[Ken Jones]

Testimony for the California State Legislature
Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture
36th Annual Fisheries Forum
March 26th, 2009

Presented by Jim Martin, West Coast Regional Director, Recreational Fishing Alliance Vice President, Salmon Restoration Association Vice President, Sonoma County Abalone Network Mendocino County Fish & Game Commission
Groundfish Advisor to the Pacific Fishery Management Council Member, MLPA Statewide Interest Group
Trustee, California Fisheries Coalition

Thank you, Senator Wiggins, and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Jim Martin. I am a recreational fisherman out of Noyo Harbor. I'd like to invite you all to our fish fry in Fort Bragg this
summer. I am speaking on behalf of Mendocino County and the communities on the north coast that are being impacted by the proposed regulations for the implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA).

There are three main issues to cover:
1. The disproportionate economic impacts to Point Arena
2. The proposed regulations far exceed the funding available
3. Private funding has biased the process and circumvents the legislatures' oversight

Economic Impacts

Small coastal communities like Point Arena, with fragile harbor operations, struggle to function under current fishery management constraints, and they are particularly vulnerable to the MLPA. This community has few votes and little ability to defend itself in a massive regulatory process that requires constant attention.

According to a recent poll, 90% of the American public strongly supports keeping the recreational charter boat industry viable, because they offer the opportunity to get out on the water for people who cannot afford their own boats.

Look at how the MLPA has already affected people's lives in Morro Bay. Talk to Darby Neill, owner of Virg's Landing, and find out how he lost 20% of his recreational charter fishing business when they closed
Piedras Blancas. I spoke with him the other day and he is converting four of his landing's charter fishing boats to commercial fishing because he can no longer break even on recreational fishing trips. Morro Bay is not only losing its fishing infrastructure, it is losing the capacity to offer whale watching trips and eco-tours.

The MLPA process does not even consider these socioeconomic impacts or attempt to estimate them. The regulations have been consistently modeled on alternatives having the most impacts on communities.

We're now getting the message that even after submitting the only alternative (2XA) that met all the guidelines and scientific requirements, fishermen will not succeed because it just wasn't enough to satisfy the Packard Foundation and other private interests funding the MLPA Initiative.

Point Arena Pier stands to lose more than any harbor in the north-central coast study region. The Pier is teetering on the brink of survival. The cities of Fort Bragg and Point Arena, landowners at Sea
Ranch and the County of Mendocino all submitted letters of support for alternative 2XA.

Hemmed in by closures to the north and south, the IPA creates a tiny "box" open to rockfishing in front of Arena Cove. This box is about four square miles. That will be the only area open to commercial and
recreational groundfish out of Point Arena. As abundant as our marine resources are, such a small area cannot sustain all that concentrated fishing pressure.

We presented abalone punch card data to the Fish and Game Commission and projected the results of the proposed regulations for that fishery in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties. Our abalone fishery is managed
sustainably and is one of the world's last viable abalone fisheries. The proposed regulations close nearly half of the shore-based public access sites in the region. We predict much of this fishing effort to shift into Fort Ross, an area already under a lot of pressure. The abalone management plan requires a complete closure of any dive site when the local population of abalone drops below minimum viable populations densities. The process did not consider existing fishery management.

The proponents of the IPA have showed their lack of interest in sustainable fisheries, particularly abalone diving and seaweed harvest. Who could claim that snipping a few fronds of sea palm could harm the
ocean or habitat? Why do we have regulations prohibiting take of a single species like abalone when this act was supposed to be about habitat protection and ecosystem management?

And speaking of habitat protection, the most important feature of fish habitat is the water itself. Why hasn't Water Quality been addressed by the regulations? The way we see it, the MLPA Initiative has developed an anti-fishing bias and only controls fishing activities while allowing all sorts of other human impacts on marine resources. Water quality not only affects fisheries like salmon, it impacts the vast majority of marine species that are not targeted by any fishery.

Funding

Fishermen will support marine protected areas (MPAs) through when they are based in science and have clear, quantifiable goals that are integrated into existing fishery management. However, without the commitment of public funds for the monitoring, evaluation and
enforcement of the new network of MPAs, they become "paper parks"protected in name only.

We have supported efforts by the Department of Fish & Game to hire new wardens and make their pay commensurate with other law enforcement agencies; we bought night vision goggles, outboard motors for our
wardens to help in this effort. Do you think fishermen will go this extra mile, if they are rewarded for their efforts with this arbitrary loss of public access?

