Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Size and Spacing: The Credulity Gap in the MLPA Science Modeling
Size and Spacing: The Credulity Gap
Credulity is a state of willingness to believe in one or many people or things in the absence of reasonable proof or knowledge; i.e. MLPA proponents. Credibility is an adjective 1. capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement. 2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness. Creditability also is an adjective; bringing or deserving credit, honor, reputation, or esteem. We did our best and we did our worst.
Credulity is a state of willingness to believe in one or many people or things in the absence of reasonable proof or knowledge; i.e. MLPA proponents. Credibility is an adjective 1. capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement. 2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness. Creditability also is an adjective; bringing or deserving credit, honor, reputation, or esteem. We did our best and we did our worst.
Adopting The North Coast One Unified Array: The social context is the setting.
All Mp3 are less than 20 minutes and range between 2-4.5 MB at 32kps
This last BRTF meeting on the North Coast was exemplary in the MLPA process, and the region's history - respect to all involved, and everyone wants to be very careful now.
Sometime ago, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors had voted unanimously with 5th District Supervisor Jill Duffy absent, to pledge $145,000 in Headwaters Fund money to help fund a study of the potential economic and social impacts of restricting some offshore areas to fishing. The study was spearheaded by the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District.”The state's studies stops at the docks,” said Lisa Shikany, the city of Eureka's environmental planner, “Nobody is looking at what happens beyond that.”
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_14746440
This Counter Factual Research Project (ed) presentation in response to the Seattle based Ecotrust Economic Impacts Study was presented on October 25th, 2010 and entered into the administrative record, it extends to the southern bio-region and includes Albion (urchins). Layla Madge - Impact Assessment Inc. of La Jolla presents it here:
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/brtf10252010_ImpactsAssess.mp3
A discussion follows Adrianna Shea, Deputy Executive Director of the California F&G Commission comments at the BRTF meeting on Wyot Tribal Ancestral Lands of the North Coast October 26th 2010. BRTF member Virginia Strom Martin begins the discussion and Gregory Schem carries it through. I've often said this is better than TV.
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/adriannshea.mp3
Blue Ribbon Task Force member and Senior Law Lecturer Meg Caldwell, did a research of Findings for the administrative record which is sent along to the Fish & Game Commission. Meg's Findings detailed: BRTF has the discretion to recognize regional differences and now, in support of the significance of the cross interest support for the proposal, the "conservation value that the proposal does actually achieve, and the unique characteristics of the North Coast".
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/motionapproved.mp3
Public Comments Came Throughout The 2 Day Meeting.
Much respect is due all who participated in this "New Millennium Democratic Process". The RSG deserve boatloads of thanks and honors for their composure throughout the tense and intimate coyote moments.
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/motionapproval_PubCom.mp3
"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 a Wyot Tribal member before she ended the meeting with a Wyot closing blessing in a song.
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/endMotions_PublicComment_Oct26th.mp3
The Southern Bio-Region - Mendocino Coast
Discussions of the southern bioregion, a.k.a. Mendocino County, have throughout the process been reserved until the last moment. Even as late as the Sapphire - Ruby workgroups, late afternoon... some may remember the NRDC consultant's comments of how when he was young he would save his peas on his dinner plate until last because he didn't want to ….
Running down the clock has been a skillful tactic throughout the MLPAi process. Agreements are made, trusted then to follow up with a line adjustment or a communication of some action, and wording that just never makes it into a narrative or allowed use, and directions from DFG staff to help RSG determine feasibility of boundaries adjacent to State Parks turn out to be not quite accurate enough for the final decision at this level, at this time.
How do these things happen? The RSG were made to press forward. Understandably, it was not by those who don't want any new MPAs from Point Arena to ten miles North of Fort Bragg by:
1) respecting the safe harbor access of 10miles exclusion zone around ports; and
2) The City of Point Arena is backed in it's assertion of "NO MORE" by the whole County and Fort Bragg and the RSG. (Metrics of the minimum spacing guideline met at near the maximum distance possible between MPAs as measured from Point Arena to Ten Mile River roughly)
The Social Context Is The Setting: Two Walks Of Life
2 years ago by way of being included in the North Central Coast 'Study Region' the County of Mendocino was split at Alder Creek north of Point Arena and throughout the process we on the south coast have had to work so hard for recognition and inclusion into the process. (science modeling scenarios, habitat representation, replication, size and spacing, social economic and cultural impacts assessments, Tribal traditional access etc).
