NC RSG Meeting March 24-25

[polepole]

I'm going to make the long haul up to Crescent City. Anyone else going?

-Allen

[Red Abalone Diving]

Hi Allen,

Well best of luck and go get them.

Bill

[polepole]

Assumptions about fishery management outside MPAs influenced the outcomes more than differences between proposed External MPA Arrays

This is the first conclusion presented in the SAT's report to the RSG on Bioeconomic Modeling. Oddly enough, this first bullet point was NOT in the same presentation given at the last SAT meeting. It's kind of like we got thrown a bone on this one.

The presentation is here ... http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.as...ersionID=31794

They basically used 2 different models and came to the same conclusion. The differences in resulting biomass (measured in % of virgin biomass), were only like 1-2% between the arrays. But here's the good part, all the arrays were only like 1-2% better than the no-MPA case. The range is 1-2% because they ran different scenarios. The better the fisheries managment, the tighter the range. In the case of poor fisheries management (collapse) the range extended to the 2% side. For conservative fisheries management (say, manage for ~70% virgin biomass) the range was closer to the 1% side. Anyways, these range are more or less in the noise of the model. It tells me there are only minute difference between the array proposals. Shoot, it tells me there are minute difference between have MPA's and NOT HAVING THEM.

Here's where it gets good. The "science" has suggested time and time again that MPAs are better when fisheries are depressed or collapsed. Otherwise, why have them? Has anyone taken a look at the PFMC formal stock assessments lately? Well, I did. Black rockfish and lingcod are >70% of virgin biomass now. And anecdotally I believe this to be true, don't you? This is double since the mid to late 90's when we knew the fishery was in trouble. It shows that fisheries management is working. Well, they also get a bit of a boost from the yelloweye quotas since the season is reduced. But yelloweye quotas aren't going away any time soon so we should expect to see these protections in place for years (decades?) to come.

These same models show an economic value difference of up to 6%. 6%!!!! That's a lot to pay for little gain. One of the Humboldt Baykeeper reps (Beth Werner) spoke before me at public comment and said "only 6%". Well, I keyed in on that during my public comment and stated that "only 6%, as stated by one of the other commenter, is a huge hit in anyone's book". Humboldt Baykeepers (RSG Pete Nichols) joined with Ocean Conservancy (RSG Jennifer Savage) for "Ext C" external array proposal.

Anyway, we had been trying to debate the merits of the models with Dr Eric Bjorkstedt (SAT Chair) and that they are not good because they only used sensitivity analysis and didn't add stochasticity in them. After the first day I went up to Eric to make the above points and he still wanted to defend the models. I cut him off and said that I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this ... but let's assume for one moment that your models are correct. Then, the MPA's really aren't as useful as we are led to believe? His response, "yes, but that's up to the RSG to decide".

More later ... as I think of it.

-Allen

[edsofish]

Hello Allan, Thank you for the update.

Your comments and discussion remind me of what we RSG experienced in the NCCSR. We debated the modeling and were heavily involved in every aspect of how to be most informed at every level. In the end, however, we soon realized it was not about the science and economics but was 100% politics. After all, the BRTF IS about policy, not science.

That said, it is my belief it would be in everyones best interest to utilize these kinds of arguments you are haveing with Eric at the RSG level and work towards a proposal that has the all important element of "cross interest support". This CIS is what the BRTF is looking for. The BRTF will be looking for a proposal close to the middle ground slanted towards the conservative side. Remember, the BRTF is not making serious attempts to learn all the modeling, feasibility, socioeconomic, and biological guidelines; they are leaving that up to the RSG. Besides in the words of Mark Carr himself at the final BRTF meeting for the NCCSR, "Well they ARE only guidelines".

What the BRTF is looking for is collaborative dialogue and interaction between enviros and consumptive users. This is where consumptive members of the RSG will make the most "points" for your participation in the process and claim the most favorable outcome. It wouldn't hurt to involve the BRTF members that attend the RSG in a manner that will give validation to their presence and position.

Until we can, one day, bring rational thinking back into fisheries management, we will have to go with the tide and weather the storm hopefully with the least amount of damage to the ecosystem and ourselves. There is always the uncertainty of what effect MPA's will have on the entire ecosystem. It is not only about what is inside the MPA's but what shift of effort, changes to species dynamics due to shifts in prey base, and timely effects of oceanic conditions will do to the rest of the ecosystem. The tide will turn.

