNE - stmic,f), skate - Gulf of Maine Summer flounder, Scup and 9iack scup ' Atlantic coast srvp - Atlantic coast MAFMC Sea Bass Attanbe Mackerel, drntrflsn - Gulf oI Butte and Marne /Cape Hatteras Butterfish • No fishing Is allowed In this iishay. or incidental harvest a hmroed to levels mocssary to meet F.ndangeml Species Act (I SA) rtyulrri mts A Find Rmovcn Plan for the Gulf of Maine Instinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salnam has been developed under the ESA ' AssesunerA results for 19 ;toots M die ItertPNft MulpspecM; FMP MII mt be uftd W make debrnwrettonF unW the FMP I; anitltled to rdleet me SDC feWnaflwlaea M dM a;;efLneR. 10 National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Southeast Region Seventeen FMPs10 containing 175 stocks or complexes are managed by NMFS and the South Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils: South Atlantic Golden Crab; South Atlantic Shrimp; South Atlantic Snapper Grouper; Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live /Hard Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region; Pelagic Sargassum Habitat of the South Atlantic Region; Dolphin Wahoo; Coastal Migratory Pelagics of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Gulf of Mexico /South Atlantic Spiny Lobster; Gulf of Mexico Stone Crab; Gulf of Mexico Shrimp; Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico; Gulf of Mexico Red Drum; Coral and Coral Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico; Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; and Corals and Reef Associated Invertebrates of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Within these FMPs, 20 stocks are subject to overfishing, 10 stocks are overfished, and 3 stocks are approaching an overfished condition. See Table 4. Table 4. Southeast Revylon stocks that are subject to overfishing, are overffshed, or are ao proachinq an overfished condition. Council FMP Overflshing Overfished Approaching verrnd,on snapper - red Snapper red Snapper snowy grouper snowy grouper red grouper - black sea bass black sea bass South Atlantic Snapper Grouper gag 909 SAFMC speckled hind - warsaw grouper - bkfish black grouper - red Porgy South Atlantic Shrimp - pink shrimp red snapper red snapper Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of greater amberjack greater amber%aet Mexico gag - GMFMC gray trweffish gray trlggerfish Shnrnp Flshery of the Gulf of McXICO pink shrimp - Grouper Unit I Grouper Umt 1 Grouper Una 2 Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and Grouper Urul I Grouper Unit a CFMC the UW Snapper Unit I snapper Unit I Parrotfishes Parrolfslres Queen Conch Resounzes Puerto Rico Qty, conch Queer, conch Q the SVIf 1O The Atlantic Coast Red Drum IMP has had rronsgement authorM tnn,,Wred to the ASMfC. It n no longer under federal nMregeO rn and im Ov MShxp MWS is now reputed under stocks conuned on non Federal IMPS. The Stock remains sublect to orulhhrtq I I National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status ol'US fisheries Southwest Reqion Two FMPs containing 19 stocks or complexes" are managed by NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council: Coastal Pelagic Species and West Coast Highly Migratory Species. Within these FMPs, 2 stocks are subject to overfishing, no stocks are overfished, and no stocks are approaching an overfished condition. See Table 5. Table 5. Southwest Region stocks that are subject to overfishing, are overfished, or are aoi) achino an overfished condition. FMP Overflshing I Overfished Approaching West Coast Highly Migratory yellOwilin tuna - Eastern Tropical Pac,hc Species bigeye tuna - PdbRC This stock also appears in Table 7 as a stock subject to overfishing to the Pacific Islands Region' s Pelagic Fisnenes of the Westem Paofic Region FMP. Each of the 10 stocks shared between these two FMPs is listed only once in the support tables as a single stock managed under both FMPS. The Southwest and the Pacific Islands Regions, along with the Pacific and Western Pacific Fishery Management Councils, are working together to end overfishing in this stock. " T" wca,dls 10 pelapc SpKie3 Shared wM the racific Isiands Regan 12 National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Northwest Region Two FMPs containing 158 stocks or complexes are managed by NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council: West Coast Salmon and Pacific Coast Groundfish. In addition, Pacific halibut is managed jointly with the Alaska Region and the International Pacific Halibut Commission. Within these FMPs, no stock is subject to overfishing, 4 stocks are overfished, and 1 stock is approaching an overfished condition. See Table 6. Table 6. Northwest Region stocks that are subject to overfishing, are overfished, or are approac ing an overfished condition. FMP Overflshing Overfshed Approaching bo oo - dar blo&hed nXkflsn 7aofic Coast Groundfish cowcod - yelloweye nxkfnh 13 National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Pacific Islands Region Five FMPs containing 45 stocks or complexesiz are managed by NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council: Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region; Crustaceans Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region; Precious Coral Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region; Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region; and Coral Reef Ecosystems of the Western Pacific Region. Within these FMPs, 1 stock or stock complex is subject to overfishing, 1 stock or stock complex is overfished, and no stock or stock complexes are approaching an overfished condition. See Table 7. Table 7. Pacific Islands Region stocks that are subject to overfishing, are overfished, or are aooroachina an overfished condition. FMP Overfishing Overfished Approaching Pelagic Fishe.nes W Me Western bigeye tuna - Pacific' Pacific Region Bottomfish and Seamount Seamount G - Groundfish Fisheries of the k Se m nt*' Hancock Seamount Western Pacific Region This stock also appears in Table 5 as a stock subject to overfishing in Me Southwest Region's West Coast Ifighjy Migratory Species FMP. Each of the 10 stocks shared between these two FMPS i5 listed only once in the support tables as a single stock managed under both FMPs. The Southwest and the Pacific Islands Regions, along mth the Pacific and Western Pac1fic Fishery Management Counols, are working together to end overfishing in this stock. " This stock complex uses pelagic annorhead as the indicator species of a Mree- species seamount groundfish complex Mat includes raftfish and alfonsin. .r Total ntli.0es 10 Pelagic sl5enes strayed with ini, soialr repnn 14 National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Alaska Region Five FMPs containing 69 stocks or complexes are managed by NMFS and rho North Pacific Fishery Management Council: GOA Groundfish; BSAI Grounds Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab; Alaska Weather. Scallops; and Alaska High Seas Salmon. In addition, Pacific halibut is managed jointly with the Northwest Region and the International Pacific Halibut Commission. Within these FMPs, no stocks or stock complexes are - overfishing, 1 stocks or stock complex is overfished, and no stocks or stocK complexes are approaching an overfished condition. See Table 8. Table 8. Alaska Region stocks that are subject to over-fishing, are overfished, or are ap iroaching an overfished condition. FMP Overfishing Overfished Approaching BSA[ King and Tanner - blue krng crab - Pnbdof Islands Crab 15 National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Atlantic Highly Migratory Species One FMP containing 23 stocks or complexes are managed by NMFS: Conse, Atlantic Highly Migratory Species. Within this FMP, 8 stocks or stock comp are subject to overFshing, 8 stocks or stock complexes are overfished stock is approaching an overfished condition. See Table 9. Table 9. Atlantic Highly Migratory stocks that are subject to overfishing, are n\, or are aDDroachinq an overfished condition. FMP Overfishing Overfished Approaching yc9bwfin tuna - Atlantic blue marlin - Atlantic blue mart. - Atlantic white madin - Atlantic white marlin - Atlantic sadhsh - West Atlantic sailfish - West Atlantic albacore - North Atlantic albacore - North Atlantic Atlantic Highly Migratory bluefin tuna - West Atlantic bluefin tuna - West Attantic Species - Porbeagle shark dusky shark dusky shark blacknose Shark - Atlantic blacknose shat* - Atlantic shortfin mak0 - Atlantic - Shorthn mako - Atlantic sandbar shark- sandbar shark• This stock is part of the Large Coastal Shark Complex, but Is assessed Separately. 