The One Unified Array Gone Awry

There never was unity on the array itself, consensus was reached. From the beginning many of us declared Tribal activities De minimus. Respect for options of co-management by Tribes and agencies (within existing and proposed SMRs) is widely supported.

It was never the intent of many of the RSG to close whole sections of coastal waters and the onshore to recreational and commercial use or Tribal use in SMCAs. Tribal access is intended as allowable use for any MPA in the North Coast Study Region – SMR, SMCA, SMP. Statewide, the MLPAi process will have to back up once again, and “straighten things out on the south Coast” Roberta Cordero, BRTF member and traditionally oriented Chumash woman and an enrolled member of Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation.

Over the last 3 weeks MLPAi communications have led to confusion and fear... Perhaps Big Green (NRDC, TOC) have in mind to move the jurisdiction of the decision to far far away, where their political agenda is buoyed by signatures from people who think fish come from plastic wrapped styro trays or petri dishes and will never visit these “underwater parks”.

So... this week's teleconference pre-meeting communications of interest include:

To: Members of the north coast community and other interested parties
From: Cindy Gustafson, Chair, MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force
Date: November 24, 2010
Subject: Additional meeting of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force

“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 (V.1.) download at
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meeting_102510.asp
or
http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentVersionID=42673 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 8 meeting, will be forwarded to the California Fish and Game Commission in February.”

From: Greg Schem
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 5:20 PM
To: Cindy Gustafson; Ken Wiseman
Cc: MLPA_ITeam [at] lists.resources.ca.gov; MLPA_NCBRTF [at] lists.resources.ca.gov
Subject: BRTF Draft Documents

“Upon reviewing the video, I can see how the conversation evolved in such a way that my original intent was misunderstood and the alternative language did not create the kind of “bookend” I intended (one that better meets the science guidelines). I also suspect that one or more of my fellow BRTF members may have understood staff "Option 3d" differently than I did. As such, I will not ask my fellow members to reconsider our action to move that alternative forward for consideration by the commission. However, upon review of the anticipated SAT evaluations, I am concerned that this alternative MPA proposal will not fare any better in meeting the science guidelines than the Revised NCRSG MPA proposal.”


The question is in the interpretation... 2 days previous to the Oct 25-26 2010 BRTF meeting:

To: Cindy Gustafson, Chair, MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force
From: MLPA Initiative Staff
Subject: Potential actions at the October 25-26, 2010 BRTF meeting
Date: October 22, 2010

Doc V.1.

Potential Draft Motion 3: Adopting a Preferred Alternative MPA Proposal
It is the intent of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force to recommend to the California Fish and
Game Commission a preferred alternative MPA proposal for the MLPA North Coast Study
Region that contributes to a statewide system of MPAs in achieving the six goals of the MLPA.
The SAT evaluations indicate that in most cases the preferred science guidelines are not
achieved within the Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal and, in a number of cases, the minimum
science guidelines have not yet been achieved (see Attachment C). The DFG feasibility analysis
indicates that the Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal will fall short of achieving its intended goals
and objectives and, hence, not achieve the goals of the MLPA.

Therefore, the BRTF is forwarding a north coast preferred alternative MPA proposal that is the:

Option 3a: Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal,

Option 3b: Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal at Mod-High (modified uses),

Option 3c: Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal at Mod-High with Nearshore Ribbons in All
Open Coast MPAs,

Option 3d: Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal at Mod-High with Nearshore Ribbons in SMCAs
Only,

Option 3e: Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal without SMRs, or

Option 3f: Round 3NCRSG MPA Proposal at Mod-High with Additional MPA(s).

These six options for a preferred alternative MPA proposal, as well as the implications for
selecting each, are described in more detail in Attachment D. (excerpted below)

Attachment D.
Option 3b: Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal at Mod-High (modified uses)
The MLPA North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group MPA Proposal modified to:

• for any MPA or SMRMA with proposed uses intended to accommodate tribal uses, only
include those allowed uses with a moderate-high or high level of protection; all proposed uses to accommodate tribes and tribal communities with a moderate, moderate-low or low level of protection would not be included; and
• include an accompanying statement indicating that traditional tribal uses are intended
within the MPAs and SMRMAs when there is a legislative or administrative change that
allows only tribes and tribal communities to engage in traditional tribal uses within MPAs
and SMRMAs.