[polepole]

Ed,

I believe there is still a strong intent (or at least a strong belief that it is possible) for the RSG to come up with a single unified proposal to the BRTF. I utilized these arguments in my public statement (and background discussions with RSG members) to try to reason with those on the opposite end that their proposal have may have a tiny incremental impact in terms of biological benefit, but that the economic hardship was not worth it. They have been so focused on winning on the size and spacing scoring that they can't see the forest through the trees ... that it doesn't matter in terms of overall biological effect.

There is no middle ground in terms of biological benefit because the outcomes are essentially the same. The real difference is in the economics whereby Ext C,D,E have a lot more negative effets. There is strong community support for Ext Arrays B, F, G, H (all very similar). Close to 30 public comments supported Ext B,F,G,H and only one supported C,D,E. My closing statement to the RSG was to not get caught up in the minutiae and to focus on the things that make a real difference (minimize economic hardship).

BTW, I don't believe there were any BRTF members at this RSG meeting.

-Allen

[REEL STEEL]

Allen, your public comment was excellent! I think that you have largely hit on the strategy that we have been working on for months. I don't want to post our entire strategy for anyone to see but you definately have hit on an important part of it. We worked hard on local, community based external arrays. No arrays (even the pro-closure ones) met the science guidelines. SO WHAT! They are only guidelines. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors approved a $200,000 economic study of the effects of MPA's on the local economy. This does two things, it gives us a tool to use at the BRTF and Commision levels and it puts our supervisors in the position to support the fishing community. One thing we are learning is the strategy of Baykeeper and the Ocean Conservancy to work behind the scenes and try to gum up the works at the last possible moment. So far, we have been able to cut them off at the pass. I want to thank Ben and the folks in SoCal for helping to show us what worked and what didn't work in their areas. We will know better after the next RSG meeting whether our ideas will work or not. Thanks again for your involvement Allen. Tim

[polepole]

One thing we are learning is the strategy of Baykeeper and the Ocean Conservancy to work behind the scenes and try to gum up the works at the last possible moment. So far, we have been able to cut them off at the pass.

It's a bit scary how quiet Baykeep, OC, and NRDC are in the meetings. And what little they have to say is ridiculous.

It was suggested by the Jenn Savage (OC) during her presentation on Ext C that MPA's would save the whales. Why does it always go back to saving the whales?

From the Draft Methods Used to Evaluate Marine Protected Area Proposals in the MLPA North Coast Study Region (http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.as...ersionID=31680) which was recently approved by the SAT.

Gray whales typically migrate past the northern California coast in the late fall and early spring as they travel between their northern Arctic feeding grounds and their southern Mexican breeding and calving grounds. The north coast region is significant to gray whales because there is a small population (~200 whales) of gray whales that forgo their full northern migration and spend summers foraging south of the Bering and Chuckchi seas. These animals are part of the Pacific Coast Feeding Aggregation and the southern terminus of their range is in the northern California waters. These gray whales depend on the nearshore habitat during this time to feed in order to procure enough resources to successfully overwinter while fasting in Mexico. A map of at-sea densities for gray whales will be plotted over proposed MPAs and special closures to determine the area of neritic foraging hot spots protected.

200 whales spend their summers over a large expanse that includes NorCal at the very southern edge and some MPA's are supposed to save the whales? Because of this, the Gray Whales received a species likely to benefit ranking. Ridiculous!!!

Salmon also received a species likely to benefit ranking, but the devil is in the details. It is not for the open ocean. It is because of the congregation of them around river mouths at spawning time.

Of course none of this is explained in the Species Likely to Benefit document ... http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.as...ersionID=31826

I'm starting to like Dave Jensen, President, Mendocino Coast Audubon Society. Only because he demands a lot of the SAT and the iTeam, details and the like. He is very direct and will maintain that he is just there for the birds. I have a feeling if he gets some special closures around some rookeries, he'll be satisfied, but continue to to question things and demand the facts. BTW, do the birds need protection? From what? No matter, I don't think it is worth fighting for a 500 foot closure around a bird rookery sitting on some rocks. We shouldn't be approaching them anyway.

Ext E scored well on a lot of things, size and spacing being one of them. That's what happens when you just focus on the metrics and not on the big picture. Of course their negative economic effects were some of the largest too. While my hats off to the high school students getting involved, I question whether they have the real life knowledge needed to be effective at doing this.