16 National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Table 10. Comparing stocks or stock complexes with "subject to overfishing" determinations in 2007 and 2008. Stacks In under "2007" were removed from the list in 2008. Stocks in aeo under "2008" were added to the list in 2008. COUNCIL 2007 2008 COUNCIL 2007 2008 _. tied - Gulf a name i cod " Gsdf a MawM and Georges Hank ioud - Georges Bank yelbwFdN HouMer - edko M Rounder - Grgef Bank rn Georges Bunk j yelb A hounder - SNE/ i yea -10 llanMw SNF/ I NO Atlailtic Queen C fwsbs Mid AtbMSC hounder f�P' I Yeikw llou d Cap GroupM UM t •, Grouper UM 1 yelbsetaA Cod/G1IM of Mane Group) UM a G a NEFMC CiWGuN of Marne WlAd hake Gewges CF M( pxrdhshe3 pairdhshes White note Georges ".k/G.W d Mane Snappw UM t I Snapper Unit t iiw l GuN M Maim is, f under s iv winter IWUSde SNF/ Mb ANai b w..W NouM - Gewgef ll - ! waAn ourtler Georges BdnY 1 �rNS I , rui i., i Ht• Yelp AWa i:zag UW AFIFMK Cosh I yebWhltW - EaSitln yeyawM Ned FasAmn MafMC KMC P Pa[Ilk 3 MFfMC/MAFMC HpY None WKW ye doh f m I yainAtpn shaper rM shap0er I ,ed shipper p r O feASh 101~ eE grouper I rttl grouper Pi $AFMC dao sea gaff I tWCk sea piss dgeye brna - Paalk bgeve assa - PAONC Map Map WRMC i fpefYled huW speCfhed Nov araw grouper aisafr grouper din yrwper j lock groWlM I i rM shaper ree si agON I greater ambersxt I greater artlberMNl GMFMC gray bggerhih gray VgpMBSn N"W Nose ( N. gag gap Vier'. due mirth AWnM due mares . ANanbr wMte mails, - Atlantic l whale mails.. AWrpc Sailfish - West AIYMp I "Ahsh - WR AMnbr albacore - North AbamC ( ~oi,, Nerds Aft& he b1peM has, - Wed I bkMhn WN - Wert ANRIVic 1 ANMY SAfMCJGMFW None Ndse HMS sarObas SIWt ANanM t artlM slWt - Alanbr dusky shirt - AWMN dusky Shad ANanbe I ux a .nxw• I NfFW . New EN14M Fnhery Management Cwnpl, MAFMC • MW AtlaM fishery Mahagensenl Cos 11, SAFMC a South AtianbC fisheeY Mind N CWMA. GMFMC - Gulf of Meiim FW%m, Mange C.,,I. CFMC • Can Wean FMKry Manager t Councu, MMC • PaCIIN Flstsb y Manages s Cdurlrll. WPFMC = Western P ffA fishery Manaeerrlent CourKa, NMMC =North PaCaIC fishery Manapemwu CCanCA. HMS ANamuC Highly ft aeory SpefX3 'u This stout Ms had management auMwRy bam/ened to Ilse ASMK. N M m Wsger uM federal mai apsyserN and as werlMhug status is mw repwhtl laWer Roof epmaNNd m ro Federal FMPs the s104 rNNns SWhCt W MbhSdrg 17 National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Table 11. Stocks or stock complexes with "overfished" determinations in 2007 and 2008. Stocks in ,., , under "2007" were removed from the list in 2008. Stocks in ueo under "2008" warp added to the list in 2008. Coundi 2007 2008 Coundl 2007 2008 COO GUN d Mani! : and Gu+ a Mama and Georges Bank j and Geoges Bsnk i ha00o4 - GUN of Maine I hadOat GuW d Marrre ; haddock - Georges Bank j haodcck - C iK%aank AnMVtOn WQ AnevKln bane 'Nionnrl nouniOer - yelbwlaa flounder GGRge, BMNt Geoges Bank ydbMeil Bound. - YNbnclul fl n r SNE/ NO ABamK i SHE/ NO ANamtt i Y'aNnOall flolnnde'r yebwsad hounim, - 1 Cape t.W /GYW or NaNN cape Cod /Gun aI Mama queen conch pKet, Conch White coke - Georges White hake - Georges CFMC Groitper and 1 Grayer thi t I NEFW Bartk/Gul d Name Bank/GUW d wine .t Wo None noundW j .atdo..wne ounder - r tMcupi r unn 4 Grouper Ilrrit 4 SNE/ me Atlarito SNE/ NO AN wnea Flounder SME/ 1 .star rbun4 - SNU! Mid-AbamlC NO-atMon, omen pout I ocean pout AdanlK halibut Atlantic IKkad Thorny skin GUN d i Thorn, skate GUN d Math I Mane ..nte, skah, wUnte, skate A"Mic sMnon j AWmo ykhon bnrBerllsh 1 adterhsh bdm¢to I bomtiM Win, - Atlantic (Wa scup auMMK cost NddNOMdnCH mdOlsh I dM1LblC1MC rpctlMh M"W i - "INC cowcW I cowcod NkAI rOO.ttsh I rocNnh SeamaAd Mwk sh Sonviii t Gracocibi t NEfM(J MAfMC I WPFMC lla ol,rrtplla NancoCk $pMtquntf I sear NarK0C1 � SeNrtqun0 snowy prayer srowy grouper black sea baSS i black sea bass i SAINC red porgy n0 porgy In• PFMC/ WPFNC Nom i Mom pink rHS in red snapper I red snapper We lung oat, - Modal i twin: klrlg ca, Pnbdof GMFMC peate, arrMMlNt i gram ambe'NON rvi .at�ie. NMKC Islands � Isbrtds bkN nladn Al1YW( blue marls Atlamn wM{! maM1n - AISNdK owes marks - ANanM sallrlfh - West Aba sNNnh WCK Atlanta '"nor, Moto atlantr i allsa[ore - North m.m. of eiM tuna - W" blt tum - West SAFMC/ More Nine MKS Atlantic I a14dc GM "C sa,tlbar Mlart sandbar shirt Porbeagk slot Ibteagat shirk Dusky "A j Dinky stork 111 A.. ..�o. f. n}I NEFMC . Men England fig W Management Council. MAFMC = NO AtIMMt FAmirr Management Council; SAFMC . South A IantK FISMry Mana morel CourKll. GMFMC . Guff d MeaKo Fnhlry Kiniageo nt Coumd; ClM . Canbbaan Flshery Mamgensent Council; MMC - Pa ih, fntwy M.UOmrM Council, WPFMC = WestMn PKOK Fnher•f MamgtmNnt Council; NPFMC . I r h Pdc11K FnhN Marnagerttent Gourd. HMS - AMantx Highly Migratory Species • Pmt Thr Kip we an annual col, an advnOry panel CO JWee the apparem olchn, to ynk s/mn dttatdarKe appears to ba due to Mvnomnta rattan, ra0m, tban owe f.shep 18 National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Stocks "Subject to Overfishing" (41) — 2008 North Pacific: None Pacific: 1 '•Yellow8n Tuna - Eastern PeaBc 1. x Pacific and Western Paeific 1. ••«lpeye Tune — Pacific A�� I l v5 DklunrM C•,',em•nkrcl �l �.tle•a rjc� -1c kne �ImckNr{AG'n rntlNgll •y14W kWnl fbMr4r $lr'Kl Oihl W SvnuvLW F W VnF New Enaland: 1 Cod - Gulf of Maine 2. Cod - Georges Bank 3. Yellowtail flounder - Georges Bank 4 Yellowtad flounder - Southern New England/Middle Atlantic 5 Yellowtail flounder - Cape CodrGua of Maine 6 White Hake 7. Winter Flounder - Georges Bank 8 Winter Flounder - Southern New EnglandlMiddle Atlantic 9 Thorny Skate - - L 1 Red Snapper 2 Greater Amberlack 3. Gag 4. Gray Trtggerflsh 5. Pink Shrimp - Gulf of Mexico -Ind i a"noti stock "Stock re flailed by U.S. and International Male. RWe . Also O"i isned aCTE Tha map oxs not llcl.de the resutis or GARM III Non ^east i�Xnu c,aa stork status is based on GARM II tassesseo in 2005, Mid - Atlantic: I Scup Nlahhl MlaratorY I sooelos: 1 "Blue Madan - Atlantic 2 —.1idTde Martin - Atlantic ••Saarsh - Nest Atlantic 4 -AlWCore - Noon Atlantic 1. Vilimil rn Snapper a '•Bluehn Tuna - Nest Atlantic 2. Red Snapper 6. SaroW- Shan 0 Snowy Grouper 7 O.sky Shark 4. TMMh 0 elaCkneSe snarl 5 Red Groapar 5 Snor.fln Mako - Allan:ic 6 Black Sea Bass 7 Gap 6 Black Grouper 9 SpeMled Hind 10. Waraaw Grouper Now- 19 National Marine Fisli ies Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries Caribbean: 1. Snapper Una 1 2 Grouper Uml 1 3 Grouper Unit 4 4 Queen Conch 5.'Parrotlishes North Pacific: 1. Blue King Crab - Pribilof Islands Pacific: 1 Bocawo 2. DarkblolChed Rockfish 3 Cowcod l Yelloweye Rockfish IS t Overfished Stocks (46) — 2008 New England' 1. Cod -Gun of Moro 2. Cod - Georgia Bank 3. Haddock - Gull of Mane s. Haddock - Georges Bank 6. American Plru 6. Yalowtaf foundw - Georges Bank 7. Yellowtail founder - Southern New EngMndrMgdN Adansc S. Yellowtail flounder - Cape Cod'Gua of Moro a. White Hake 10. Wndowpone Founds, - Southern New EnglendlMiddle AIIaMio 11 Willer Flounder - Soutrom Now EnglarlNMMale Allanhc 12. Oran Pout 13. Atten c: Halibut tut. Winer ake e 15. Thorny Skate 1 16 Smooth Skate 17 'Afle tic Salmon Hlahly Mlaratory Mid- Atlantic: 1, Scup 2. ButtarMhlA6Yaiy 1. Pink shrimp 2. Snowy grouper 3. Black Sea Bass ♦. Red Porgy 5. Red Snapper Western Pacific "'J t Red -W Snapper — 1. Seamount Groundfish Complex - Hancock Seamount 2. Greater Amberlack 3. Gray Trggerfish � � u 5 d.wM•.n x cemm.rc• '- maestri shed by stack ygYi'JCre.c .m w+- e..+we Asm..naen S1otlt Y faked by It S. and International Iresults lts fleft.. of •.evwi S .unr.. eovic. NGrs ie map does nat DaSIOe On resuhs of GARsl III NOnroaal cTC•azon+.wer.am . n. murozpecro stock slaiusn Dared on GARIA II!afsezasd .n 2005'. Species: 1. "Blue Martin - Allanhc 2 "Whits Marlin - Atlantic 3 "Sailfish - West Atlantic a -Albacore - North A6antic 5 "Bluefln Tuna - West Atlantic 6 Sandbar Shark 7 Porbeagle Shark 8 Dusky Shark B Blacknose Shark ~• . Caribbean: 20 National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries 1. Grouper Unit 1 2. Grouper Unit 2 3. Grouper Unit e 4. Queen Conch l I Mid- Atlantic: 1, Scup 2. ButtarMhlA6Yaiy 1. Pink shrimp 2. Snowy grouper 3. Black Sea Bass ♦. Red Porgy 5. Red Snapper Western Pacific "'J t Red -W Snapper — 1. Seamount Groundfish Complex - Hancock Seamount 2. Greater Amberlack 3. Gray Trggerfish � � u 5 d.wM•.n x cemm.rc• '- maestri shed by stack ygYi'JCre.c .m w+- e..