Option 3b Implications: This option addresses some of the science guidelines not met and
some DFG feasibility concerns in the NCRSG MPA Proposal, while maintaining the
NCRSG’s configuration of proposed MPAs and SMRMAs. This option also partially
accommodates traditional tribal gathering by retaining non-commercial (recreational) take
of species and gear types that are assigned a moderate-high or high level of protection. In
adopting this option, the BRTF would recognize that the MPA proposal does not
immediately accommodate all traditional tribal uses, address all unmet science guidelines,
or address all feasibility concerns expressed by DFG.

And at the other end of the spectrum:

It was never the intent of many of the RSG to close whole sections of coastal waters and the onshore to all recreational and commercial use or Tribal use in SMCAs. Although a xersion of this idea surfaced as early as the Round One External Array Process in the External Array Proposal Titled: “Conservation Coalition Array” C. At that time the idea of allowable use by California Tribal Communities only in SMCAs out to three miles was proposed.

Now for their part, NRDC and the Sinkyone Tribal Council (Hawk Rosales and Priscilla Hunter) are in the same political camp.
NRDC South Coast Co-chair Testimony at the 25th and 26th BRTF meeting included:
32Kbs Mp3 456kb and 1.5MB downloads, 2min & 6min resp.
http:www//albionharbor.org/audiotakes/rosales.mp3
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/lemosnrdc.Mp3

Which also doesn't reflect the original intent of many RSG and North Coast residents. One must remember, the UNITY in UNIFIED was to move the consensus proposal forward. The vote was all for moving it forward but with one official abstention from the tribes.

There never was unity on the array itself. From the beginning many of us declared Tribal activities De minimus. The RSG proposal was compromised by the SAT evaluations lumping the De minimus Tribal use category with recreation use by all users. This action was in direct opposition to the RSG ever changing instructions by the BRTF and I-Team and State Attorney General (now gov), and served to thus lower the One Unified Array MPA assigned Levels of Protection determined by the same SAT (based on science models with no current vaseline, yes, that's vaseline (baseline, but we're gonna need the vaseline).

In conclusion and thus way over two minutes....
Motions 1-7 (4 & 6) are of greatest concern: http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentVersionID=43953

BRTF Motion 4. Regarding an Enhanced Compliance Alternative MPA Proposal (motion made
by Greg Schem, seconded by Bill Anderson, passed with six in favor and two abstentions)
The BRTF recommends that the North Coast Enhanced Compliance Alternative MPA
Proposal be forward to the California Fish and Game Commission that consists of the
Revised Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal, modified to include:
• with the exception of the Reading Rock and Ten Mile clusters, creating “nearshore
ribbon” SMCAs with a shoreward boundary from the mean high tide line to
approximately 1000 feet offshore only in SMCAs with proposed uses at all levels of
protection intended to accommodate tribes and tribal communities (Pyramid Point, Samoa,
Big Flat, and Vizcaino SMCAs); and
• for the remaining offshore SMCAs at Pyramid Point, Samoa, Big Flat, and Vizcaino,
retaining only species/gear types that have a moderate-high or high level of protection and removing any shore-based activity; and
• for Reading Rock SMCA, retaining only species/gear types that have a moderatehigh
or high level of protection; and
• for Ten Mile SMCA, retaining all proposed uses at all levels of protection, including
those intended to accommodate tribes and tribal communities, and
• for estuarine MPAs and SMRMAs with proposed uses intended to accommodate tribes (South Humboldt Bay SMRMA, Big River Estuary SMP, and Navarro River Estuary SMRMA), retaining only species/gear types that have a moderate-high or high level of protection for those uses intended to accommodate tribes and tribal communities; and
• an accompanying statement that proposed recreational uses intended to accommodate traditional tribal uses be restricted to only tribes and tribal communities when administrative or legislative action is taken that allows only tribes and tribal communities to engage in traditional tribal uses within MPAs and SMRMAs, and
• adding pelagic finfish (recreational spearfishing) to all SMCAs.

BRTF Motion 6: Motion to Recommend Retaining Three Existing MPAs: MacKerricher, Russian Gulch and Van Damme SMCAs (motion made by Virginia Strom-Martin, seconded by Bill
Anderson, passed unanimously).
The BRTF recommends that three existing MPAs that are offshore lands managed by the
California Department of Parks and Recreation (MacKerricher SMCA, Russian Gulch SMCA and Van Damme SMCA) be retained with existing take regulations (both commercial and recreational) and with the addition of proposed allowed uses intended to accommodate
tribes and tribal communities. Furthermore, the BRTF recommends that the California
Department of Parks and Recreation and the California Department of Fish and Game work
together to address feasibility concerns with the boundaries of each site.