In the presentation for Ext D, Bill Lemos put up slide of a stringer of fish that was like 25 years old. He followed the slide with one of tidepools. He stated that it is now because of overfishing, like shown in the last slide, that the tidepools are now empty. Huh? Since when did we fish for 25# lingcod and vermillion in the tidepools? This shows that if "they" can't physically see it, it is hard for them to comprehend. Send Bill Lemos 100 feet down with scuba gear and maybe he'll "get it". And what? Tidepools are empty because of overfishing? What are we harvesting from the tidepools?

Regarding Ext A (the rotating closures one), there were a couple times it was mentioned that it should be removed from consideration. Even one time were someone put it forward for a vote, and another seconded it. The facilitators rushed in and stated it was not time to remove arrays. The SAT doesn't even know how to deal with rotating MPA's. Hopefully they let this array die soon.

Thanks again for your involvement Allen. Tim

Thank you Tim. You guys are doing the real work. I'm just happy to be able to contribute what I can.

-Allen

[REEL STEEL]

Don't try to equate Lemos with intelligent life. His picture showed Ling Cod and some Yelloweye. I noticed he did not answer when someone asked if he caught them. I could go out and get a limit like that anytime, except all the good spots are in the RCA. Speaking of which, I tried to tweak the SAT by mentioning that we already have had a MPA in place for years (RCA) and no-one fishes the edges of it for big fish that are "leaking out". As far as the whales go. It was gear entanglement that was the issue, except most of the crab gear has been removed by the time the grey whales migrate through. Lot's of silliness all the way around. No sense trying to confuse anyone with facts. As stated before, it is all political and that is the battle we need to be fighting.

[polepole]

NOAA recently published this report (notice came just last week) ... http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/olo6th-edition.htm

Check out Unit 15: Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries ... http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/olo6thediti...-Unit%2015.pdf

Selected quotes.

A number of dramatic changes have occurred in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery since the last publication of Our Living Oceans (NMFS, 1999). Between 1999 and 2002, nine stocks were declared overfished, with spawning estimated to be below 25% of unfished levels. Rebuilding plans were implemented, reducing allowable fishing mortality for overfished and associated species throughout all sectors of the groundfish fishery and resulting in historically low allowable harvests. In addition to lower allowable harvest levels for overfished species and co-occurring species, major portions of the Continental Shelf off the U.S. West Coast have been closed to fishing since September 2003. Two of the overfished stocks, Pacific hake and lingcod, have since been rebuilt to target levels.

Fisheries management is working!!! Go figure.

Stock status has been estimated for nearly 30% of the groundfish stocks throughout at least a portion of their Pacific coast range. Of the assessed stocks, more than 70% are near or above target levels. However, many of the assessed stocks, whether currently below target levels or not, experienced declines in biomass throughout much of the 1980’s and 1990’s. These declines coincided with a period of reduced productivity of the California Current that lasted from 1977 into the late 1990’s. It is likely that this decline in ocean productivity contributed to the decline in overall abundance, but the effect appears to have been variable across species and is not well understood at this time. In the most recent period of improved ocean productivity, increases in recruitment and abundance have been observed for many species.

It wasn't just overfishing.

In addition to the role of ocean productivity, harvest levels have contributed to the current status of these species. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, harvest rates for many Pacific Coast groundfish species were based upon knowledge of the productivity of other, similar species. This was a reasonable approach in the absence of species-specific information and given the paucity of fishery-independent trend information, but many Pacific Coast rockfish species now appear to be less productive than originally thought. As a result, managers set harvest rates for many species at levels that, in hindsight, were too high. Harvest metrics were re-evaluated during the 1990’s and again in 2000, resulting in lower harvest rates for most species.

We recognize there were bad fisheries management policies and those are being addressed.

Not all rockfishes have declined in abundance over the past two decades. A number of species such as chilipepper, yellowtail rockfish, gopher rockfish, and blackgill rockfish are above their target levels, with estimated spawning biomass ranging from 52 to 97% of unfished levels (Figure 15-3). These rockfish inhabit a wide range of habitats which span nearshore, shelf, and slope depths. Although relatively abundant, landings for some of these species are near historical lows as a result of catch restrictions associated with rebuilding species that co-occur with these abundant stocks.

There are a number of healthy stocks. And these stocks will continue to be healthy, benefiting from other catch restrictions that influence them ... the "yelloweye effect".

-Allen