De Minimus Use Impactus Maximus: Complex Permissive Take Allowances

For their part, the BRTF did a tremendous job over the course of time and their charge, and by December 9, 2010, at least 4 of 6 were solidly defending the North Coast One Unified Array, fragile as it is. And I want to give credit where do. This 20 minute excerpt is the summary discusion and final vote, no edits. It's really worth a listen.
Download or listen: 7MB Mp3 20 mins
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/12092010_brtf.mp3

Full meeting only lasted one hour, Dec 9 2010 BRTF: 60 MB download or watch here.
http://www.cal-span.org/cgi-bin/media.pl?folder=MLPA-BRTF
Direct link to download:
http://www.cal-span.org/calspan-media/Video_Files/MLPA-BRTF/MLPA-BRTF_10-12-09/MLPA-BRTF_10-12-09.wmv

De Minimus Use Impactus Maximus
There were at most 12 MPA's, all of them SMCAs – allowing recreational, commercial, and Tribal harvest and use which at the end of Round 2, the (Ruby Sapphire proposals) were classified as 'undetermined'.
B - The “Very High” category includes MPAs with SMR designation, as well as SMRMA designations that do not propose tribal uses.
C - The “Low” category groups together MPAs that are assigned a moderate-low and low level of protection.
D - The “Undetermined” category includes MPAs that propose traditional, non-commercial, tribal uses, but do not identify the species and gear types. These MPAs may or may not have additional proposed allowed uses.

In the December meeting materials, the Memorandum dated 11 29 2010 from the Director of the CA Department Fish & Game, John McCamman, to the BRTF pages 3 – 24 provide a scorching assessment of the One Array.

The SAT received awards for their work prematurely at the mid-October meeting. Their off the hook now. Some of the source of the current connundrum seems to be the Science Advisory Team or SAT and the Levels Of Protection for harvest by species per MPA. This has been an everchaning document which didn't even list correct species initially and as a whole had no clue what seaweeds grew on the North Coast, or which seaweeds were harvested. And still, the 0-30m data set used to determine LOP and habitat representation and replication is all proxy, estimated by guesswork. But local ecological knowledge (LEK) along with Tribal ecological knowledge (TEK) paints a different picture. So with no current baseline or even accurate data, the intent is still to close the coastal ocean commons to shorebased activities.

All shore based activities... includes subsistence harvest, soveriegn Tribal use (including species not regulated) and some limited commercial harvest currently. But the real lightning rod was the language in BRTF 4th of 7 seven motions.

But as we began our tale with the SAT back in December 2009 it sounded and went like this between 2 SAT members, one offering suggestions to help the RSG understand potentialities and from the determining hand of the LOP charts (particularly seaweed related) comes a blistering response. "It's not the role of the SAT to recommend..."
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/ronkarina.mp3
39 secs 150 kb Mp3

The LOPs combined with Recommendation 4 of the BRTF these changes hugely affect Tribal harvest and the cultural hand harvest of seaweed. The response to the MLPAi on the North Coast by the Tribes has been honest and compelling. The MLPAi has given their transparent best to Tribal concerns since day One.

Introduction and discussion of the Enhanced Compliance Alternative and it's Motion 4 at the Oct 26 2010 BRTF meeting. BRTF discussion:
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/eca_ipa.mp3

But the real answer remains mystified after a year and a half on the North Coast. It is really prettty simple – Tribal Soveriegnty Precedes The MLPAi. It is a bogus law which never considered Tribal soveriegnty except to dismantle that Tribal identity.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/06/18665873.php

"It is a bogus law, and you all have worked so hard. It's not your fault it is a bad law". Eloquently spoken by Wyot Tribal member Cheryl Siner before she ended the meeting with a closing blessing in a song.
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/endMotions_PublicComment_Oct26th.mp3

With Big Green and a newly interpreted law, with billion dollar private foundations, there are keys to back rooms everywhere.

The Department evaluation 11162010 of stated goals and objectives partitions the proposal into two basic categories: 1) MPAs with proposed take (recreational and commercial) that generates an LOP at moderate-high or above; and 2) MPAs with proposed take (recreational, in this case) that generates an LOP below moderate-high. This approach highlights the limitations in the ability of MPAs to meet most of the goals and objectives when their LOP drops below moderate-high.

Concerns remain:
Issue: Level of Protection below moderate-high The following nine proposed MPAs are identified by the NCRSG as contributing to the backbone of MPAs. They are necessary to fulfill the MLPA mandate of meeting the scientific guidelines specified in the Master Plan including guidelines established by the MLPA Science Advisory Team, but provide insufficient protection to fully realize the goals and intent of the MLPA:

• Pyramid Point SMCA - Low LOP
• Reading Rock SMCA - Low LOP
• Samoa SMCA - Moderate-Low LOP
• South Humboldt SMRMA - Moderate-Low LOP
• Vizcaino SMCA - Low LOP
• Ten Mile Beach SMCA - Low LOP
• Big River Estuary SMCA - Low LOP
• Navarro River SMCA - Low LOP


I don't think there was a single MPA with LOP of low in the original One Unified Array.
Summary of Department Recommendations: The Department believes that the Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal can be greatly improved in terms of feasibility, having realistically achievable goals and objectives, and having a high likelihood of meeting the goals of the MLPA and contributing to the statewide MPA network by:

1) Reducing the allowed take to provide an LOP of at least moderate-high for all
MPAs intended to meet ecological and network goals;

2) Simplifying take regulations and boundaries in highlighted MPAs to improve
enforceability and public understanding; and

3) Meeting the Science Advisory Team’s guidelines, including spacing between habitats.
Pgs 19-22

And yes the NRDC is going back in time, mentioning going back to round one for ideas to fill in the gaps (meaning Mendocino coast). Expansion of underwater parks is one of the issues of concern.

Support the Tribes, support the local food movement.

Tomas DiFiore
Salmon Eyes