Here is Brett Baker’s excellent piece, “Crashing the Principal’s Office,” about our attempt on September 30 to attend a secret meeting of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, followed by other news from Restore the Delta.

Delta Flows, October 11, 2010- News from Restore the Delta 

Crashing the Principals’ Office 

By Brett Baker 

Over the past several weeks, the media has reported on “secret meetings” being held behind closed doors to set the course for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. Resources Agency Director Lester Snow went before the DSC last week to refute the reports of “secret meetings” saying they were due to insufficient fact checking on the part of reporters and news media. 

On the morning of September 30th, 2010, a BDCP principals meeting was convened at the California Farm Bureau Federation off of Garden Highway in Sacramento. Those on the invite list included BDCP steering committee members who were only privy to the discussion, but not allowed to speak. (Melinda Terry of the North Delta Water Agency- the sole Delta rep in the room – told us that she was offered a seat for having signed the planning agreement, but not offered a speaking seat.) Speaking seats were reserved for “principals”- representatives of the entities who have financed the planning process-the finest display of pay-to-play I have never seen in government. 

A group of four individuals Bill Jennings, Dan Bacher, Jim Beuttler, and I walked into the conference room unannounced, and were welcomed by complete silence and awkward stares. It was as if the scent of the Ganges on a warm summer evening had followed us into the room, which is ironic when one realizes that we were there to protect the Sacramento River. 

As folks attempted to regain composure, we were asked by the meeting facilitator to introduce our selves. So we did. She then recommended to the group that we be allowed to stay as did David Nawi, Senior advisor to the Secretary of the Department of Interior. 

The meeting was recessed, and immediately a group convened in the hallway to discuss how the “principals” would like to address our presence. It could be described as a secret meeting within the secret meeting. 

We were approached by the meeting facilitator, and asked to leave for the sake of equity..Apparently, other folks, including Senator Lois Wolk’s staff, had been turned away because the “principals” felt it was a necessity to have closed door discussions in addressing such contentious issues. The meeting facilitator then attempted to pacify our concerns, saying the entirety of the discussion would be reported to the Delta Counties Coalition(DCC) next Thursday (October 7, 2010). Of course this reply begs the question, “If they intended on reporting the entirety of the discussion, what was the harm in letting us stay?” After all, we should trust them to self-disclose the decisions that they reached in private that will greatly affect Delta communities and water resources for the entire state for centuries to come. 

The meeting facilitator also informed us that if we were to stay that we must swear to remain silent for the remainder of the meeting and not report the names or attribute quotes to any of the folks in the room. Specifically, folks in the room had agreed to a non attribution clause, because having the dialogue around the table attributed to any one particular entity may be problematic for the entity’s public relations efforts. 

We responded that as American citizens we felt we were entitled to our first amendment rights and could make no such promise. She went on to say that this was not a first amendment issue, and the discussion digressed from there. 

Lester Snow then called her out into the hallway for a brief discussion and she returned to ask us to leave. Mr. Jennings, for clarifications sake, asked if she was prepared to have us arrested if we refused. She replied that they weren’t. Overall, the meeting facilitator was pleasant and courteous as were we. We were then told that if we did not leave, the “principals” would have to leave. 

And leave they did. The meeting was not reconvened, and following Lester Snow’s lead the attendees began to slowly file out of the room. 

As this event was scheduled to be a two-day meeting. I surmised that they might hold the next day’s meeting at the Federal Building in downtown Sacramento, where security is a little tighter. 

As our fate was being decided in the hallway, we were greeted by environmental observers (others relegated to non-speaking seats), Kim Delfino from Defenders of Wildlife, Cynthia Koehler and Ann Hayden from Environmental Defense, and Gary Bobker of The Bay Institute. We also had a polite talk with Jason Peltier of Westlands Water District. We made small talk and joked about the deficiencies of the process. 

The last two principals remaining in the room were Roger Patterson and Jeffry Kightlinger of Metropolitan Water District, who also followed us into the parking lot for a bit of civil discussion. 

I feel that we walked away with a new found respect from the folks in the room. Several told us that for the most part they understood and even supported our bit of formal protest. 

On a personal note, I felt like I was able to exercise my rights as an American that morning, and having done so now posses a much better understanding of Margaret Mead’s quote: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does” 

All in all we walked into the meeting at 9:20 a.m., and discussion ceased by 10:30 a.m. The room was empty and the only sign that a meeting had occurred were the empty coffee cups left around the table. 

It was encouraging to feel a victory in this war on the Delta- no matter how small. Today is another day, and our work continues… 

Called into the Principals’ Office: The Not-So-Superintendent 

Lester Snow may have been kicked upstairs from DWR Director to Resources Agency Secretary partly to ensure delivery of the Bay Delta Consesrvation Plan. The Administration may have been thinking that potentially regulated entities (PREs) around the BDCP table were losing focus and Snow would be the one to get fol 
ks back on track and encourage compromise. Unfortunately, last month the table was moved to a back room, and people from the Delta weren’t given a key to get in. 

