Marine Life Protection Act
[4] These impacts have decreased the health and value of California's coastal ocean and imply a need for a more systematic approach to marine conservation.
A well-designed and managed network of MPAs helps to prevent degradation, fosters marine biodiversity, and may maintain a more sustainable fishing industry.
[3] In 1999 the MLPA was created in order to re-evaluate the current MPA system and to establish a better network of MPAs that would be more effective in protecting against habitat and species loss.
[7] The MLPA found that existing MPAs were not created under a coherent plan or scientific guidelines and that there is a need to redesign the MPA system.
An improved MPA system would help protect against habitat and ecosystem loss, conserve biological diversity, provide safe breeding grounds for fish and other marine species, improve research opportunities, create a reference point from which the rest of the ocean can be compared against, and may help to re-grow depleted fisheries.
[5] The MLPA appointed the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) with the task of developing and managing a network of MPAs.
[4] The final decision of the size and location of the MPAs depends on the species and habitats affected, stakeholder and conservation goals, and how each individual MPA will function on its own and as part of the network.
The first attempt involved a Master Plan Team which included primarily scientific experts and governmental agencies, with little input from local stakeholders.
Local stakeholders developed a balanced network that protects the region's best habitat, including parts of the Big Sur Coast and Monterey Bay while allowing continued access to most recreational and commercial fishing grounds.
One of these creeks (Chorro) hosts effluent from a habitual polluter upstream, the CMC (California Men's Colony State Prison).
The SMR took effect in Sept 2007, and in Jan 2008, the CMC spilled sewage into Chorro Creek, which meandered into the State Marine Reserve portion of the Morro Bay Estuary.
Working together, coastal activist Joey Racano, then-Gov Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board together successfully prosecuted the SMR violation by getting the ACL (Administrative Civil Liability) to reflect the violation was more than just another spill, but was a spill into an MPA (Marine Protected Area) into a no-take SMR.
[14] In 2008, South Coast Regional Stakeholders began a public planning process to design the part of the statewide MPA network that spans from Pt.
On Dec. 15, 2010, the CA Fish and Game Commission adopted regulations to create 36 new MPAs encompassing approximately 187 square miles (8 percent) of state waters in the study region.
[citation needed] The North Coast region, which stretches from Point Arena to the Oregon border, concluded the stakeholder planning process in August 2010.
[16] Most recently, the February 2010 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) included several new studies that showed that scientifically-based MPA networks have a net positive impact on both ecosystem productivity and associated fisheries.
[10] Positive response is observed in the example of the increase in California Spiny Lobster biomass and size as a result of no-take designation areas within the Channel Islands MPA.
[10][1] The extension of MPAs into deeper marine topography accounts for migration to and from coastal regions as well as for species that inhabit different depths throughout their life cycles and increases the efficacy of protection in both cases.
[20] As part of administrative state government process, the Game and Fish Commission is required by law to disclose to the public all matters concerning MLPA research, regulation and closures.
Documents obtained in the PRA lawsuit included an email dated April 7, 2007 and advised BRTF members to "give your own notes verbally and throw them away after."
It cited that the practices used by the privately funded BRTF and MPT under the GFC did not comply with "open and transparent" processes as outlined in the Public Records Act and ordered the California Game and Fish Commission to pay all legal fees incurred by Mr. Fletcher and his team.
The Court further found that private individuals on the BRTF and Master Plan Team were not entitled to privacy rights over public records.
Gurney privately financed suing the Initiative and Fish and Wildlife in order to establish that the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act rules—which allow video taping—applied.
The court contrasted the SG with the clearly legislatively created and public meeting body the SAT or Master Planning Team.
The SAT initiated a survey of Native American harvesting which was conducted prior to the issuance of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) permit or conditional exemption.
[29] On February 11, 2010, meeting the SAT substantially changed the statewide definition of taking used in all other marine regions for the Levels Of Protection (LOP) model.
[30] This meant that million-plus recreational license holders were assumed to harvest the full limit every single day within each proposed North Group marine reserve.
[32] Native Americans were never allowed to present on the last minute SAT take assumption changes to the Statewide Levels of Protection Model.