Yet the legislature struggles to appropriate funds to pay new wardens. Fishermen know the costs of management and enforcement of our fisheries,
since we contribute over $50 million each year through our recreational fishing license fees.

We find the costs estimated to implement the MLPA are simply staggering: at minimum, $35 million per year.

Budget concerns are an issue with every government entity in the state, and our county board of supervisors is very concerned about the job losses associated with these impacts to recreational and commercial fishing businesses.

Without legislative oversight, the MLPA has spiraled out of control, leading to the cost overruns that have been mention in several letters from members of the Senate. What was supposed to be a $250,000 project
has ballooned into a behemoth that will cost no less than $400 million over the next decade. Where is this funding coming from? There's no doubt among fishermen that these costs are real; we know what good management costs and have proven time and again that we are willing to pay for it. However, the MLPA does not represent good management – it represents an attack on sustainable fisheries management.

Biased Process

Special interest groups have hijacked the MLPA. The Packard Foundation has picked up most of the tab for the public meetings and has influenced key policy decisions. Contracts with the MLPA Initiative staff are not subject to legislative oversight or public scrutiny, as they would have been had the process been conducted under the Department of Fish & Game.

The law provided guidance that "the Department and team shall develop a preferred siting alternative" (FGC Section 2857a), but the Department of Fish & Game has been completely marginalized in the MLPA process. The agreement between the Governor and the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation stripped the DFG of its statutory role. This worked greatly to the disadvantage of the final regulatory package we have before us today. Members of the Task Force openly mocked the Department's concerns about the enforceability and feasibility of many of the proposed MPA regulations. Instead of simply narrowing the range of alternatives for the Fish & Game Commission's consideration, the Task Force chose the flawed preferred alternative in an ad hoc fashion, the morning after a late-night public hearing.

How is it that the Fish & Game Commission passed the MLPA regulations for the south-central coast without first submitting a final master plan for MPAs to this committee, as required by statute? Not only has the
process bypassed this committee's review, it has also bypassed the oversight of the Budget Committee.

This privatized rulemaking process has resulted in a program that this legislature never envisioned nor approved. Had the MLPA statute been advertised as a proposal to lock up 40% of the states' most productive
fishing grounds, with no funding for long-term monitoring and enforcement, it never would have passed.

These problems can be fixed – and here are a few solutions:

Cost-Benefit Analysis of MLPA Alternative Proposals: The regulatory package needs a set of comparisons of the costs of various proposals, and quantifiable benefits associated with each package. The law requires
that all the alternatives be considered and that no alternative be chosen that costs more but does less. We are just now learning about the costs, but there has no attempt to quantify the benefits of the MPAs.

Legislative Review: this must precede implementation of regulations. Already, regulations have been implemented from Point Conception to Pigeon Point without any opportunity for your committee's input. Before the Commission adopts MPA regulations, it must submit the final master plan for MPAs, including proposed regulations for the entire state network of reserves to this Committee for review and comment.

Mission Creep and Cost Overruns: the regulations must fit the funding available. The legislature needs to work with the DFG to understand the costs involved with the entire project, identify revenues and commit
general funds to the MLPA, consistent with the scope of the project.

Restore the Role of the Department of Fish and Game: the Department has the technical expertise and legal knowledge to craft MPA fishing regulations to complement the overall goals of sustainable fishery
management. Relegating the DFG to a support role has been one of the biggest mistakes made in the MLPA process to date.

Abolish the Blue Ribbon Task: the Task Force seems to be assuming the regulatory authority of the Fish and Game Commission. The Legislature should reaffirm the independent decision-making authority of the Commission in the MLPA process.

Amend the MLPA: require funding be appropriated by the Legislature to ensure some Leg and public oversight; integration of existing fishery management to avoid unintended consequences; that new protective
measures address all sources of environmental degradation in balance to the threat.

In conclusion, the legislation you passed in 1999 was not supposed to be a financial disaster for coastal communities.

It was not supposed to close 40% of the best fishing grounds.

It was not supposed to threaten the $1.3 billion dollar saltwater recreational fishery or the $130 million commercial fishery.

It was not supposed to cost California thousands of jobs.

It was not supposed to cost $400 million in the next ten years, and oninto eternity. It was not supposed to cut off so much shore-based access that it threatens to destroy the $10 million abalone fishery.

Finally, it was not supposed to be a biased process that ignores the social and financial losses to fishing communities, or assume that endless amount of bag money will be available to fund this experiment.