+we Asm..naen S1otlt Y faked by It S. and International Iresults lts fleft.. of •.evwi S .unr.. eovic. NGrs ie map does nat DaSIOe On resuhs of GARsl III NOnroaal cTC•azon+.wer.am . n. murozpecro stock slaiusn Dared on GARIA II!afsezasd .n 2005'. Species: 1. "Blue Martin - Allanhc 2 "Whits Marlin - Atlantic 3 "Sailfish - West Atlantic a -Albacore - North A6antic 5 "Bluefln Tuna - West Atlantic 6 Sandbar Shark 7 Porbeagle Shark 8 Dusky Shark B Blacknose Shark ~• . Caribbean: 20 National Marine Fisheries Service 2008 Status of US Fisheries 1. Grouper Unit 1 2. Grouper Unit 2 3. Grouper Unit e 4. Queen Conch An online version of this report is available at http: / /www.nmfs.noaa.eov,sfa statusohisheries %SOSmain.htm This publication may be cited as: NMFS, 2009, Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. fisheries -2008, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Nad., Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD, 23 pp. Cover photo: NOAA photo library U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke Administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Undersecretary of Commerce Dr. Jane Lubchenco Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service James W. Balsiger, Ph.D. www.nmfs.noaa.gov National Marine Fisheries Service 1315 East -West Highway SSMC 3, F /SF, Room 9535 Silver Spring, MD 20910 U.S. Government - 2009 Qv4�ENr 0('0� ;"A o � ULi R O��SP 7LI PARTNERSHIP FOR SUSTAINABLE OCEANS October 6, 2009 Via Email The Honorable Edward Selich Mayor, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Selich: As you are probably well aware, the planning phase of the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which will establish a series of marine protected areas (MPAs) throughout Southern California, is drawing to a conclusion. The Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) is expected to recommend a final proposal to the Fish and Game Commission at its October 20 -22 meeting in Long Beach, California. The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans is writing to request your support for Proposal 2 at the Long Beach meeting on October 21, 2009. The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO) represents recreational anglers and boaters to ensure they have an organized presence and unified voice in the planning and implementation of the MLPA. The PSO, which collectively represents nearly one million individual recreational anglers and boaters through their combined membership organizations, has been actively and constructively involved in the MLPA process since the North Central Coast planning phase. Our goal has been to protect California's ocean resources while minimizing unnecessary closures to recreational fishing. Crafted by anglers, commercial fisherman, city officials, harbor masters, the Department of Defense and wastewater representatives, proposal 2 has tremendous conservation value for Newport Beach and the rest of the study area. In Orange County, the proposal shares coastal access points equally between those wanting to visit a marine reserve for viewing purposing and those wishing to practice sustainable fishing. Proposal 2 is the only proposal that places a premium on capturing the entire spectrum of habitats and depth zones in the area, while allowing access to coastlines vital to the local marine economy. On the contrary, proposals 1 and 3 are inefficient. maximizine the closure of coastline and near -shore waters but capturing relatively nearby ports in Newport Ba% and Dana Point. Partnership for Sustainable Oceans Governing Group: American Sportfishing Association, Coastside Fishing Club, Southern California Marine Association, Sportfishing Association of California and United Anglers of Southern California Members. Berkley Conservation Institute, Contributing Members of the Avalon Tuna Club, International Game Fish Association. Kayak Fishing Association of California, National Marine Manufacturers Association, Nor -Cal Kayak Anglers, Shimano Sport Fisheries Initiative and the Watermen's Alliance The Honorable Edward Selich October 6, 2009 Page 3 of 3 Sincerely, Patty Doerr, Ocean Resource Policy Director American Sportfishing Association Dan Wolford, Science Director Coastside Fishing Club Paul Lebowitz, President Kayak Fishing Association of California Ken Franke, President Sportfishing Association of California Doug Knecht, Board of Directors Southern California Marine Association Steve Fukuto, President United Anglers of Southern California 'Ferry Maas The Watermen's Alliance Work Group 2 South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group Process Round 3 Array Supplemental Document September 22, 2009 Table of Contents Narrative Rationale, Work Group 2 3 Point Conception /Humgaq SMR 6 Coal Oil Point SMR 9 Goleta Slough SMR 13 Mugu Lagoon (rescinded proposal) 15 Pt. Dume SMCA 16 Pt. Vicente MPA cluster 20 Bolsa Chica SMCA 25 Upper Newport Bay SMR 29 Laguna North SMCA 31 Laguna Beach SMR 34 Laguna South SMCA 38 Del Mar SMR 41 San Dieguito Lagoon SMR 46 La Jolla SMR 49 Famosa Slough 54 Sunset Cliffs MPA cluster 60 Cabrillo SMR 65 Begg Rock SMR 68 Farnsworth SMCA 71 San Clemente Federal Military Closures (FMC) 73 Blue Cavern /Bird Rock MPA cluster 78 Avalon MPAs (Catalina Island) 83 Disposition of pre- existing State MPAs 89 Protected key habitat replicate and gap analysis 92 Narrative Rationale, Work Group 2 South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group Process September 16, 2009 Designed to meet the intent and spirit of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) and garner a broad range of cross - interest support, the Group 2 array includes some of the most biologically productive, rich and diverse marine habitats in the state. Among many key habitats captured are lush kelp forests, rugged reef systems, submarine canyons, intertidal coastal stretches, surf grass beds, pinniped rookeries, avian roosting sites, estuaries and tidal flats. There are places where boat traffic is incessant, others where it is nearly non - existent. There are near -port areas that will no -doubt accommodate vigilant enforcement from many sources, and others so remote that compliance will depend, in part, on an honorable sense of "doing what's right." The Group 2 proposal also retains many beloved heritage MPAs. Many were perhaps established "without a clearly defined purpose" (MLPA language), but have evolved to provide educational opportunities and the opportunity for the public to observe coastal ecosystems that have larger and more abundant organisms than they would if harvest of them were allowed. Retained Heritage MPAs also enjoy complementary local support and infrastructure, and support for educational and recreational opportunities. The Group 2 array is also rooted in the notion of cross - interest support, efforts toward which were vigorously pursued throughout the step -wise, iterative MLPA process. As a result, it can be supported by public agencies, coastal water, wastewater and power agencies, professional and recreational fishing families, ports and harbors, trade and private NGOs, conservation groups, fish processors and markets, restaurateurs, educational organizations, ocean oriented businesses and recreational enthusiasts. Group 2 endeavored to meet design guidelines while balancing them with socio - economic impacts, an equilibrium necessary to gaining the local support essential to MPA success. We considered Ecotrust's spatial analyses of fisheries value, plus modeling analysis from both the University of California at Davis and the University of California at Santa Barbara's bio- economic models. We also undertook exhaustive outreach to coastal- dependent entities to understand the socio- economic impacts to public essential services and industries that use areas under consideration for MPAs. Based on this comprehensive effort, it is our firm conviction that any proposal resulting in higher socio- economic impacts than Group 2's proposal would result in failed ocean - dependent businesses, disrupted harbor operations and significant impacts to the century-old culture of our coastal communities. We believe Group 2's proposal meets the goals of the Act. However, given natural distributions of some "key" habitats and shortcomings of best readily available data (accuracy, completeness), several identified "key" habitat types were unavailable in sufficient amount and within Science Advisory Team - identified benchmark distances. In some of these instances selection of the most proximal "replicates" of these habitats could not be feasibly accommodated without enduring unacceptable socio- economic impacts. In other cases, Group 2 members, whose local knowledge includes over 350 years of at -sea experience, were able to help bridge or correct those data gaps. In conclusion, the Group 2 proposal includes key geographies and protects essential, iconic habitats necessary to advance goals of the MLPA and provide an efficient and effective MPA network in the South Coast Study Area. Its value is enhanced by the support it has received, from not only those who contributed to its design, but from the individuals, businesses and agencies upon whose cooperation and sacrifice it depends for success. Adoption of the Group 2 array will provide excellent conservation value, avoid undue, unnecessary socio- economic harm and ensure protected ocean parks for generations to come. a y ail r�i r if ' 50 �WIbn WR - -�YU 6icuWpnR SMR PN. VIR(WP S rtl. r.0 RO.