BRTF schedules meeting to change North Coast proposal
In one last attempt to modify the results of a unique show of tribal strength and North Coast communal culture, a special meeting of the Blue Ribbon Task Force will be held in a "webinar" format Dec. 9 at 10 a.m. A draft agenda and information on access lines will be posted soon on www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa.

The latest developments indicate the actual work of the North Coast Regional Stakeholders Working Group has little more substantive chance of gaining the approval of the Fish and Game Commission than the other "smokescreens" produced by previous Marine Life Protection Act Initiative stakeholders, but just how different of an alternative arises from the new meeting is the big question.

If you're not up to date, the members of the NCRSWG seemed to score the first grass roots victory in the MLPAI process when their proposal for marine protected areas along the North Coast appeared to be the number one alternative to arise from what was supposed to be the final Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting for that section of the California coast. That's because it was apparent to veteran observers that the "North Coast Enhanced Compliance Alternative MPA Proposal" resulting from a motion by BRTF member Greg Schem was a confusing effort that offered only headaches and no solutions to the problems stakeholders struggled with to come up with their proposal, which for the first time in the history of the MLPAI received the unanimous approval of the stakeholder group. Worse, at least as far as the BRTF was concerned, the powers that be were upset that a much stricter proposal was not on the table for the Fish and Game Commission to consider.

An extra meeting to allow the BRTF to get it right is not unprecedented, but during the South Coast process it was termed an extension of the final meeting and announced in public before close of business of that meeting. The "Immaculate Alternative" was the result of that go-round as BRTF and MLPAI staff somehow created an entirely new proposal overnight, avowedly without ever meeting as a group.

In a message to "Members of the north coast community and other interested parties" BRTF Chair Cindy Gustafson outlined the reasoning for the extraordinary move and also outlined how the true process has taken place behind closed doors during communications between BRTF members, SAT members and MLPAI staff:

At the conclusion of the October meeting, MLPA Initiative staff initiated an extensive quality control process to ensure that the motions accurately reflected the BRTF's intent and to ensure that staff had accurately translated the BRTF's intent into action items. Based on feedback from BRTF members, it became clear that some individuals had different understandings about Motion 4. Attached is a copy of a message to me from BRTF member Greg Schem that highlights his concerns regarding Motion 4 and outlines his intention when putting forth the motion during the October meeting.

 ? I am convening an additional meeting of the BRTF on December 9, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. to address different interpretations of Motion 4 and to explore the need for additional actions. Addressing this as part of the planning process will help ensure that the California Fish and Game Commission receives recommendations that fairly reflect what BRTF members intended and that the MLPA North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (NCRSG) and broader north coast community are involved in the discussion. I believe it is also essential that the north coast community's unified MPA proposal be reflected in any MPA proposal put forward by the BRTF.

 ? The December 9 meeting will be in the form of a teleconference and webinar with three public participation locations in the study region; a draft agenda will be posted after the Thanksgiving holiday. I am encouraging BRTF and NCRSG members to attend the meeting at one of the three public participation locations. During the meeting the BRTF will clarify the intent of Motion 4, which ?was put forward in order to create a "book-end" alternative for coming closer to meeting the science guidelines while maintaining the placement of MPAs as developed by the NCRSG, and to discuss the need for an additional recommendation to adequately address the original intent.

 ? The design described in Option 3b from a "staff memo" circulated for the October meeting seems most consistent with Greg Schem's intent. We will only be discussing whether to add this option to the other two proposals already approved by the BRTF. The MPA design described in Option 3b would not alter the placement of MPAs developed by the stakeholders, but attempts to strengthen the level of protection to be consistent with the science guidelines, as done in other study regions.

 ? This meeting will focus on the original intent for Motion 4 and is not an opportunity for generating or furthering new ideas; it will not reopen discussion of any recommendations made by the BRTF during its October 25-26, 2010 meeting. All recommendations (motions 1-7) made during the October meeting, together with any additional recommendations approved by the BRTF during the December 9 meeting, will be forwarded to the California Fish and Game Commission in February.

The "staff memo" provided to BRTF members outlined how they could circumvent the work of the North Coast stakeholders completely to reach SAT guidelines or how it could work to modify the impacts of the need to provide for tribal uses - the number one stumbling block keeping the BRTF from imposing unilateral SAT guidelines for the area. Ironically, the staff memo and the message from Schem to Gustafson and MLPAI Director Ken Wiseman are exactly the kinds of documents that Bob Fletcher, a member of the South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group, recently filed a successful lawsuit in order to gain access to. In that process much of the real negotiating took place behind closed doors as environmentalists, the BRTF, SAT and MLPAI staff managed to overturn the entire first two-thirds of the process and allow extreme environmentalists planted on the stakeholder group to create new proposals within a "safe haven" that kept fishermen from participating in discussions over the last few months. The North Coast has been a different animal from the other MLPAI project areas as locals ranging from environmentalists to loggers, and from tribal members to recreational and commercial fishermen banded together to fight a process viewed at the minimum to be imposed by outsiders and at the maximum as carpetbaggers representing interests such as big oil and energy development. Everything in the North Coast process has hinged on the strength of local Native American tribes and their leaders who have relentlessly fought to protect their cultural heritage. At the crux has been the fact the BRTF does not have the legislative power to change laws and has been advised that the California Fish and Game Commission does not have the authority to grant individuals or specific groups of people the right to take marine living, cultural, or geological resources from within MPAs for non-commercial purposes. In other words they cannot allow tribal members to shore fish with hook and line, for example, and not let recreational anglers also fish in that manner. Proposal 3b that Chair Gustafson wishes to discuss simply says "Round3 NCRSG MPA Proposal at Mod-High (modified uses)." But it's not so simple, since a moderate-high level of protection, which is what Mod-High refers to, prohibits activities like hook and line fishing or clamming by hand, both of which are allowed throughout the proposal with the notation they are "intended to accommodate tribal uses."

Proposal 3b would literally gut most of the tribal uses the NCRSG proposal intends to provide. In the Pyramid Point SMCA, for example, only dipping netting for smelt would survive the cut

On the other hand, only the tribal members would suffer, since recreational and commercial fishermen clearly intended to give up any rights to fishing waters considered for MPAs in the final NCRSG proposal.

Still, once again the BRTF would create its own "preferred alternative" proposal based on the holy mantra of meeting SAT guidelines. After all, by their own admission, BRTF members really have no choice. Before Round 3 of the proposal process, the BRTF told the North Coast stakeholders "If the NCRSG's Round 3 proposal(s) do not meet the science guidelines to the extent possible, recognizing that in some areas habitat distribution precludes meeting the science guidelines, the BRTF may be forced to consider modifying the Round 3 proposal(s)."

Forced by whom? No doubt by the big money foundations funding the process with the cooperation of the same lame-duck governor who fired his own Fish and Game Commission appointee after that commissioner voted for a delay that would have prevented approval of the South Coast Region closures before he left office.

By the way, have Fletcher and his attorneys received the e-mails, etc. between the SAT, BRTF and MLPAI staff that he won a right to see by court order?

"They finally told us they were going to give us the communications but we haven't gotten anything yet," said Fletcher. "We probably won't get anything until the South Coast Project has been adopted. It's all about a certain governor achieving his legacy before he leaves office."

The adoption of the South Coast closures is scheduled for the Dec. 15 meeting of the Fish and Game Commission in Santa Barbara. It will be the third BRTF preferred alternative to be rubber stamped by the commission. None of the stakeholder proposals forwarded to the commission by the BRTF in any of the project areas have yet to be seriously considered for adoption.