Delta legislators complained in a formal letter to Snow and the Department of the Interior, but the Schwarzenegger Administration is showing itself to be increasingly contemptuous of California’s elected representatives. 

At the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) meeting on September 23, Snow provided a briefing on the situation, With his federal counterpart, Interior Undersecretary David Nawi, at his side Lester presented his rebuttal letter sent to Senator Wolk and other state legislators and federal representatives. 

Snow vehemently argued that the “closed-door, back room discussions” referenced by legislators were not in-fact taking place in “smoke-filled rooms.” He blamed the whole fuss on inexperienced media people not fact-checking their claims prior to filing their stories. (Most people wouldn’t classify the Contra Costa Times’ Mike Taugher with careless media people.) 

Snow stopped just short of criticizing the judgment of Senator Wolk and everyone else who signed the letter. What was really going on, he said, was an attempt to get BDCP Principals on the same page, and he felt the talks made BDCP a better process because in his opinion all the “main caucuses” were in the room. He pointed out that, after all, the decision making will take place in public meetings. 

But Snow was clearly shaken, as if even he didn’t believe that what was coming out of his mouth was the whole truth. We wouldn’t blame him for feeling that from the standpoint of ethics, continuing to strong-arm Delta communities and the ecosystem really isn’t worth it. 

The product of the meetings was a report titled “Issues for Discussion for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.” (Available athttp://www.resources.ca.gov/restoring_the_delta.html) Snow was careful to point out that this was not a draft plan, just a progress report on what has been considered throughout the planning process. Something that will give the transition team of an incoming administration an idea of where things stand. 

Nawi noted that the current information compiled by the BDCP steering committee lacked a framework that made BDCP understandable. Is this a nice way of saying that the whole plan is basically incoherent? 

There was some discussion about assigning a staff “point person” from both DSC and BDCP to ensure increased communication between the two entities. 

Nawi spoke briefly about the federal government’s commitment to best available science and the furthering of the “co-equal goals,” as well as increasing its involvement in Delta Planning. 

They had to pay someone to tell them this…. 

DSC independent consultant ARCADIS released a report that bashed BDCP’s progress and lack of significant findings, and the lack of willingness and/or ability to ask the right questions. A notable weakness is the vagueness surrounding proposed operational criteria and conservation measures. RTD reported on this last month (August 25) in our “Haste makes waste, again” article. 

The DSC briefly discussed the ARCADIS report, and we can only hope that they give it the attention it warrants. 

If the folks running BDCP had listened to and addressed the issues and concerns we have heard continually brought up at public scoping meetings and community outreach meetings, maybe the council could have saved itself the ARCADIS consulting fee. 

Technically speaking 

There was a good bit of discussion regarding the DSC’s adoption of a Delta Plan, the folding in of BDCP, and how an appeal should be handled if someone takes issue with the Plan. 

Greg Zlotnik (State Water Contractors) requested some clarification from the Council on the necessity of BDCP in a Delta Plan. Isenberg reminded Zlotnik that “necessity” was not the critical point; the critical point was whether the BDCP would remain eligible for state funding. (It is easy to forget that taxpayers are funding this process on which the State of California has now spent over $100 million.) 

Isenberg: “That is why you are here.” 

Zlotnick: “No, it isn’t.” 

Isenberg: “Trust me, that IS why you are here.” 

After some debate on legislative interpretation, it was determined that if the BDCP is submitted and DSC receives no appeal requests (unlikely), then BDCP is automatically rolled into the Delta plan. 

Mr. Zlotnik and Mark Rentz of ACWA took issue with a perceived conflict of interest that DSC will be the ruling body if the Delta Plan, which the DSC is charged with approving in the first place, should face an appeal. After a great deal of discussion, Isenberg assured folks that this was legal and even typical. He pointed out that the Coastal Commission and Delta Protection Commission both review appeals on their own work. He held firm to that view despite arguments that a “de novo” process (”a new trial by a different tribunal”) should be followed instead. 

The newly-appointed Executive Director of the DPC, Mike Machado, was warmly received, congratulated on his appointment, and thanked by the Council. Machado reported on the ongoing Economic Sustainability planning. He also reported that a draft primary zone study should be out in October and adopted by December. In addition, he reported that the DPC is moving forward with their National Heritage Area (NHA) feasibility plan. 

Gary Bardini, DWR’s new Chief of Hydrology and Flood Operations, gave a rundown on Delta levee maintenance activities. The DRMS study was heavily referenced, and once again the Delta was characterized as one giant seismically vulnerable subsiding peat marsh. 