+t + VOM.4Vyu WPYA rr ��vrK.aan &o•R,on N...r4nl _ - -_� u V. b4M 'Toles R «t\ , �i --'�,. F~. 11A. al.. sou S U4n0 �S"hP.1 WO SMR MPA Designation FMC SMCA SMP - SMR \7 J �Y1cM�z�R{�R�Y�S`. am � +. S.ICA �olu CMU WCA �' Il.wport Bry WCA UoR SMCA .S4R _ JI.CR «.SUCA l n.SwIn SMCA �BMU.n I.IrM �1Y,. C...m WR er.Co.._WCA {.•R:ROrE15�1\ A Californa Marine Life Protection Act Southen Californa Regional Stakeholder Group Group 2 Proposal R_U�p� iowo SCi 1 �n.n✓ noNl.. Ba z \ . V+ y Ibt 0 10 20 40 60 80 Miles *.wno C.yoon WP 1 Nr SMR M U loll. W R SMCA aft. «n Vur m. WP SNP Map Author Merit Legend " Kayaklaunch r' �n Stairs Path Bolsa Chica SMCA Lf ® FMC 2 SMCA 0 0.125025 0.5 0.75 1 0 SMP Miles 7u So SMR C aliforna Marine Life Protection Act hen Californa Regional Stakeholder Group Group 2 Proposal Mao awwr Merrt Mare Bolsa Chica SMCA 1. Introduction This recently restored wetland offers limited recreational fishing opportunities while protecting nursery habitats for several fish species such as halibut, and sand bass. Monitoring programs are in place due to restoration activities that recently concluded. Although currently designated as a State Marine Park, there is pre- existing wetlands management under California Department of Fish and Game authority as the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. The Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve is a nature reserve in the city of Huntington Beach, California. It is designated by the California Department of Fish and Game to protect a coastal wetland, with its resident threatened and endangered species. " Bolsa Chica" means "little pocket" in Spanish, as the area was part of a historic Mexican land grant named Rancho La Bolsa Chica ( Bolsa Chica wiki). As with much of what little remains of California's native wetland habitats, this area was spared early development pressures by virtue of recreational water fowlers having defended it. This area was owned and staunchly defended from encroaching oil development by the Bolsa Chica Gun Club from 1899 to 1960. It was then acquired by Signal Landmark, with an eye for developing housing in this area. The League of Women Voters then played a critical role in advocating its preservation. In 1976 the NGO Amigos de Bolsa Chica was formed by constituents of the League of Women Voters, with a goal of preserving this wetland area for its intrinsic value. New progress was recently made through the construction and opening of a $100 million bridge overpass to allow an inlet from the Pacific Ocean to be built and opened to the 25 wetlands, allowing for the first time in over 100 years, the ocean waters to enter the wetlands located on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway. With the hopes of refreshing and restoring an integral and significant habitat key to this Pacific flyway stopover for endangered birds, the experiment was financed by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, in trade for expansion and acquisition of additional coastal land for port use (Huntington Beach website). 2. Essential Facts: Bolsa Chica SMCA a. Type of MPA: State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) b. Boundaries: (per DFG feasibility guidelines): • Waters below mean high tide line within the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. The intent is for this MPA to cover the entire Bolsa Chica estuary (though this was not initially possible in MarineMap) c. Miles of Coveraoe: • .72 square miles d. Generally allowed takes • Shore fishing (any target) Hook and line recreational e. Habitats /Features (SAT habtats): • Hardened Shores 0.85 miles • Estuary 0.72 sq miles 3. Site Rationale a. Continues and enhances current protection of estuarine habitats already largely under protection as the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. b. Changes designation of and primary responsibility for this area from State Park authority to the Department of Fish and Game where it is more appropriate. c. This site has at least three patron non - governmental organizations. One is the The Bolsa Chica Conservancy, a non - profit, non - political organization whose mission is to advocate the restoration and preservation of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands through public outreach, participation, education and leadership. It is self described as a coalition of responsible community leaders from science. business, education, and government (BCC). Others include Amigos de Bolsa Chica and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust. d. This area offers some limited recreational shore fishing opportunity in designated areas, which would continue. e. It addresses the following goals of the Marine Life Protection Act:: • Goal 26 To help sustain, conserve, and protect marine life populations, including those of economic value. and rebuild those that are depleted. Objective 4 Protect selected species and the habitats on which they depend while allowing: some commercial and /or recreational harvest of migratory, highly mobile, or other species; and other activities. Goal 3 To improve recreational, educational, and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems that are subject to minimal human disturbances. and to manage these uses in a manner consistent with protecting biodiversity. Objective 2 Provide opportunities for scientifically valid studies, including studies on MPA effectiveness and other research that benefits from areas with minimal or restricted human disturbance. Objective 3 Provide opportunities for collaborative scientific monitoring and research projects that evaluate MPAs that promote adaptive management and link with fisheries management, seabird and mammals information needs, classroom science curricula, cooperative fisheries research and volunteer efforts, and identifies participants. Goal 4 To protect marine natural heritage, including protection of representative and unique marine life habitats in south coast California waters, for their intrinsic value. Objective 1 Include within MPAs key and unique habitats identified by the MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team for this study region. • Goal To ensure that south coast California's MPAs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures, and adequate enforcement, and are based on sound scientific guidelines. 27 Objective 1 Minimize negative socio- economic impacts and optimize positive socio- economic impacts for all users including coastal dependent entities, communities and interests, to the extent possible, and if consistent with the Marine Life Protection Act and its goals and guidelines. Objective 3 Effectively use scientific guidelines in the California Marine Life Protection Act Master Plan for Marine Protected Areas. Objective 4 Ensure public understanding of, compliance with, and stakeholder support for MPA boundaries and regulations. Objective 5 Include simple, clear, and focused site - specific objectives /rationales for each MPA and ensure that site -level rationales for each MPA are linked to one or more regional objectives. 4. Compliance with SAT Guidelines a. Confers protection of estuarine habitat in the South Coastal Bioregion of the Southern California Biogeographic region. 5. Other Regulated Activities a. Boating, swimming, wading, and diving are prohibited. Entry times and accessible areas are controlled by the managing entity. Limited management activities are consistent with current regulations. Extractive activities are limited to designated areas around outer Bolsa Bay. b. This estuary has undergone extensive and continuing remediation. These activities should be allowed to continue with appropriate permitting. 28 0 0.375 0 75 1.5 2.25 3 Miles e9,end ♦ a k launch Path - FMC Q SMCA Q SMP - SMR 0 -30m Californa Marine Life Protection Act Southen Californa Regional Stakeholder Group Group 2 Proposal Upper Newport 1. Introduction Upper Newport Bay SMCA vSMCA This wetland currently under restoration /dredging activities offers limited recreational fishing opportunities while protecting nursery habitats for several fish species such as halibut, and sand bass. Monitoring programs are in place due to restoration activities that are ongoing. It supports a variety of resident and transient wildlife, some species of which have been identified as in need of special protections. It is the site of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and is supported by a patron organization of volunteers. The Newport Bay Naturalists and Friends (NBNF) is an organization composed of more than 2,000 members dedicated to protecting and restoring Upper Newport Bay's native habitat. Upper Newport Bay is one of the largest remaining saltwater marshes in Southern California. It is a major stopping place along the Pacific flyway and hosts as many as 30,000 birds of 200 species. In 1992, more than 70 percent of the nation's remaining light- footed clapper rail population occurred and bred in this estuary. 