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/11th hour 55 min_closing.mp3
Enforcement issues abound around State Parks and proposed changes to existing MPAs (underwater parks) at Van Damme, Russian Gulch and MacKerricher State Parks. These may affect local commercial harvests of seaweed, urchins, and the live fish fishery.
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/appendmotionparks.mp3
The California Tribes and Tribal Communities seem to have as many differing responses to the MLPAi process as the rest of us. Also the solution of a thousand feet ribbon offshore from the mean high tide line to secure continued tribal access to SMCA''s where no other harvest is allowed; making it a nearshore SMR seems inappropriately confined for any open coast MPA when one considers cedar/redwood canoe travel, and would likely require Legislative action.
I mention cedars because generations of years ago there were large cedars. Tribes from Alaska to southern Oregon used Cedar for use in making dugout canoes, that's my understanding. What of Oregon Tribes? One promotion of the benefits of an MPA network design is that connectivity to MPAs in Oregon will allow for transfer and backup of genetic material and habitats needed for various life stages.
What of managing human behavior and adjusting times of harvests? Sort of a temporal solution, as RSG member Atta Stevens spoke of regarding the overlap of Tribal territories and harvest, and the social structure of barter.
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/atta.mp3
Temporal adjustment to spatial requirements ... it works that way among commercial Seaweed Harvesters on the Mendocino Coast, and sounds similar to what the urchin harvesters have worked out amongst themselves and Department codification in law.
In fact it works that way with Mother Nature on the North Coast.
MPA's Impact Us All: The social context is the setting.
Co-Adaptive Resource Management is a big item both for Tribes and several fisheries. Geographic Closures vs Co-Adaptive Resource Management? The social context is the setting.
These are very very complex issues. And remember, it has not been shown that there is a problem of over fishing in coastal waters on the North Coast.
Details slip by, like, why did BRTF member Meg Caldwell state that as 'Sequitur' she could not support the addition of the Tribal language into the Special Closures? Sequitur - the conclusion of an inference: consequence ... perhaps the potential of lawsuit mentioned moments earlier....
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/sequiturribbonSMR.mp3
I'm guessing that somehow Special Closures are not the jurisdiction of the MLPAi and Master Plan Framework legally, though they only came up and were developed in this process by workgroups from within the MLPA/MPA/RSG/SAT process, and as such might require a different legal appeals process.
The Enhanced Compliance Alternative Bookend Option 3d: as ammended 10262010
Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal at Mod-High with “Nearshore Ribbons” in SMCAs Only MLPA North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group 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; and
• for offshore SMCAs, retaining only species/gear types that have a moderate-high or high level of protection and removing any shore-based activity; and
• if necessary, adjusting MPA cluster boundaries to ensure that the offshore SMCAs meet
preferred or minimum size guidelines at moderate-high or high level of protection; and
• for estuarine MPAs and SMRMAs with proposed uses intended to accommodate tribes,
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
Pelagic finfish by spear was added as an allowable use in SMCAs. at this time.
This option would NOT create “nearshore ribbons” in SMRs; those would remain intact as
proposed by the NCRSG.
BRTF discussion:
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/eca_ipa.mp3
Option 3d Implications: from Doc V.1.
While this option largely maintains the location of MPAs proposed
by the NCRSG, addresses some of the feasibility concerns expressed by DFG, and partially accommodates tribal uses, it does not address unmet science guidelines for nearshore habitats and may require expansion of MPA boundaries to ensure meeting minimum science guidelines for the offshore SMCAs. This option partially accommodates traditional tribal uses by allowing all non-commercial (recreational) users in ”nearshore ribbon” SMCAs to take particular species with specific gear types intended to accommodate tribal uses; or those proposed uses intended to accommodate tribes and tribal communities, only those assigned a moderate- high or high level of protection would be accommodated in the offshore SMCAs
from doc V.1. To: Cindy Gustafson, Chair, MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meeting_102510.asp#fullagenda
From: MLPA Initiative Staff
Subject: Potential actions at the October 25-26, 2010 BRTF meeting
Date: October 22, 2010
Cc: Members, MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force
Members, MLPA North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group
Adrianna Shea, California Fish and Game Commission
Almost forgot to mention that the Economic Impacts assessment by Ecotrust (the ex-vessel or 'value ends at the dock' economic study) which is considered by many to be, well, conservatively lean as it is let's say, well the study still predicts the biggest hits economically to commercial fisheries out of Fort Bragg and Shelter Cove. It is nearly 5% for Fort Bragg and more than 3% for Shelter Cove including Trinidad Rancheria, and greater than 2.4% at Crescent City. Fort Bragg is hit hardest in dungeness crab, rockfish and urchin.