Randy Fiorini asked Bardini if DWR’s current efforts would result in an overall Delta levee plan. Isenberg stepped in to explain that it wouldn’t. The state does not have an overarching Delta-wide plan for non-project levees, and the subventions program that is in place for cost sharing with the local agencies hasn’t been working for the past couple of years. 

Fiorini and especially Hank Nodoff seemed astounded that we lack a comprehensive levee plan. Isenberg went on to explain that the reason the state avoided dealing with local agencies was to avoid liability in the event of a failure. The looks on the faces of the DSC members was priceless: the entire council (except Isenberg, who had a devilish grin on his face) was clearly shocked. 

Council members, thank you for having the grace to be appalled by this preposterous state of affairs.

Photo: Participants in the closed door Bay Delta Conservation Plan meeting convened by the California Department of Water Resources chose to leave rather than allow four Delta advocates stay in the room. Here we see some of the meeting participants conferring before moving to an undisclosed location. Photo by Dan Bacher.

640_img_0403.jpg
original image ( 3456×2304)

Secret Meeting Participants Flee From Delta Residents, Fishermen

by Dan Bacher 

The 50 participants in a secret meeting deciding the fate of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta on September 30 decided to leave rather than to allow four Delta advocates to listen to the proceedings. 

Bill Jennings, chairman/executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA); Jim Crenshaw, president of CSPA; Bret Baker, a Delta pear farmer, biologist and Restore the Delta board member; and I disrupted the meeting of Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to protest the closed process. 

We arrived at the meeting of “principals” of the BDCP at the Farm Bureau office in Sacramento just as the meeting was getting started. You could feel the tension and sense the surprise by the federal and state agency officials, water agency leaders, corporate agribusiness officials and others gathered there as we walked into the back of the room. 

The Department of Water Resources has told legislators that they’re not welcome at meetings of signatories to the BDCP, the plan that state water exporters have undertaken to secure their water supplies. Many advocates view the BCDP as a thinly-veiled attempt by the Governor to put in place the plans for a peripheral canal/tunnel before he leaves office. 

The meeting facilitator, Betsy, announced our unexpected arrival. “We have guests in the room. Would you please identify yourselves?” 

We all introduced ourselves and then the meeting stopped. The facilitator talked to us about the process and why they had to meet in secret so there would be no “attribution” of comments by participants. 

“We have had to say no to other people who wanted to come to the meetings,” she stated. “This is not a definite plan we’re coming up with. This is a temporary process to give advice to the permanent process. 

We were asked not to report the names of any of the participants or attribute quotes to them. We refused. ‘ 
She emphasized, “The policy of non-attribution governs everything said in this room. We don’t let anybody from the press come to these meetings since in the past the newspaper has served as the vehicle of negotiations – and we don’t want that to happen.” 

Jennings responded that “the state and federal agencies are sending the wrong message here. I have worked on protecting the estuary for 3 decades, but I have no representatives here. The representatives from two Senate offices weren’t allowed here either.” 

Baker and Crenshaw agreed with Jennings and myself that we had the right to stay in the meeting. Betsy went back to the group and they said they wanted to take a break to decide how to deal with our presence. 

After a long delay, Betsy came back and stated, “The group as a whole has asked you to leave.” 

Jennings, after asking under whose authority or jurisdiction we were being asked to leave, said, “Are you prepared to have us arrested?” 

Betsy received word from Natural Resources Secretary Lester Snow that rather than having us arrested, they would not continue meeting in that room unless we left. The participants then began leaving from the room, disbanding the meeting. 

After the meeting was disrupted, Jennings said, “I’m astounded that four people involved in Delta issues for decades walked into a room and had everybody walk out from continuing the discussion about the future of the Delta.” 

“What I’m really disturbed by is the corruption of this public process and how the participants are deciding the fate of the Delta behind closed doors.” 

Jim Crenshaw noted, “I find it incredulous that these meetings are not open to public.” 

Bret Baker added, “Today I feel like a proud American. I understand the meaning of Margaret Mead’s statement that ‘Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.’” 

Representatives from the California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Water Resources, California Department of Fish and Game, Westlands Water District, Metropolitan Water District, federal agencies, environmental NGOs and other organizations attended the closed-door session at the Farm Bureau before the four of us disrupted it.

Sandy Cooney, deputy secretary for communications for the California Natural Resources Agency, was critical of our effort to attend the secret meeting in the Central Valley Business Times on September 30. 

“There’s a lot of discussions that are happening in the course of developing the Bay Delta Conservation Plan that will go into the public process of how the plan is eventually developed,” Mr. Cooney claimed. “No decisions, not a single decision, is going to be made if it doesn’t eventually go through the public process and the steering committee of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.” 