2. Essential Facts: Upper Newport Bay SMCA a. Estuarine habitat replicate within the South Coastal Bioregion b. Generally allowed takes • Shore fishing Hook and line recreational • Finfish Hook and line recreational c. Boundaries: 29 • Seaward boundary extends to the Pacific Coast Highway. The inland boundary extends to Jamboree Road. 2. Site Rationale a. Has strong local support b. Provides protection from fishing impacts, most notably those that alter habitat, such as the harvest of invertebrate species. c. Provides continued limited recreational fishing opportunity, for example local fishing clubs sponsor kids fishing events here. d. Provides a focus for continued conservation efforts, education and outreach. e. Has evolved supporting infrastructure and an interpretive center. f. This wetland currently under restoration /dredging activities offers limited recreational fishing opportunities while protecting nursery habitats for several fish species such as halibut, and sand bass. Monitoring programs are in place due to restoration activities that are ongoing. 3. Compliance with SAT Guidelines a. Offers protection to 1.284 sqmi of estuarine habitat, meeting guideline thresholds for this habitat type. 4. Design Considerations a. This wetland currently under restoration /dredging activities and as such it is the express intent of the proposers that such activity be permitted to continue as allowed under other regulatory authority. b. Limited low impact take as allowed under DFG permitting for educational and research activities to be supported. c. Attempted to include the marsh area on the south end of Shellmaker Island and all water inland from that point, excluding the area that goes under Jamboree road. The area intends to protect the south end of Shellmaker Island to North Star Beach at (33 degrees 37.380 minutes) d. Due to the comments made in State Parks guidance document, this area designation has been changed to an SMCA. Local resources manage and enforce regulations in this MPA area. e. Restrictions exist regarding: swimming areas, boat speed, shoreline access and access fees. These are intended to continue. f. Intended to allow routine maintenance, dredging, monitoring, research and education, and habitat restoration to continue. all '00 - 200m /r Laguna f;h 0 05 1 2 3 4 Miles Legend ♦ Kayak launch 0 Stairs ♦ Path - FMC _ SMCA Q SMP - SMR 200 - 3000m SMCA so - Californa Marine Life Protection Act Southen Californa Regional Stakeholder Grou Group 2 Proposal 1. Introduction La Uno S MR Laguna North SMCA 0 -30m _aguna`Seuth SMCA Map Authdt Ment McCrea This is strictly a goal 3 MPA emphasizing inter - tidal /tide pool protection with monitoring and enforcement provided by local agencies and government officials. Please see www.ocmarineprotection.org for information about the goals of Orange County inter -tidal protection areas. Intent is to have an SMCA that covers the State lands commission lease and accommodate Parks services request to move beyond 1000feet offshore, as advised by DFG. Protects intertidal species. Take of species generally not associated with tide pool areas is to be permitted while providing tide pool specie protection. 2. Essential Facts: Laguna North SMCA a. Tvoe of MPA: State Marine Conservation Area b. Boundaries: (per DFG feasibility guidelines): • Approximates state parks land lease boundary along depth contour to simplify regulations. Straight lines connecting the following points • North shoreline coord: 33.35.417 : 117.52229 ±I 3. • North Offshore coord: 33.35.087: 117.52.577 • • South shoreline coord: South offshore coord: 33.32.896: 117.48.387 33.32.572: 117.48.386 c. Miles of Coverage: • Coastline -5.58 mi. • Area- 2.23 sgmi. d. Generally allowed takes • Sea cucumber Diving commercial • Lobster Trap commercial • Lobster Hoop net recreational • Lobster Diving recreational • Urchin Diving commercial • Rock crab Trap commercial • Rock crab Hoop net recreational • Finfish Hook and line recreational • Finfish Hook and line commercial • Finfish Spearfishing recreational e. Habitats /Features • Surfgrass 3.84 miles • Hard 30m Proxy 0.80 miles • Soft 30m Proxy 4.10 miles • Beaches 3.28 miles • Rocky Shores 2.30 miles • Kelp Maximum 0.08 miles • Unknown 0 - 30m 0.60 sq miles • Soft 30 - 100m 0.31 sq miles • Soft All Depths 1.46 sq miles • Hard 30 - 100m 0.02 sq miles Site Rationale a. Helps sustain, conserve, and protect marine life populations. b. Improves recreational, educational, and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems that are subject to minimal human disturbance, and to manage these uses in a manner consistent with protecting biodiversity. c. Protects marine natural heritage, including protection of representative and unique marine life habitats in California waters for their intrinsic value. d. Helps ensure that California's MPAs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures, and adequate enforcement. 32 4. Provenance and Design Considerations a. Modified the existing boundaries of Crystal Cove SMCA and simplified take regulations. Very important as a goal 3 MPA as local educational programs and enforcement efforts maintain this area. Boundaries have been created following feasibility guidelines of recognizable points and offshore whole minute lat/long corner connected by straight lines. Main goal is to preserve protection of inter -tidal species which local educational, recreational, and enforcement activities are based. Offshore distance is not a large concern due to allowed uses recreational and commercial take. Activities allowed /performed in the area are not inconsistent with recreational opportunities which are goals of Stale Parks. Local Docents, signage, education, literature and land based enforcement protect the area of terrestrial access in which species requiring protection exist. b. Trampling of inter -tidal species may be limited by local enforcement agencies. 4. Other: This is a heritage MPA. It is established for the maintenance of public access to view and experience a high abundance of indigenous marine organisms within an easily accessible area. Recommendation that it must have a sponsor agency or group that provides the following: a. Seaward boundary markers (buoys) at no less than three to a mile. b. On shore markers at the shore -side boundaries and coastal access points with the prohibited takes that would otherwise be allowed, listed. c. Some measure of local enforcement, minimally a docent program of public outreach volunteers that provide information to the public and can report infractions to local law enforcement. This program should put at least one person in the area during most daylight hours. This area has a sponsor group that does this already. It is intended that a filled, dedicated full -time non -DFG local peace officer position will satisfy this requirement. d. This is a Goal 3 motivated heritage MPA that doesn't otherwise meet the feasibility guidelines well. ii Laguna Beach SMR 1. Introduction The Laguna SMR is part of this array's backbone of MPA's. This proposed MPA would protect the area from fishing, reef habitats will benefit and this is one of the most beautiful sections of the Orange County coast. In addition, this site choice reflects the core of the area that local residents commented they would like to see protections for. It has ample access for those who would like to visit and experience natural abundances of the species likely to benefit from such protections. It is designed to meet the SAT guidance for spacing and habitat replication guidelines for most key habitats. However, due to the rarity of certain habitats within the subregion some habitat guidelines are not met. One habitat that is short of being a "replicate," is so by being short merely 4 % of the threshold value. Specifics are delineated under "habitat replication notes" below. This MPA represents major sacrifices by all consumptive users. The coastline distance between Newport and Dana harbors is comprised of only 12 miles, of that available coastline, over 3 miles of it is incorporated into this SMR (25% of the available coast). This MPA meets the minimum SAT guidelines, any additional area would present severe socioeconomic impacts for the area for recreational, commercial and local businesses. 