This meeting was mostly an introductory meeting ... status, intros, groundrules. Only a few contentious points worth mentioning. The California Natives and Native Communities (CNNC), as they shall be referred to for the process, are continuing to be very vocal about the process. I'm getting the feeling that they are here less about formulating MPA's and more about making the statement that MPA's don't apply to them. 7 of the now 32 RSG member (a commercial fisherman was added since the announcement) are Natives.

I think the RSG should just recommend that MLPA does not apply to CNNC and that CNNC are exempt from MPA restrictions. The statement should be made that for the RSG to recommend anything but what exists today is beyond there charge. Then let the BRTF and the F&G Commission chew on it. The BRTF and FGC are then between a rock and a hard place. On one hand if they don't go for it, then it sets the MLPA up for a federal lawsuit. If they do go for it, then it sets up the MLPA to looks bad because how can they exclude any user group from wholesale restrictions?

There was a lot of discussion about how the NC Regional Profile was incomplete and inaccurate. Much of the discussion during the meeting focuses on a lack of Native information, but I also hear a lot of discussion outside the meeting about inaccuracies in the document other than the Native topics. The I-Team staff made the statement that they don't have the manpower to update it and that it would live on through the RSG efforts. I find that unsatisfying because the published document will be what the public sees and if it is not updated, it will be misleading. How many of you have read the document? While the feedback period is closed, I suggest you spend 1 hour and read if, then send comments to MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov, and also state your support for extending the feedback period and updating the document. I would appreciate if you sent a copy of the comments to me as I'd like to compile them too.

There is a lot of excitement about being able to push a unified proposal through. In fact many of the external arrays were the exact same arrays, just submitted with different narrative to focus in on the region that was submitting it. The enviros were NOT vocal at all (yet!) nor do a I believe that there are very many that are on the extreme. Must keep an eye on Bill Lemos (NRDC) and Jenn Savage (Ocean Conservancy), but Dave Jensen (Audubon) who made an introduction in such a way that I believed he drank the koolaid, made a very strong statement that displayed his frustration in the process. He was asking (demanding, really) that the CNNC sovereignty issues be resolved otherwise they are all just wasting their time.

There was a huge amount of time spent on confidentiality issues. I'm not sure why it is even an issue. This is a public process and I think anything that is commicated should be open to the public. However, apparently in breakout sessions, there is a concept of confidentiality. It is supposed to be able to allow people to speak more openly. I would think nothing would stop the public from being able to attend the breakout sessions, however we were unwelcome at dinner even if we paid our own way. The I-Team was promoting bonding between RSG members. Spouses and kids were welcome though. I tried to tell them I was married to Dave, but they would have none of that. Apparently the MLPA doesn't support same sex marriages either.

There was talk of MLPA funding coming in from the $18 VLF surcharge that is effective as of Jan 2010. I think I heard something like $18M was going to go to the MLPA.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2009/090715.aspx



Another issue that came up was regarding monitoring. The I-Team pointed to the NCC and the establishment of the MPA Monitoring Enterprise (http://www.calost.org/monitoring_ent.html). What they failed to mention was any monitoring activity for the Central Coast. I know there is some monitoring, for instance, PISCO has some activities (http://www.piscoweb.org/policy/marin...ected-area-m-0), but I don't know of any comprehensive full scale monitoring for the CC like the MPA Monitoring Enterprise is proposing for the NCC. BTW, the MPA Monitoring Enterprise has only produced a plan. I don't know if the plan has anyone to act on it yet. There is supposed to be a 5 year review of the MPA's. Without monitoring of them, it will be hard to demonstrate that they are at all useful. There was some mention by Dave at this RSG about monitoring issues, and sunset clauses to undo MPA's if there is no monitoring or if the monitoring shows that there is little benefit. However, other than Dave bringing it up, there was no discussion

I didn't take a whole lot of notes because it was pretty boring. These thoughts were what stuck in my mind. Maybe I'll think of a few more, or maybe Dave has something to add.

-Allen