“Mr. Cooney insists that plans for the Delta, the largest estuary on the west coast of the western hemisphere, will be done in a transparent way,” the article added. 

Mike Wade of the California Farm Water Coalition also slammed our attempt to attend the BDCP closed-door meeting. 

“The action taken by these four individuals have probably done more to set back efforts to resolve California’s water crisis and protect the Delta than any one action in recent memory,” Wade stated. “What a shame.” 

In reaction to Wade’s comment, Jennings quipped, “I don’t know whether to take a bow or to open the champagne. Unfortunately, the principals convened their secret session at another location after we left and then again at an undisclosed location the following day.” 

These meetings have been going forward behind closed doors since August in what Resources Secretary Lester Snow told lawmakers was “a key procedural component of the public BDCP Steering Committee process.” Speaking seats at the meeting had been reserved for “principals,” representatives of the entities who have financed the planning process. 

I observed representatives from the California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Water Resources, California Department of Fish and Game, Westlands Water District, Metropolitan Water District, federal agencies, environmental NGOs and other organizations at the closed-door session at the Farm Bureau.

Jonas Minton of the Planning and Conservation League noted that exporters had withdrawn from the public BDCP process when confronted with overwhelming scientific evidence that exports from the Bay-Delta would have to be reduced to save the Estuary. “They’ve been frantically trying to come up with some kind of agreement that could be signed before this Governor leaves office,” said Minton. 

A sharply worded letter sent on September 16 by Members of Congress and the California legislature urging Lester Snow and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to open the BDCP talks to the public and include Delta representation preceded our visit to the secret meeting. 

State Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis), Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, and Congressional Representatives John Garamendi, Doris Matsui, Jerry McNerney, George Miller and Mike Thompson officially requested that the meetings be more inclusive and transparent. State Senator Mark DeSaulnier and State Assembly Members Bill Berryhill, Joan Buchanan, Alyson Huber, Tom Torlakson and Mariko Yamada also signed the letter. 

A similar push to the BDCP by the Governor has driven the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process going forward in coastal Northern California, noted Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta. 

“The MLPA Initiative, like the BDCP process, has been characterized by attempts to bypass open meeting laws,” said Barrigan-Parrilla. “ In that case, MLPA officials limited media coverage of their ‘work sessions,’which they distinguish from public meetings. One independent journalist was arrested for trying to film “work session” proceedings.” 

Newspaper industry and civil liberties attorneys protested, saying the process violated the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act and the First Amendment. Under political pressure, MLPA Executive Director Ken Wiseman opened up the “work sessions” to videographers and photographers. 

For more news coverage of the meeting, go to: http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=16448. For more information about Restore the Delta, go to: http://www.restorethedelta.org.

by Dan Bacher

The Central Coast Fisheries Conservation Coalition (CCFCC) on October 6 donated $10,000 to the Ocean Access Protection Fund.

The money will used to filed lawsuits against Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative. Fishermen, over 50 Indian Tribes and grassroots environmentalists have criticized the process, funded privately by the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, for the violation of numerous state, federal and international laws and many conflicts of interest.

The Ocean Access Protection Fund (OAPF) was formed to collect funds for “legal action against policies that do not recognize the conservation efforts of fishermen, or impact recreational access to the ocean on behalf of all California anglers and outdoor enthusiasts concerned with maintaining public access.”

“We at the CCFCC are still working for the rights of all of the state’s fishermen,” said Harold Davis, board member of CCFCC. “We ask that all fishermen and fishing groups donate what they can ASAP. The progress has been great and we are still going forward.”

To make a donation on line, go to [url]www.oceanaccessprotectionfund.org[/url].

“Public-private partnerships may not be all bad, but they leave room for big problems like those that we have seen under the MLPA’a Memorandum of Understanding between the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation and the California Department of Fish and Game,” said Davis.

“There are two things that rule the world, money and sex,” quipped Davis. “Some get the money, while some get screwed. While the big corporate environment NGOs are getting the money, we’re getting screwed. We shouldn’t have private money driving the MLPA program like it is now.”

The OAPF is being spearheaded by United Anglers of Southern California. This effort is a collaboration of committed and like-minded organizations and user groups including the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans, the American Sportfishing Association, supporting members of the Avalon Tuna Club, Coastside Fishing Club, International Game Fish Association, Kayak Fishing Association of California, National Marine Manufacturers Association, NorCal Kayak Anglers, Southern California Marine Association, Sportfishing Association of California and the Watermen’s Alliance.

In a landmark decision on October 1, a California Superior Court in Sacramento issued a ruling confirming that two panels overseeing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative are state agencies that must comply with the California Public Records Act. This lawsuit was funded through the Ocean Access Protection Fund that CCFCC just donated $10,000 to.