2. Essential Facts: Laguna Beach SMR a. Tvpe of MPA: State Marine Reserve (SMR —all take prohibited) b. Boundaries: (per DFG feasibility guidelines): • Western Boundary: 11 7A8.4 W • Eastern Boundary: 117.46.6 W • Northern Boundary: Mean High Tide • Southern Boundary: Out to state waters c. Miles of Coverage: • 2.58 miles of shoreline. • 9.18 square miles d. Generally allowed takes • None, only as allowed under special permit. e. Habitats /Features (SAT Replication Guidelines): • Soft 100 - 200m 1.63 sq miles • Soft 200 - 3000m • Surfgrass • Soft 30 - 100m • Soft All Depths • Hard 100 - 3000m • Hard 30m Proxy 4.37 sq miles 1.71 miles 2.14 sq miles 8.76 sq miles 0.01 sq miles 1.24 miles 34 Soft 30m Proxy Rocky Shores Beaches 3. Site Rationale a. Backbone MPA site b. Plays important role in larval statewide and regional MPA 1.27 miles 0.98 miles 1.60 miles connectivity and ecological function of networks c. High conservation value; protects broad range of marine and cultural resources d. Strong local political will and support for targeting the Laguna Beach as a SMR site e. Meets broad range of MLPA goals and objectives i. Protects the natural diversity and abundance of marine life, and the structure, function, and integrity of marine ecosystems. ii. Helps sustain, conserve, and protect marine life populations, including those of economic value. iii. Improves recreational, educational. and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems that are subject to minimal human disturbance, and to manage these uses in a manner consistent with protecting biodiversity. iv. Helps ensure that California's MPAs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures, and adequate enforcement, and are based on sound scientific guidelines. v. Helps ensure that the state's MPAs are designed and managed, to the extent possible, as a network. f. Achieves balance between conservation and limiting socio- economic impacts g. Good area for eco- tourism In. Cross interest support—This geography or a similar geography exists in all three proposals under RSG consideration, This MPA design resulted from extensive cross - interest negotiations. Its bounds reflect the careful consideration of many competing issues. These include, habitat protection (foremost), water quality. in the way of the Aliso diffuser location, public access for all users. commercial harvest of lobsters that supplies local markets and restaurants, recreational fishing interests of many types and access for those who would visit this MPA because of the protections for critters it affords. 4. Compliance with SAT Guidelines Meets SAT size guidelines Expressly or functionally meets SAT guidelines to capture replicates for the following key habitats: 35 • met Soft 100 - 200m • met Soft 200 - 3000m • met Surfgrass • met (at 96% level) Soft 30 - 100m • met Soft All Depths • met (data gap) Hard 30m Proxy • met Soft 30m Proxy • met Rocky Shores • met Beaches 5. Design Considerations a. This Laguna SMR is part of the backbone of MPA's designed to meet the SAT dictates for spacing guidelines and most of the habitat replication guidelines. However, due to the non - existence of certain habitats within the subregion, some habitat guidelines are not met (specifics are delineated in "Other Considerations "). b. Intent is to support the permitting of all activities required under other regulatory authority that will or may result in a "take" of protected resources, expressly including those required for the continued maintenance and upgrade of existing facilities related to the Aliso waste water management facility. c. The design of this MPA represents a large compromise among fishing interests in the area and cannot be moved or expanded without major economic impacts to the adjacent harbors and local sport and commercial interests. Lobster fishermen are heavily impacted in this area by closing Pinnacles and Arches. In addition this MPA keeps areas of high recreational impact such as Salt Creek and Woods Cove open for local fishermen. However local access for shore based activities like beach fishing and spearfishing will be impacted. d. The Laguna area has high utilization by both the recreational and commercial sectors. Newport harbor is the home of (2) Sportfishing operations and Dana harbor is home to (1), which, in numbers of fishing passengers served, equals the volume of the (2) located in Newport harbor. Both harbors boast thousands of resident private boats /consumptive users, of which the highest percentage frequent the Laguna area as opposed to the areas west (north) of Newport harbor and /or east (south) of Dana harbor. The Newport Beach /Laguna Beach /Dana Point area provides access points for kayak, spear and shore fishermen. Both harbors are bases for commercial fishing to include lobster, crab, urchin, and some finfish trapping in addition to live bait operations. At times the coast of Laguna Beach is a prime, thriving area for the harvesting of market squid by commercial seiners. e. Last, the historic Newport harbor dory fleet fishes this area for its product (cod, sculpin, etc.) which is sold to tens of thousands of southern California 36 residents and visitors to the local area annually and has been for the past 80 years. This MPA retains easy coastal access points south of Cress street open for all users while allowing those desiring non- consumptive use easy access above Cress Street; thus sharing available easy access between the multiple uses. 6. Habitat Replication notes a. This area shows no kelp habitat; however do to two restoration projects by OC CoastKeeper (Nancy L Caruso)and by MBC (Mike Curtis) these two projects have restored kelp in the area. One of the projects restored kelp by relocating sea urchins (not allowed to be taken currently). These historic kelp beds were destroyed by El Nino, poor water quality and urchin grazing. Continuous monitoring of the beds will continue into the future. The linear miles covered by these restoration projects (currently exceeding the maximum kelp guideline) exceed the replication requirements. In addition, local knowledge of this area believes that the shallow rock proxy may be underestimated in this area. b. An independent scientific hydroacoustic survey was conducted to quantify kelp and hard bottom habitat in the near shore area of the proposed Laguna MPA. The results of the analysis showed an estimated 1.33 statute miles of kelp and 2.12 statute miles of hard bottom along the survey transects. This data was collected by Bio Sonics and submitted for consideration by the Science Advisory Team. This information confirms local knowledge of this area. c. This MPA misses soft 30 -100 m habitat replication and spacing guidelines by an insignificant 0.1 statute square miles. The authors of this MPA request that the SAT evaluation acknowledge this small gap and count this habitat in evaluations. d. This MPA captures all key habitats except Soft 30 -100 M (missed by 0. 1), Hard 30 -100 M, Hard 100 -3000 M, Persistent Kelp, and Hard 30 M Proxy (Data gap). 37 Laguna South SMCA 1. Introduction 2. This is strictly a goal 3 MPA emphasizing inter -tidal /tide pool protection with monitoring and enforcement provided by local agencies and government officials. Please see www.ocmarineprotection.org for information about the goals of Orange County inter- tidal protection areas. Intent is to have an SMCA that extends 1000 feet offshore and protects intertidal species. Take of species generally not associated with tide pool areas is to be permitted while providing tide pool specie protection. 