The "External Arrays" are posted

[DaveW]

Here's a copy of what I posted on Norcal Kayak Anglers

Array A Is by the foodshed group, which no one really seems to know anything about. I've not had a chance to evaluate it yet. But it looks complicated and extensive.

Array B Is by MOCA...which is us (norcal kayak anglers). We are a part of MOCA. Besides the California Fisheries Coalition (CFC, Array H) proposal, it is the most fishing friendly of all the Arrays. The CFC is nearly the same thing as ours. Jim Martin just did a little experimenting with the MOCA array to see what the science team would prefer.

Array C Is by the Ocean Conservancy (OC), NRDC, and Bay Keepers in Humboldt. This would be less fishing friendly than ours.

Array D Is by Northern Redwoods Oceanic Group, which used to be called Conservation First but was renamed I think by popular demand. This is the NRDC again, possibly the OC, and a few Mendo local "forest activists." Not that fisher friendly.

Array E Is by Students for Environmental Action (SEA). This is similar is many way to ours, more leaning to the conservation side (for lack of a better definition). This is the Mendo High School's proposal. They have been flexible to community concerns and have changed their proposal over time to reflect the concerns.

Array F Is by the Albion Harbor Regional Alliance. It should be the same as ours (MOCA)

Array G Is by the North Coast Local Interest MPA Workgroup, which used to be called the Tri-county working group. It is the same as ours/MOCA.

Array H Is by the CFC, and is very similar to ours. Fishing friendly.

To view this stuff, you should be able to go to: http://northcoast.marinemap.org/marinemap/

After the application loads an information window will show in the middle of the map. You can read through it or just cancel the window to view the entire map. To view the different proposals, click the button in the upper right hand corner that says, "MPAs, Arrays, and Proposals." A window will show with the different arrays. You can click on each to see the entire "array" or in the sub directory under each one, you can just open up individual MPAs in the array. Remember, the Array is a group of MPAs, and each Array is a different group's proposal.

The Marine Map application is way cool. Check out the "data layers" button in the upper right hand corner. These are all the different layers you can click on and off to check out different things you're interested in. Check out the one called "Example Predicted Substrate," for cool reefs to fish that you didn't know about.

To view the written descriptions go to: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/mpaproposals_nc.asp

I will take questions.

Dave

[SBD]

The reserves in the Foodshed are huge...what are the restrictions in those reserves.

[arch]

Dave...I'm curious, how do or did the Native Americans fit into the process and arrays? For a one on one, as I have talked with some of the Native Americans in the NCCSR about the NCSR. Please give me a call at 707-785-2687 Thanks, Arch

[polepole]

Arch ... tune in to a special RSG meeting called for 2/25.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meeting_022510.asp

-Allen

[DaveW]

The reserves in the Foodshed are huge...what are the restrictions in those reserves.

Sean, I haven't had a chance to look them over yet, but yeah they're frigging scary. These guys (I think it's just a person or 2) came out of the blue in the external array process. I think they are talking about no reserves and some type of rotating panel design for the SMCAs. I'm not sure if they're being taken seriously. I will review it tomorrow, but if you wanted to have a look and give me an opinion too, I would really appreciate it.

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

On another note, at Bill's suggestion, I spoke with one of the CDFG abalone biologists today. Bill is right. The entire fishery is run off abundance thresholds conducted periodically at the hardest dove sites in the state. So when the mean density from the combined sites goes below .5 animals/m2 they start limiting take by 25% increments. Bill, please check me on this. The consequence here is displaced effort: if certain areas are closed, and folks concentrate their efforts in the popular sites, the density drops below the threshold. Then the take limitations kick in at 25% increments......even though all the hardly dove areas may have abs coming out the ying-yang. If I understand correctly, the Dept has no idea what the abundance is in everywhere but their index sites. There is no spatially balanced random sampling across the entire habitat - like I have to do for my spawning surveys.

Also, there is no calculation of confidence or uncertainty in the point estimates. I think the index reach approach has been out of favor for monitoring for a long time - especially if you can't quantify uncertainty. In the Dept's defense, with regards to only monitoring at high use sites, they state they are monitoring a fishery, not the overall abundance across the animals entire range. Also, the take numbers at the Reef Campground and Fort Ross are alarming and it's questionable whether it's break even for recruitment. There's a good case there for localized restrictions.

I could go on but I won't.....fish geek.

Arch, here's a cut and paste I wrote for a report back to MOCA regarding the California Tribes and Tribal Communities (CTTC), which is what they have asked us to call them. I'll call you tomorrow.

In my humble opinion, the biggest issue raised at the meeting was the most contentious, but it was also likely was the one issue the entire RSG could agree on. This, of course, was the issue of California Tribes and Tribal Communities (CTTC) and how their sovereign rights to harvest for subsistence and ceremony fit into the MLPA picture.