Judge Patrick Marlette of the California Superior Court in Sacramento ruled that the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) and Master Plan Team (MPT) — also known as the Science Advisory Team- are state agencies and therefore compelled by California’s Public Records Act to share information with representatives of angling/conservation organizations working to protect recreational ocean access.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Malloy & Natsis LLP, on behalf of Robert C. Fletcher, former president of the Sportfishing Association of California, a member organization in the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO), requesting the release of public records. Marlette ruled that the agencies must release all of the documents requested by Fletcher by October 10, 2010.

“This is a very significant ruling to the many recreational angling groups and individuals across California who have invested so much time and energy in the MLPA process,” said Fletcher. “This ruling validates our long-held position that the groups implementing the MLPA and making decisions that result in closures of large areas of the Pacific Ocean to recreational activities cannot carry on as if they were not agencies of the state.”

“Like any other state agency, these groups are responsible to the public and must do their work in an open and transparent way that the public can learn about through laws like the Public Records Act,” added Fletcher.

“Now we’ll get to see information that has been previously hidden from us about key decisions made by the BRTF and MPT,” said Steven Fukuto, president of non-profit United Anglers of Southern California (UASC) and director of the Ocean Access Protection Fund (OAPF), a division of UASC formed to rally anglers and sportsmen across California in support of legal action.

“This ruling is an important first step, but we’re going to need more financial assistance from anglers to support our efforts to flight this flawed process in the courts,” Fukuto said. For additional information, visit [url]http://www.keepamericafishing.org[/url] or [url]http://www.oceanaccessprotectionfund.org[/url].

round3_map.pdf
download PDF (633.4 KB)

MLPA Initiative asks for public comment on North Coast proposal 

by Dan Bacher 

Interested members of the public are invited to comment on the Round 3 Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (NCRSG) Marine Protected Area (MPA) Proposal and NCRSG Special Closures Recommendation, according to an announcement from the MLPA Initiative on September 28. 

In contrast with other regions, the North Coast stakeholders, including Indian Tribes, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, businesses, seaweed harvesters and environmentalists, adopted a single marine protected area proposal to be submitted to the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force. 

“The public is invited to provide written and/or verbal comments to help inform the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) at its October 25-26, 2010 meeting,” the announcement stated. “Feedback on specific MPAs or special closures, including boundaries, designation type, proposed allowed uses (take regulations) and general location is valuable.” 

Over 300 people including members of 50 Indian Tribes, environmentalists, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, immigrant seafood industry workers and human rights activists peacefully took over the task force’s previous meeting in Fort Bragg on July 21 to protest the violation of tribal rights and greenwashing that has occurred under the controversial MLPA Initiative. As the protesters marched on the meeting, they shouted “MLPA, taking tribal rights away” and “No Way, MLPA.” 

MLPA critics have blasted the so-called marine protected areas created under this process for completely taking oil drilling, water pollution, military testing, habitat destruction and other human uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering off the table. The Blue Ribbon Task Forces that oversee the MLPA process are dominated by oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corporate interests. In fact, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the chair of the Western States Petroleum Association, chaired the South Coast Task Force and now sits on the North Coast Task Force. 

The public can submit comments the following ways: 

WRITTEN COMMENTS 

Written comments are encouraged to be submitted by October 18, 2010 so that BRTF members can receive and review them prior to the October 25-26 meeting. Written comments received between October 19 and 21 will be provided to the BRTF at the October meeting; after October 21, written comments must be submitted at the BRTF meeting in Fortuna. Written comments can be submitted via: 

Online: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/round3comments_nc.asp (through October 18 only) 

Email: MLPAComments [at] resources.ca.gov 

Mail: Marine Life Protection Act Initiative 

c/o California Natural Resources Agency 
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Fax: 916.653.8102, Attn: MLPA Initiative 

VERBAL COMMENTS 

MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting 
October 25-26, 2010 
River Lodge Conference Center 
1800 Riverwalk Drive 
Fortuna, CA 95540 

The public is invited to provide verbal comments at the upcoming BRTF meeting in Fortuna. Wall maps of the Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal and Round 3 NCRSG Special Closures Recommendation will be available for public viewing at the meeting location. 

Public comment will begin at approximately 3:00 p.m. on Monday, October 25, 2010. Helpful public comment includes: 

Feedback on specific MPAs or special closures, including boundaries, designation type, proposed allowed uses (take regulations) and general location. Do you support what is being proposed? If not, can you offer a specific change to the MPA boundaries, designation type, proposed allowed uses and/or general location that would make it more acceptable? 

Feedback on the complete proposal. 