3. Essential Facts: Laguna South SMCA a. Type of MPA: State Marine Conservation Area b. Boundaries: (per DFG feasibility guidelines): • Originating from the point along the Dana Point Harbor Breakwater where it first bends at approximately 331 27.5' N and 117° 42.3'W • Thence directly offshore 1,000 feet • Thence upcoast along the 1,000 foot from MHT contour, generally trending Northwest ward to where this contour intersects with the Laguna SMR • Thence shoreward along that boundary to its landfall at MHT. • The area of interest for protection encompasses only the nearshore intertidal. This boundary is excessive for providing the intended protection from shore based "shore picking." Thus the desired protections are amply provided for within the above described boundary. C. Miles of Coverage: • 6.9 miles of shoreline. • 1.43 square miles d. Generally allowed takes • Sea cucumber Diving commercial • Lobster Trap commercial • Lobster Hoop net recreational • Lobster Diving recreational • Urchin Diving commercial • Rock crab Trap commercial • Rock crab Hoop net recreational • Finfish Hook and line recreational • Finfish Hook and line commercial • Finfish Spearfishing recreational 3s e. Habitats /Features (no replication or network function value applicable for these • Surfgrass 4.40 miles • Hard 30m Proxy 0.19 miles • Soft 30m Proxy 3.71 miles • Beaches 4.72 miles • Hardened Shores 0.32 miles • Rocky Shores 3.42 miles • Kelp Maximum 0.43 miles • Unknown 0 - 30m 0.75 sq miles • Soft All Depths 0.53 sq miles 4. Site Rationale a. Meets the following MLPA goals and objectives • Protects the natural diversity and abundance of marine life, • Helps sustain, conserve, and protect marine life populations, • Improves recreational, educational, and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems that are subject to minimal human disturbance • Protects marine natural heritage. • Helps ensure that California's MPAs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures, and adequate enforcement, and are based on sound scientific guidelines. • Achieves balance between conservation and limiting socio - economic impacts b. Good area for eco- tourism c. Cross interest support —This geography or a similar geography exists in all three proposals under RSG consideration, This MPA design resulted from extensive cross - interest negotiations. S. Compliance with SAT Guidelines a. SAT guidelines are not applicable to the primary purpose of this MPA 6. Other: This is a heritage MPA. It is established for the maintenance of public access to view and experience a high abundance of indigenous marine organisms within an easily accessible area. Recommendation that it must have a sponsor agency or group that provides the following: a. 1) Seaward boundary markers (buoys) at no less than three to a mile. b. 2) On shore markers at the shore -side boundaries and coastal access points with the prohibited takes that would otherwise be allowed, listed. c. 3) Some measure of local enforcement, minimally a docent program of public outreach volunteers that provide information to the public and can report infractions to local law enforcement. This program should put at least one person in the area during most daylight hours. This area has a sponsor group that does this already. It is intended that a filled, dedicated full -time non -DFG local peace officer position will satisfy this requirement. d. This is a Goal 3 motivated heritage MPA that doesn't otherwise meet the feasibility guidelines well. 40 Executive Summary Hello and thank you for reading my document. The southern California region is now nearing the end of the planning phase in which numerous individuals made a huge commitment to participate in this process. The path to this point was sometimes difficult and the learning curve was steep but with help from a talented support team, including the BRTF, SAT, DFG, State Parks, I -Team, Staff, and many more the RSG has accomplished its goal. Using guidance provided and public input from many hundreds of individuals, RSG members created three distinct options to pass on for final analysis and possible referral to the Fish and Game Commission along w7th the no action alternative proposal 0. The BRTF is now tasked with designating a "preferred alternative" when referring these proposals to the commission. I respectfully ask the BRFT to take the following actions at their October 20 -22 meeting in Long Beach, California: Forward all three SCRSG maps without modification to the Commission for CEQA analysis • All thee groups have worked hard to produce a range of options as directed • SAT, DFG, Parks, and BRTF guidance has been followed where possible • Careful consideration and negotiation were used to create the arrays • Modification by the BRTF may not consider collaborative negotiations by SCRSG members Forward Proposal 2 as your preferred alternative to the Commission • Proposal 2 captures all open -coast habitat replicates at high LOP • Proposal 2 captures estuary replicates except for eelgrass, which is poorly mapped in the region. • Proposal 2 meets spacing guidelines for all habitats where it was possible except for two missed in the contentious Laguna area. Local knowledge was provided for one habitat (30 meter rock proxy) and rationale provided for the other. • Proposal 2 has comparable spacing and coverage for rare habitats where spacing could not be met except for kelp and 30 -100 meter rock. This was due to excessive economic /recreational impacts, other interests' concerns, and limited availability of the habitat in the bioregion. • Proposal 2 considered multiple interests harbor masters, wastewater districts, city councils, research agencies/facilities, national parks, city parks, tide -pool research/protection, local enforcement officials, and all of the numerous fisheries in the south coast study region. • Proposal 2 has the lowest overall social- economic impacts in all sectors commercial, CPFV, and recreational values for dicers, kayakers, and boaters. • Proposal 2 performs the best under MSY and conservative management, the most probable future management schemes in the modeling. Page 1 of 31 Laguna area: As identified by the SAT, the difficulties of creating MPAs to capture habitat replicates increases substantially, moving southward from Palos Verdes. All proposals create a "backbone" SMR and additional low LOP SMCA MPAs in the Laguna geography. 1 will concentrate first on the "backbone" MPAs and address the SMCA areas later in this section as they are all tied together. This geography has many obstacles to overcome to minimize social- economic impacts and take into consideration the conflicting concems/desires of Orange County Wastewater District, Laguna City Council, Dana Point and Newport Harbor CPFV and private boaters, Orange County Board of supervisors, and local consumptive /non - consumptive users. All three proposals create an MPA with SMR designation in this geography. All of these SMRs captured all of the habitat replicates except hard 30 -100 meters, hard 100 -3000 meters and persistent kelp, none of which occur in this area. According to the SAT habitat analysis proposal 2 did not capture hard 30 meter proxy and soft 30 -100 meters. Please consider Notes on habitat replicates for proposal 2 in Laguna, following on page 8 for more discussion on this issue. BRTF instructions to the three work groups to achieve cross - interest, efficiency, and preferred size created very different MPA solutions for the Laguna/Orange County geography. I feel proposal 2's SMR solution for this area is best for these reasons: • Proposal 2 has the most efficient design and evenly covers deep and shallow habitat types. Proposals I and 3 have triangular shapes that disproportionately [and inequitably] cover more shallow habitats. • Proposal 2 evenly divides easy coastal access points between consumptive and non - consumptive users. Proposals I and 3 disproportionately close most easy public access points with free street parking to consumptive users. This eliminates diver opportunities as they cannot swim through an SMR with their catch and makes kayakers travel greater distances to get outside the SMR boundaries from these access points. • Since much of the fishing activity in this area consists of neatshore shallow water species proposal 2 significantly reduces economic impacts to commercial fisheries. • A large number of local and Orange county residents use this area for recreational spear- fishing, shore fishing, and kayak angling. Proposal 2's SMR minimize this impact to these user groups. (See table below) • Proposal 2 took into consideration the Wastewater District, Department of Defense, and the existing extensive local tide -pool protection infrastructure in this area when creating their MPAs in this area. The SMR does not cover the discharge pipe or its buffer zone. is almost equidistant from Newport and Dana Point harbors, and does not interfere with DoD operations around Dana Point. Page 9 of 21 feel proposal 1 and 3 SMR solutions are not desirable for the following reasons: • 1 understand these two proposals were attempting to capture shallow rocky reef habitat and enough maximum kelp to count for a replicate in this area. This forced them use the inefficient triangular shapes. In doing so however they had the following relative overall impacts in this geography: • Commercial fisheries associated with Dana Point show an increase in loss of profit and gross income of approximately 135% and 150% over proposal 2 in the SAT analysis. There were also increased impacts other ports like Oceanside and San Pedro for some fisheries. • Commercial lobster is the highest ranking fishery at Dana in terms of gross income and profit in