**Together these two motions seek to interpret the 'nearshore ribbons' out to 1000 feet through misrepresentation of proposed SMCA language (pronounced SMR) with restrictions selectively worded with allowance for Tribal use.


But where might it go from here...


Overview of MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force North Coast Recommendations
Presentation to the MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team
November 17, 2010 • Teleconference/Webinar
Dominique Monié, Marine Planner • California MLPA Initiative

Doc D.1

In October the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) adopted seven motions, two related to marine protected areas (MPAs) and special closures:

• North Coast Enhanced Compliance Alternative MPA Proposal, that builds off the Revised Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal with modifications to improve compliance with science guidelines and California Department of Fish and Game feasibility criteria (BRTF motion #4)
The North Coast Enhanced Compliance Alternative Marine Protected Area Proposal (ECA) consists of the Revised Round 3 North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group Marine Protected Area Proposal (RNCP), modified as follows:
• Add nearshore “ribbon” state marine conservation
areas (SMCAs) in Pyramid Point, Samoa, Big Flat and
Vizcaino SMCAs with all recreational uses retained,
including those intended to accommodate tribal uses
• Retain in the remaining offshore SMCAs at Pyramid
Point, Samoa, Big Flat and Vizcaino only those uses at
moderate-high or high levels of protection (LOPs)
• Retain in Reading Rock SMCA only proposed uses at
moderate-high or high LOPs
• Retain at Skip Wollenberg/Ten Mile Beach SMCA all
proposed uses at any LOP
• Retain in estuarine MPAs only those uses intended to
accommodate tribal uses with a moderate-high or high LOP
• Add a statement regarding restricting proposed
recreational uses intended to accommodate tribes and
tribal communities to only tribes and tribal communities
when appropriate administrative or legislative action is
taken
• Add pelagic finfish (spearfishing) to proposed uses for all SMCAs


BRTF Motions 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7
• Incorporation of tribal uses in marine protected areas
of the MLPA North Coast Study Region when the legal
authority to do so is clarified and settled by the State
of California and California tribes and tribal
communities
• Co-management with tribes and tribal communities
• Add recreational take of Pacific lamprey and eulachon
to appropriate estuarine MPAs
• Retain three existing north coast marine protected
areas with modifications
• Change classification of two SMRMAs

California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Summary of Actions Resulting from Motions Adopted by the
MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the MLPA North Coast Study Region
November 16, 2010

Doc D.2 Is simply a one page - hard to read - overview map.


http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/06/18665873.php
MLPA Attempts to Ban Traditional Tribal Gathering along North Coast

“The MLPA is trying to ban any and all gathering along our coastline, including NO TRADITIONAL gathering whatsoever, in marine protected areas,” said Georgiana Myers, organizer of the Klamath Justice Coalition and Yurok Tribal member. “I urge people to speak out against this insane idea of taking away what is not theirs to take!”

A panel appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to implement his controversial Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative will consider amending a motion that will, in effect, ban traditional harvesting by Indian Tribes until the legal authority to regulate the Tribal uses is clarified by the State of California and California Tribes.

“Our worst fears have already been realized,” said O’Rourke. “The proposed additional motion for BRTF consideration is: ’only includes proposed allowed uses with a moderate-high or high level of protection for any MPA…all proposed uses with a moderate moderate-low or low level of protection would not be included.’”

“Almost all of the Native American traditional subsistence gathering species have been characterized as moderate or less in the level of protection,” said O’Rourke. “The net result of the motion and clarification would be the IMMEDIATE TERMINATION of Native American marine harvesting rights. The Yurok Tribe notes that you cannot fairly characterize yourself as being a supporter of Tribal Rights when your first action is to immediately terminate those Native American rights.”

The Yurok Tribe requests the following substitute motion be adopted: “The BRTF intends that Native American and recreational uses be continued in all North Coast Region MLPA designations until such time as the California legislature allows for separate Native American subsistence marine gathering.”

For more information - Coastal Justice Coalition and Klamath Justice Coalition, contacts:
Georgiana Myers, Coastal Justice Coalition: (707) 951-5548, sregonlady [at] yahoo.com
Frankie Myers, Klamath Justice Coalition: (707) 951-5052
http://www.klamathjustice.blogspot.com

It's Fractally A Rashomon Effect
Tomas DiFiore
AHRA