As an alternative to attending the meeting in Fortuna, the public is welcome to attend a public participation location to view the meeting and/or provide public comment: 

CV Starr Community Center 
300 South Lincoln Street 
Fort Bragg, CA 95437 

Location TBD 
Crescent City, CA 

The public will also have an opportunity to comment on any BRTF action items. Please refer to the attached document, Guidelines for Providing Public Comment to the MLPA Initiative North Coast Project for additional information. 

Background 
At its August 30-31, 2010 meeting, the MLPA North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (NCRSG) developed a single MPA proposal in Round 3 of the north coast MPA planning process; the NCRSG also developed a recommendation for special closures. The MPA proposal and special closures will be analyzed by the MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Parks and Recreation, and MLPA Initiative staff. The proposal and special closures will also be reviewed by the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force at its October 25-26, 2010 meeting in Fortuna. 

Information about the Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal and Round 3 NCRSG Special Closures Recommendation are available: 

Online: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/mpaproposals_nc.asp 

MarineMap: http://northcoast.marinemap.org/ (under the “MPA Proposals” tab) 
Name of the proposal is Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal 
Name of the special closures recommendation is Round 3 NCRSG Special Closures Recommendation 

Print or CD: Contact the MLPA office at mlpaoffice [at] resources.ca.gov or 916.654.1885

While the state is drowning in debt, the General Fund is being drained by the government-created toxic drainage crisis in the San Joaquin Valley. Please read this outstanding article by Patrick Porgan of Planetary Solutionaries, one in a series entitled “Doubts about the Drought.”

nwc_thumb.png

General Fund Being Drained by Budget Crisis and Government-Induced Drainage Crisis 

by Patrick Porgan, Planetary Solutionaries 

While Californians are being held captive waiting for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature to adopt a budget, already more than 80 days late, costing “We the People” $52 million a day; more than $4 billion to date, they are also throwing $100s of millions down the drain and compounding California’s government-induced water crisis. 

Within the past decade California has been besieged by a water supply crisis, a budget crisis, a credit-rating crisis, a jobs crisis, an education crisis, a health care crises and a water quality crisis. The water quality crisis was identified as a potential crisis in the 1950s, and has contributed to the pollution of a significant length of the 330 mile San Joaquin River. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 215.4 miles of the river are on the 303(d) list, (the latest EPA approved list is from 2006), adding to demise of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 

The primary sources of the water quality crisis is from toxic salt discharge from lands irrigated by subsidized water delivered by the federal Central Valley Project to contractors “farming” on the arid west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Millions of acre-feet of water are exported from the project’s Delta pumping plants which transport salt to and from those lands. All of this is being done as the government declares its intent to “save the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary” while sanctioning its demise. Common sense dictates that it is not possible to continue sanctioning the dumping of hundreds of tons of toxic salts into the San Joaquin River and the Bay-Delta Estuary annually and expect it to survive. 

Toxic salt loading is not only taking its toll on the river and Bay-Delta Estuary, it is draining the State General Fund, as a myriad of publicly funded programs for drainage, water quality improvement, fisheries restoration and others continue to be financed with borrowed money from the deficit-ridden General Fund. 

Water officials have wasted more than $10 billion and 35 years in extended delays in their failed attempt to carry out their legal mandates to protect the waters of the state and restore the Bay-Delta Estuary. In addition, the Bay-Delta Estuary was touted as the “ground-zero poster child” pitched by water officials in support of the so-called historical 2009 “Water Package” – $11 billion bond act, approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor. Even the mainstream media acknowledged this “package” as a “backroom-pork-barrel deal”. The “package” is once again being sold to “improve” the Estuary. The bond measure has been rescheduled for the 2012 ballot. 

The fact remains that for decades the “responsible” government officials and political appointees on both the State Water Resources Control Board and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (boards) have been sanctioning the discharge of trainloads of toxic substances into the San Joaquin River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay Estuary. The discharges have been reported to exceed the state’s toxic threshold limits. The question as to whether this train wreck in the making will be allowed to continue dumping and pumping in excess of 3.4 million pounds of toxic salts per day into the waters of the state will be the subject of a meeting scheduled before the State Board on 5 Oct. 2010. 
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_info/agendas/2010/oct/100510agenda.pdf 

A significant portion of the San Joaquin River has been declared to be water quality impaired-polluted (unfit to swim in, eat certain species of fish and so forth). On a map published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in 1999, entitled, Index of Watershed Indicators, it shows that the valley is the single largest “more serious water quality problem – high vulnerability” area in the nation. This dubious 
distinction is the direct result of the boards’ failure to take action to stop the discharge of these toxic substances into the waters of the state, which exceed both state and federal water quality standards. 

Source: Environmental Protection Agency – Index of Watershed Indicators

640_sacramento_splittail_…
original image ( 641×427)

 Obama Administration Denies Protection for Sacramento Splittail

by Dan Bacher

The Obama administration decided on October 5 to deny protection for Sacramento splittail under the Endangered Species Act, even though this native species has declined to record low population levels in recent years.