the analysis making up approximately 50% of gross income at $914,095. The increase in loss of gross income for this fishery is approximately 175% and 265% over proposal 2. • Reductions in profit for CPFV landings in Newport show an increase in loss of profit of approximately 200% and 322% over proposal 2. • Reductions in profit for CPFV landings in Dana Point show an increase in loss of profit of approximately 180% and 345% over proposal 2. • Recreational angler opportunities were disproportionately impacted in this area by proposal 1 and 3 particularly affectingdivers and kayakcrs. Divers may actually have higher impact due to the fact they cannot transverse an MPA with species not allowed as take in their possession. Please see table below for recreational impacts. Inter -Tidal protection at Laguna: Proposal 2 considered Laguna City Council's resolution and Blue Belt committee desires for a city wide reserve on the Laguna coast. Work Group 2 considered what was really important to the community and their local ability to assist in educating, instructing, and enforcing the marine protections along the Orange County coastline. They also considered the investment in local infrastructure all the communities along this coast have in tide -pool protection, research, and education. Contrary to initial guidance based on DFG feasibility results, they decided to make every effort to provide inter -tidal protection comparable to what previously existed, with simplified regulations and continuous uniform boundaries to ease enforcement. Working diligently with DFG and State Parks they crafted two SMCA areas on each side of the SMR. Laguna North SMCA approximates the State Park underwater area at Crystal Cove with straight lines. Laguna South SMCA follows a 1000 foot offshore distance to the Dana Point harbor break -wall. These offshore distances and the regulatory language provide protection to all inter -tidal invertebrates and plants while still allowing lobster, urchin, and fish harvest by recreational and commercial interests. This along with the size of the SMR account for the large discrepancy in economic impacts inflicted by proposals 1 and 3. Page 10 of 21 I believe proposal 2's combination of coastal SMCAs and SMR make the most reasonable solution for the Laguna coastline. Proposal 1 and 3 are not valid options because of the following reasons: • Proposal 3's SMR completely covers the Aliso wastewater outfall. Public input repeatedly stressed the Wastewater district's concern on this issue. • Substantial increases in social- economic impacts in all fisheries over proposal 2 for Newport and Dana Point harbors • Substantial loss of recreational opportunities for consumptive users in Orange County particularly divers and kayakers • Unfair distribution of easy public access points with free street parking for recreational consumptive /non - consumptive uses. Proposal 2 fairly splits this access evenly between the consumptive /non- consumptive uses at Cress Street as mentioned repeatedly in written and oral public comments. • SMCA regulations and offshore distances of approximately one mile for the SMCA MPAs in proposal 1 and 3 make in unreasonable to expect current local agencies, docents, and governments to assist in enforcement and public instruction effectively. DFG very strongly recommends MPAs of this nature with low conservation values have adequate effective local cooperation which is lacking due to these large distances offshore. Notes on habitat replicates for proposal 2 in Laguna: • Local RSG knowledge indicated the existence of enough rocky reefs in the Laguna area to qualify as a replicate. SAT analysis acknowledged they show a replicate for maximum kelp was attained in this area but did not give credit for the hard 30 meter proxy, however according to earlier SAT discussion kelp was also considered as an indicator for shallow rocky reef. Spacing would have met guidelines for this habitat in proposal 2 if local RSG knowledge had been included in the SAT analysis. Please consider the local RSG knowledge in your decision making process. • I have the utmost respect for the SAT team and the effort they have put into this process. I believe they did the best they could with the time and resource constraints placed on them by the process. That said introducing a new kelp qualification and measurement during the final round of RSG proposal development was unexpected. From my perspective some workgroups attempts to meet that new kelp guideline drastically influenced their shapes in the Laguna area. Proposal 2 found the economic impacts too substantial to meet this new kelp guideline. I know the SAT has to show the spacing results as developed for Round 3. however. 3 kelp measurements in a graph of 14 total habitats has the appearance of missing several habitats when you are really only missing one. Please take this late addition and its representation into consideration when reviewing at the spacing analysis. Page I I of 21 • Laguna • Laguna 8 P1 Laguna Maps Table of recreational impacts for Orange county loss of opportunity -Species Method Proposal I Proposal2 Proposal 3 Halibut Dive 15.1% 6.9% 36.2% Halibut 4.1% 6.8% 16.6% Halibut -Kayak Private Boat 2.1% 2.4% 5.8% Calico Bass Dive 32.9% 14.8% 78.3% Calico Bass -Kayak 7.2% 3.0% 24.1% Calico Bass Private Boat 6.1% 3.5% 13.9% Lobster Dive 17.1% 9.2% 21.8% Lobster Kayak 3216% 3.1% 10.1% Lobster Private Boat 15.1% 3.4% 11.8% Shee head Dive 60.2% 10.4% 66.1% Shee head Kayak 39.4% 4.7% 39.0% Shee head Private Boat 315% 25.0% 52.6% Sand Bass Dive 35.5% 15.4% 83,2% Sand Bass Kayak 6.4% 2.9% 25.2% Sand Bass Private Boat 2.0% 0.9% 5.3% WSB Dive 12.8% 7.4% 31.7% WSB 7.5% 10% 35.0% WSB -Kayak Private Boat 11.5% 4.2% 21.3% Yellow Tail Dive 10.5% 8.5% 18.8% Yellow Tail -Kayak 15.5% 9.8% 28,7% Yellow Tail Private Boat 1 31% 2.2% 14,15% San Diego County area: This is another area where capturing habitat replicates is difficult due to extensive use, State Parks, Wastewater outfalls, DoD activities, and community beach replenishment activities. All the proposals created two "backbone" MPAs in this area as either an Encinitas/La Jolla or Del Mar/Sunset Cliffs pair. Although habitat replicates may not be captured in one MPA alone the pair considered together may. In this case the Del Mar/Point Loma pairs capture all habitat replicates; the other combination misses hard 100 -3000 meters. Placement of MPAs is critical in this area due to the concentration of consumptive /non - consumptive uses and the fact San Diego is home to the largest CPFV fleet in the world. I feel proposal 2's Del Mar /Sunset Cliffs solution for this area is best for these reasons: Page 12 of 21 MLPA Proposal 1 Orange County _ Mlnn ,Demon Sup. l- C '.. w .matinemap.olg ► �- f• MaFV~ DWa Support Tod MPA , Ai 1111, Intl rrupolals Dau Laren TIC TIN 11Np i' p � 1 \ 1. (�^ >oa 4 33 3/ B10 _ 11I` IS 170 JJ,�� � la9una lWls �.. ,- LIP,- ��. " ✓ f 1 i � ~ i wom i t . M uS Cw1 t 1— � 1 f 1 l/ a 111 1 Il �'!•� Wwacrm..1 11 .wP t*" P.. oyy San JW ;. capmensm :1- f S � \. uK Gala WDM [ioop! �, �MnIraMlp Decnw. ' MLPA Proposal 2 Orange County Llumd.lp Ceovca Sup F � ,. v:vN. •nannemaporp � � � f' MatimNAF De jwn Support Tod WAS. AFHyS wW PFOposals DATA Layers RC FIN Help ®r 911 117 45 108 I aqun His r - ' / l AI ,fie. j 10 k NF'�KI Orv• ` -� .= A CaMWanO Fr •, k CiM..jk \ u.r. mu coos oe"ee'ae �, Reports MLPA Proposal 3 Orange County MarmeMap Decrsron Sup.. F C it WwW.manuemaporg ► Q- �- MmureMAP Oeovuo Support Tod MPA,, Ar.ays. acid Proposek Data Layers FIC FIN Help 103 3 33317_. - 117'19719 A73 /e Y ., �f lagunalb, ' d� ti W eri _ V AMOV.ro L 6 n 1 1 '04 / y: Is9uns R 1 r K" A, i y,� .�r. Nquel Cl_ Y4j G000 {;, Reports rir we ew mow xomr Proposal 1 and 2 Overlaid ... monoemv OKnwn Sup — E C i4 KAV..mannemap orc ► ["j - j• - Ka WW P Ueovon Support 1001 MPAS, Arrays, and Proposals Uau layers RC FIN Uelp - rvunn c: )3: 35 745 11T 47 127 a a9un H" 3 rr►e1[ u ��/ •, 7777 F�'p►. ,( I -. , I r - 9 V t. 4 (,G•uv �.OtJ!,k w.► aw awos yak - L Reports Proposal 2 and 3 Overlaid MamdNap peawon Sup. E C tT www.mannpmap.org - ► (� • f Mal,"~ plOSgn Supp4n 7401 WAS. Allays. and %OpOSWS Oita layers f IC FIN - Felp r. _ `` ..,.N' 71R' r ♦ru 77 36 Sl/_ 1114 010 %B Laguna 14115 b AbO.Vep \ a it- ar L a -•" San A A 1u w Pon At i r K� .1� we aw e]a)5 e�sope Reports y'. suaa44ed buiqsi� A4unOD a6ueap Recreational Fishing Loss of Opportunity 0.00% - 10.00% - 20.00% - 30.00% - 40.00% - 50.00% - 60.00% - 70.00% - 80.00% - 90.00% P1 P2 P3 El Halibut Dive • Halibut Kayak • Calico Dive • Calico Kayak • Lobster Dive • Lobster Kayak • Sheephead Dive o Sheephead Kayak ■ Sand Bass Dive r7 Sand Bass Kayak ❑ WSB Dive F1 WSB Kayak • Yellow Tail Dive • Yellow Tail Kayak