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/ecotrustus.mp3
Personally I think there are similarities between the Best Readily Available science behind MPAs on the North Coast and what sounds like Quantitative Easing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcEkCUmo47A&feature=related
Tomas DiFiore
AHRA bored member
All Mp3 are less than 20 minutes and range between 2-4.5 MB at 32kps
This last BRTF meeting on the North Coast was exemplary in the MLPA process, and the region's history - respect to all involved, and everyone wants to be very careful now.
Sometime ago, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors had voted unanimously with 5th District Supervisor Jill Duffy absent, to pledge $145,000 in Headwaters Fund money to help fund a study of the potential economic and social impacts of restricting some offshore areas to fishing. The study was spearheaded by the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District.”The state's studies stops at the docks,” said Lisa Shikany, the city of Eureka's environmental planner, “Nobody is looking at what happens beyond that.”
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_14746440
This Counter Factual Research Project (ed) presentation in response to the Seattle based Ecotrust Economic Impacts Study was presented on October 25th, 2010 and entered into the administrative record, it extends to the southern bio-region and includes Albion (urchins). Layla Madge - Impact Assessment Inc. of La Jolla presents it here:
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/brtf10252010_ImpactsAssess.mp3
A discussion follows Adrianna Shea, Deputy Executive Director of the California F&G Commission comments at the BRTF meeting on Wyot Tribal Ancestral Lands of the North Coast October 26th 2010. BRTF member Virginia Strom Martin begins the discussion and Gregory Schem carries it through. I've often said this is better than TV.
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/adriannshea.mp3
Blue Ribbon Task Force member and Senior Law Lecturer Meg Caldwell, did a research of Findings for the administrative record which is sent along to the Fish & Game Commission. Meg's Findings detailed: BRTF has the discretion to recognize regional differences and now, in support of the significance of the cross interest support for the proposal, the "conservation value that the proposal does actually achieve, and the unique characteristics of the North Coast".
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/motionapproved.mp3
Public Comments Came Throughout The 2 Day Meeting.
Much respect is due all who participated in this "New Millennium Democratic Process". The RSG deserve boatloads of thanks and honors for their composure throughout the tense and intimate coyote moments.
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/motionapproval_PubCom.mp3
"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 a Wyot Tribal member before she ended the meeting with a Wyot closing blessing in a song.
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/endMotions_PublicComment_Oct26th.mp3
The Southern Bio-Region - Mendocino Coast
Discussions of the southern bioregion, a.k.a. Mendocino County, have throughout the process been reserved until the last moment. Even as late as the Sapphire - Ruby workgroups, late afternoon... some may remember the NRDC consultant's comments of how when he was young he would save his peas on his dinner plate until last because he didn't want to ….
Running down the clock has been a skillful tactic throughout the MLPAi process. Agreements are made, trusted then to follow up with a line adjustment or a communication of some action, and wording that just never makes it into a narrative or allowed use, and directions from DFG staff to help RSG determine feasibility of boundaries adjacent to State Parks turn out to be not quite accurate enough for the final decision at this level, at this time.
How do these things happen? The RSG were made to press forward. Understandably, it was not by those who don't want any new MPAs from Point Arena to ten miles North of Fort Bragg by:
1) respecting the safe harbor access of 10miles exclusion zone around ports; and
2) The City of Point Arena is backed in it's assertion of "NO MORE" by the whole County and Fort Bragg and the RSG. (Metrics of the minimum spacing guideline met at near the maximum distance possible between MPAs as measured from Point Arena to Ten Mile River roughly)
The Social Context Is The Setting: Two Walks Of Life
2 years ago by way of being included in the North Central Coast 'Study Region' the County of Mendocino was split at Alder Creek north of Point Arena and throughout the process we on the south coast have had to work so hard for recognition and inclusion into the process. (science modeling scenarios, habitat representation, replication, size and spacing, social economic and cultural impacts assessments, Tribal traditional access etc).
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/11th hour 55 min_closing.mp3
Enforcement issues abound around State Parks and proposed changes to existing MPAs (underwater parks) at Van Damme, Russian Gulch and MacKerricher State Parks. These may affect local commercial harvests of seaweed, urchins, and the live fish fishery.
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/appendmotionparks.mp3
The California Tribes and Tribal Communities seem to have as many differing responses to the MLPAi process as the rest of us. Also the solution of a thousand feet ribbon offshore from the mean high tide line to secure continued tribal access to SMCA''s where no other harvest is allowed; making it a nearshore SMR seems inappropriately confined for any open coast MPA when one considers cedar/redwood canoe travel, and would likely require Legislative action.