This issue was originally brought up by Rob Jamgoshin (S.E.A) where he quite rightly pointed out that the RSG can’t really go forward and draft arrays until the BRTF, or CDF&G, or The Sate of California addresses these issues. As the discussion progressed, Ken Wiseman asserted that we need to move forward and draft MPAs as if the CTTC were just another stakeholder group on an MPA by MPA basis. However, the CTTC will have none of that. They correctly insist that this is a treaty issue between sovereign nations (CA is not), and therefore they should only comply if it is within the CTTC interests, not because CA and the MLPAI decree it.

Russ Crabtree, the Tribal Admistrator for the Smith River Rancheria, and an eloquent speaker, submitted language to the group essentially saying just that. The statement was similar to the caveats regarding the CTTC that we have been inserting in our array proposals. At some point Atta Stevensen picked up the charge and repeatedly asked the group to conduct a straw poll to agree to adapt the language. This request (demand!) was repeated denied by Ken Wiseman speaking for the I Team. I believe around five times. I have to admit, in this otherwise somewhat boring meeting, it was exciting observing Atta hammering Ken over and over. She is a brilliant negotiator and a daunting force – I had no idea! Although the I team would not budge to this seemingly reasonable request, Russ Crabtree stated that if the MLPAI would comply, the CTTC would generally move in the direction of the intent of the MLPA.

Dave Jensen (Audubon) with regards to the CTTC issue brought up a point that I thought I was the only one steaming about: This is a fundamental issue that, unless resolved, will stymie the rest of the NCRSG process. This is an issue that should have been solved long ago – before they carted all of us up to Eureka. He stated (and I agree here again) that we (the NCRSG) are busy folks that are giving up our valuable time to come up here to represent our constituencies. How could the I Team not deal with the elephant on the fence before we got there? Everyone I spoke to, to some degree, felt the same.

[Red Abalone Diving]

Hi Dave,

And thanks............the numbers are: best to think of it this way, two management action that can and do combine to lower the TAC/yearly bag/daily bag limit.
#1 management action that will close the recreational abalone fishery operating in the interim abalone fishery plan is. Abalones, when the average of the 8 index sites is fished down to 3000 abs per hectare or <0.03/meter sq.= (3 abalone per square meter) think of it as a piece of sch 40 pvc pipe 3ft by 3ft by 3 ft by 3ft placed anywhere on the bottom and if there is not 3 abalone in that square, the recreational abalone fishery will be closed everywhere, poof gone and you all be dead before you ever go abalone diving again, turst me on this. What the index sites are telling us is the fishery is down by 20% since we have been collecting spatial data and this fact has nothing to do with the MLPAI. However what is important is it is highly likely other abalone landing sites have experienced the same reduction by 20% and this is placed the fishery real close to management actions, most likely a TAC reduction and bag limit reduction.

Next management action: once again take any abalone card site, lets say Ft. Ross for example. If the abalone count is found at 2500 abs/ha. or 2.5 abs per sq. meter, that individual abalone landing site will be closed, again forget it gone closed for the rest of your life. However, this where it gets interesting. Because we have lost a abalone landing site, the fishery plan did recognized that concentration of effort would occur, so the fishery plan address this issue adjusting the TAC by down by 25% and fishery plan recognizes that in order to keep the New TAC from being once again breached that daily and yearly bag limits would as so have to be reduced. There are a few possible combinations to this and to explain all the entire ARMP in this e-mail, forget it. What you need to realize is just because you see a lot of abs at your favorite abalone site doe's not mean it is sustainable at the current extraction rate. The current extraction rate is the abalone report card landing averages that are expressed in your NC profile. Get this, just because a abalone card site is 10,000 abs per year in no way means that will keep producing at 10,000 abs. Guess what, I have crunched the data and the numbers, 10K per is not sustainable at these 3 daily and 24 yearly by the number abalone divers that visit that abalone landing site. Also there more closure options possibilities than just fishery independent data. Look guys I have spent 6 years of life in learning to be an expert in this fishery plan. I am watching the NC process. If a MPA becomes proposed in a area that will be an issue to the long term viability of the recreational abalone fishery I will call it out. Right now I see no issue, good work and keep it this way………………..

I have also spoke with Dave in detailed relating to what this fishery is and how the dynamics interact facing the MLPAI.
One last thing in the NCC process I wrote an article about the set up and placements of MPA,s in option 4 (now the NCC IPA) would be the demise of the abalone fishery and that Ft. Ross would be the king pig site to start the reaction, but no every body wanted Ft. Ross to be open to abalone, and I advised against it. Watch what happens, its called emergency action.

[arch]

Thanks Dave, I will be out of the area and will not be able to get in on the2-25 meeting. Please keep me updated. Ken is for the I Team and no waves can make him swim...He does from time to time make opinions that is beyond his call of duty...dirty, dirty, dirty