The Sacramento splittail, a hardy native minnow, once swam in huge numbers in lakes and rivers throughout the Central Valley and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, but massive water diversions and alteration of important spawning and rearing habitat have driven this formerly abundant species to near extinction.

A press release from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that the splittail “does not warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).”

“The best available scientific information demonstrates no recent decline in the overall abundance of the splittail nor threats that rise to the level of being significant to the splittail at the population level,” the federal agency claimed.

The service said the finding, to be published in the Federal Register on Oct. 7, 2010, is based on a “thorough evaluation of the current status and level of threat to the species. While habitat loss has occurred over the years, the existing data fail to show a significant long-term decline of the splittail. Available population data do not show an overall decline, but rather natural fluctuations demonstrating a pattern of successful spawning during wet years followed by reduced spawning during dry years.”

“During flood years, Sacramento splittail can be one of the more abundant fish in the Delta,” claimed Dan Castleberry, Field Supervisor of the Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office. “Similarly, as you would expect, during drying periods, spawning is reduced, and the abundance of splittail, especially young splittail, can be low.”

The Service also echoed corporate agribusiness and Schwarzenegger administration claims that the collapse of Sacramento splittail and other Delta species including Central Valley salmon and Delta smelt has not been caused by massive exports of water out of the California Delta in recent years.

“Research has shown no evidence that south Delta water export operations have had a significant effect on splittail abundance, even though fish collection facilities can capture a large number of fish (up to 5.5 million) during wet years, when spawning on the San Joaquin River and other floodplains results in a spike in population numbers,” the Service contended. “The number of splittail captured by these facilities drops during dry years when recruitment is low (1,300 in 2007; about 5,000 in 2008) and the splittail is most vulnerable.”

The determination was the result of a Center for Biological Diversity lawsuit and settlement agreement to revisit a tainted Bush-era decision to strip Endangered Species Act protection for the Sacramento splittail. In a statement reacting to the decision, the environmental group described the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s determination as “inexplicable.”

“The Service’s decision is indefensible, since the splittail population has dramatically declined in numbers since 2002 and collapsed to barely detectable numbers in the past few years. The Bush administration improperly stripped Endangered Species Act protections for the splittail in 2003, which was formerly protected as a federally threatened species,” according to m the Center.

“It’s a pretty outrageous decision, given that the splittail population has crashed in recent years along with almost every other native fish species in the Bay-Delta and the Central Valley, and numbers of splittail found in annual surveys are at record low numbers,” said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity.

“The Sacramento splittail is nearing extinction and the Service’s decision was certainly not based on good science or common sense and did not take into account the severe threats to the splittail and its habitat in the Delta and Sacramento River floodplains. We will definitely challenge this decision.”

Miller cited a recent independent analysis of splittail population trends by the Bay Institute, using updated data from five sampling programs that collect splittail in the estuary, shows that there has been a significant decline in the abundance of splittail in the estuary during the past several decades. The estimated numbers of splittail have fallen to consistently low levels since 2002, and the estimated abundance from 2007 to 2009 has been the lowest recorded since surveys began in 1967.

The Bay Institute’s analysis of survey data shows that the splittail is declining in abundance and at risk of becoming endangered, and that its geographic range and habitat have been curtailed and its resilience has been reduced. The institute concluded that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species and it habitat and without Endangered Species Act protections for key habitats, conditions for splittail are likely to get worse.

For the first time ever, the Department of Fish and Game fall midwater trawl survey in the Delta in 2008 found not one single splittail! The index, a relative measure of abundance, for the splittail was only 1, the next lowest number of fish ever recorded, in both 2007 and 2009.

Conservationists and fishermen, in the face of this overwhelming data showing the alarming decline of this species, are wondering how the Service could have possibly concluded that the splittail doesn’t warrant listing under the ESA.

“President Obama promised that under his watch environmental decisions would be made based on sound science, but the Fish and Wildlife Service under Ken Salazar doesn’t seem to have gotten that memo yet,” Miller quipped.

Conservation groups first petitioned for federal ESA protection for the splittail in 1992, after the population crashed, and the Service proposed listing the species in 1994. But the agency delayed listing until a Center lawsuit and court order forced it to take action. In 1999 the splittail was listed as a threatened species. After litigation by water agencies and agribusiness challenging the listing, a court ordered the Service to review the status of the splittail. In 2003 the Service, in a major Bush administration scandal, improperly removed the splittail from the threatened list despite strong consensus by agency scientists and fisheries experts that it should retain its protected status.

