matt mattison
11-27-2010, 12:21 PM
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
Cc: BRTF members, MLPA I-Team members
At its meeting on October 25-26, 2010, the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) adopted seven motions with recommendations related to marine protected areas (MPAs) and special closures in the MLPA North Coast Study Region; the fourth of those motions was related to the development of the “North Coast Enhanced Compliance Alternative MPA Proposal.”
At the conclusion of the October meeting, MLPA Initiative staff initiated an extensive quality control process to ensure that the motions accurately reflected the BRTF’s intent and to ensure that staff had accurately translated the BRTF’s intent into action items. Based on feedback from BRTF members, it became clear that some individuals had different understandings about Motion 4. Attached is a copy of a message to me from BRTF member Greg Schem that highlights his concerns regarding Motion 4 and outlines his intention when putting forth the motion during the October meeting.
I am convening an additional meeting of the BRTF on December 9, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. to address different interpretations of Motion 4 and to explore the need for additional actions. Addressing this as part of the planning process will help ensure that the California Fish and Game Commission receives recommendations that fairly reflect what BRTF members intended and that the MLPA North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (NCRSG) and broader north coast community are involved in the discussion. I believe it is also essential that the north coast community’s unified MPA proposal be reflected in any MPA proposal put forward by the BRTF.
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 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.
We thank members of the north coast community for your patience and understanding as the BRTF works to ensure that its final recommendations honor the NCRSG’s unified MPA proposal, accurately reflect the intentions of the BRTF, and respect the unique environmental conditions and important cultural and socioeconomic interests specific to the north coast.
From: Cindy Gustafson, Chair, MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force
Date: November 24, 2010
Subject: Additional meeting of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force
Cc: BRTF members, MLPA I-Team members
At its meeting on October 25-26, 2010, the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) adopted seven motions with recommendations related to marine protected areas (MPAs) and special closures in the MLPA North Coast Study Region; the fourth of those motions was related to the development of the “North Coast Enhanced Compliance Alternative MPA Proposal.”
At the conclusion of the October meeting, MLPA Initiative staff initiated an extensive quality control process to ensure that the motions accurately reflected the BRTF’s intent and to ensure that staff had accurately translated the BRTF’s intent into action items. Based on feedback from BRTF members, it became clear that some individuals had different understandings about Motion 4. Attached is a copy of a message to me from BRTF member Greg Schem that highlights his concerns regarding Motion 4 and outlines his intention when putting forth the motion during the October meeting.
I am convening an additional meeting of the BRTF on December 9, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. to address different interpretations of Motion 4 and to explore the need for additional actions. Addressing this as part of the planning process will help ensure that the California Fish and Game Commission receives recommendations that fairly reflect what BRTF members intended and that the MLPA North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (NCRSG) and broader north coast community are involved in the discussion. I believe it is also essential that the north coast community’s unified MPA proposal be reflected in any MPA proposal put forward by the BRTF.
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 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.
We thank members of the north coast community for your patience and understanding as the BRTF works to ensure that its final recommendations honor the NCRSG’s unified MPA proposal, accurately reflect the intentions of the BRTF, and respect the unique environmental conditions and important cultural and socioeconomic interests specific to the north coast.