I mention cedars because generations of years ago there were large cedars. Tribes from Alaska to southern Oregon used Cedar for use in making dugout canoes, that's my understanding. What of Oregon Tribes? One promotion of the benefits of an MPA network design is that connectivity to MPAs in Oregon will allow for transfer and backup of genetic material and habitats needed for various life stages.
What of managing human behavior and adjusting times of harvests? Sort of a temporal solution, as RSG member Atta Stevens spoke of regarding the overlap of Tribal territories and harvest, and the social structure of barter.
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/atta.mp3
Temporal adjustment to spatial requirements ... it works that way among commercial Seaweed Harvesters on the Mendocino Coast, and sounds similar to what the urchin harvesters have worked out amongst themselves and Department codification in law.
In fact it works that way with Mother Nature on the North Coast.
MPA's Impact Us All: The social context is the setting.
Co-Adaptive Resource Management is a big item both for Tribes and several fisheries. Geographic Closures vs Co-Adaptive Resource Management? The social context is the setting.
These are very very complex issues. And remember, it has not been shown that there is a problem of over fishing in coastal waters on the North Coast.
Details slip by, like, why did BRTF member Meg Caldwell state that as 'Sequitur' she could not support the addition of the Tribal language into the Special Closures? Sequitur - the conclusion of an inference: consequence ... perhaps the potential of lawsuit mentioned moments earlier....
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/sequiturribbonSMR.mp3
I'm guessing that somehow Special Closures are not the jurisdiction of the MLPAi and Master Plan Framework legally, though they only came up and were developed in this process by workgroups from within the MLPA/MPA/RSG/SAT process, and as such might require a different legal appeals process.
The Enhanced Compliance Alternative Bookend Option 3d: as ammended 10262010
Round 3 NCRSG MPA Proposal at Mod-High with “Nearshore Ribbons” in SMCAs Only MLPA North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group 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; and
• for offshore SMCAs, retaining only species/gear types that have a moderate-high or high level of protection and removing any shore-based activity; and
• if necessary, adjusting MPA cluster boundaries to ensure that the offshore SMCAs meet
preferred or minimum size guidelines at moderate-high or high level of protection; and
• for estuarine MPAs and SMRMAs with proposed uses intended to accommodate tribes,
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
Pelagic finfish by spear was added as an allowable use in SMCAs. at this time.
This option would NOT create “nearshore ribbons” in SMRs; those would remain intact as
proposed by the NCRSG.
BRTF discussion:
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/eca_ipa.mp3
Option 3d Implications: from Doc V.1.
While this option largely maintains the location of MPAs proposed
by the NCRSG, addresses some of the feasibility concerns expressed by DFG, and partially accommodates tribal uses, it does not address unmet science guidelines for nearshore habitats and may require expansion of MPA boundaries to ensure meeting minimum science guidelines for the offshore SMCAs. This option partially accommodates traditional tribal uses by allowing all non-commercial (recreational) users in ”nearshore ribbon” SMCAs to take particular species with specific gear types intended to accommodate tribal uses; or those proposed uses intended to accommodate tribes and tribal communities, only those assigned a moderate- high or high level of protection would be accommodated in the offshore SMCAs
from doc V.1. To: Cindy Gustafson, Chair, MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meeting_102510.asp#fullagenda
From: MLPA Initiative Staff
Subject: Potential actions at the October 25-26, 2010 BRTF meeting
Date: October 22, 2010
Cc: Members, MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force
Members, MLPA North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group
Adrianna Shea, California Fish and Game Commission
Almost forgot to mention that the Economic Impacts assessment by Ecotrust (the ex-vessel or 'value ends at the dock' economic study) which is considered by many to be, well, conservatively lean as it is let's say, well the study still predicts the biggest hits economically to commercial fisheries out of Fort Bragg and Shelter Cove. It is nearly 5% for Fort Bragg and more than 3% for Shelter Cove including Trinidad Rancheria, and greater than 2.4% at Crescent City. Fort Bragg is hit hardest in dungeness crab, rockfish and urchin.
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/ecotrustus.mp3
Personally I think there are similarities between the Best Readily Available science behind MPAs on the North Coast and what sounds like Quantitative Easing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcEkCUmo47A&feature=related
Tomas DiFiore
AHRA bored member
For more information:
http://www.albionharbor,org
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$110.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network