Bush administration official Julie MacDonald, former Interior deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife, and parks, was found to have improperly tampered with the decision to remove the splittail from protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Although MacDonald was not involved in the initial 2003 decision by Fish and Wildlife Service officials to delist the species, she was “involved extensively and intimately” in the editing of the final decision. Her edits were “voluminous,” including changes to the statistical analysis of splittail population data, the Interior Department Inspector General wrote in a investigation report on her activities released November 27, 2007.

MacDonald, who owned an 80-acre farm in the Yolo Bypass – a floodplain that is key habitat for the splittail – edited the splittail decision in a manner that appeared to benefit her financial interests rather than the fish, according to Jeff Miller.

In 2009 the Center filed a lawsuit against the Service challenging this action, part of a larger campaign to undo Bush-era decisions that weakened protections for dozens of endangered species. The Service agreed earlier this year to make a new finding on whether listing the splittail is warranted.

In reality, it appears that the “Change” that Obama promised to the voters often amounts to either continuing Bush administration fish and water policies, or actually proceeding to the right of Bush, as in the case of “catch shares” and genetically engineered salmon.

The complete finding can be found at http://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/. For more information call, Jeff Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity, (510) 499-9185.

By vetoing these three badly needed bills, Schwarzenegger showed that he cares nothing about Delta communities and collapsing salmon and other fish populations.

headshot.jp 

by Dan Bacher 

In a landmark decision today, a California Superior Court issued a ruling confirming that two panels overseeing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative are state agencies that must comply with the California Public Records Act. 

Judge Patrick Marlette of the California Superior Court in Sacramento ruled that the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) and Master Plan Team (MPT) — also known as the Science Advisory Team- are state agencies and therefore compelled by California’s Public Records Act to share information with representatives of angling/conservation organizations working to protect recreational ocean access. 

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Malloy & Natsis LLP, on behalf of Robert C. Fletcher, former president of the Sportfishing Association of California, a member organization in the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO), requesting the release of public records. 

Marlette ruled that the agencies must release all of the documents requested by Fletcher by October 10, 2010. 

“This is a very significant ruling to the many recreational angling groups and individuals across California who have invested so much time and energy in the MLPA process,” said Fletcher. “This ruling validates our long-held position that the groups implementing the MLPA and making decisions that result in closures of large areas of the Pacific Ocean to recreational activities cannot carry on as if they were not agencies of the state.” 

“Like any other state agency, these groups are responsible to the public and must do their work in an open and transparent way that the public can learn about through laws like the Public Records Act,” added Fletcher. 

“Now we’ll get to see information that has been previously hidden from us about key decisions made by the BRTF and MPT,” said Steven Fukuto, president of non-profit United Anglers of Southern California (UASC) and director of the Ocean Access Protection Fund (OAPF), a division of UASC formed to rally anglers and sportsmen across California in support of legal action. 

“Our success in this lawsuit will allow us to shine a light on important decisions that have been made in the dark. We have every confidence this ruling will help us better understand how decisions have been made under the MLPA, and to examine the legal basis for those decisions on behalf of anglers and sportsmen across the state,” added Fukuto. 

“This ruling is an important first step, but we’re going to need more financial assistance from anglers to support our efforts to flight this flawed process in the courts,” Fukuto said. For additional information, visit http://www.keepamericafishing.org or http://www.oceanaccessprotectionfund.org. 

David Gurney, the independent journalist who was arrested for filming a “work session” of the MLPA Initiatives’ Regional Stakeholders Group in Fort Bragg in April, praised the decision. 

“This decision is important because Ken Wiseman, the executive director of the MLPA Initiative and others in the MLPAI have consistently stated that the MLPAI is not a state agency, but an advisory body, and therefore the only had to abide by Bagley-Keene and other state laws as a matter of ‘good faith.’” 

Indian Tribes, fishing groups, grassroots environmentalists and seaweed harvesters have criticized the MLPA for the violation of numerous state, federal and international laws. These include the Bagley-Keene Act, the California Public Records Act, the California Fair Political Practices Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. 

While MLPA Initiative advocates constantly claim that the process is “open, transparent and inclusive,” critics say the initiative is anything but. Over 300 people including members of 50 Indian Nations, commercial fishermen, recreational anglers, immigrant seafood workers and community activists felt so left out of the process that they were forced to peacefully take over an MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting in Fort Bragg on July 21 to protest the violation of sovereign tribal rights and greenwashing that has occurred under the initiative. 

Fortunately, the tribal, fishing, environmental, business and other stakeholders on the North Coast on August 31 adopted one single proposal to submit to the BRTF, in contrast to multiple proposals submitted during the Central Coast, North Central Coast and South Coast regional processes. 

Marlette’s decision is a victory not only for recreational anglers, but for all Californians who support openness, transparency and democratic process in government. The MLPA Initiative, privately funded by the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, must now comply with the law.