2). The RSG processes for each region – lasting from seven to 12 months – allowed for iterative rounds of MPA proposal development, evaluation, and refinement. In each region, initial steps included convening a BRTF, SAT, and RSG for the region, preparing a regional profile (a document characterizing the ecology and socioeconomics of the region), assembling regional data, developing additional

ATM inhibitor region-specific advice, undertaking joint fact-finding, and conducting directed education and outreach efforts. Initiative and CDFG staff did most of this work but joint fact finding and community outreach also involved stakeholders in the study region. This step included developing regional objectives, beginning to identify potential locations for proposed MPAs, evaluating and recommending potential changes to existing MPAs and assembling alternative draft MPA proposals in an iterative process. The RSG had primary responsibility for designing alternative MPA proposals. Their work was supported by Initiative staff and contractors with diverse skills, including facilitators, and utilized data and decision tools developed and maintained by Initiative staff in cooperation with CDFG staff (Merrifield et al.,

2013). External groups PCI-32765 cost (not members of the RSG) also developed and submitted proposed MPAs, which entered the regional study process early in the work of the RSG (Fig. 2) and were available to inform the work of RSG members. Generally, there were two or three iterative rounds of MPA network proposal development, evaluation, and refinement in each region. At designated times in the Initiative process, alternative MPA proposals were evaluated for conformance with science guidelines by the SAT (Carr et al., 2010; Saarman et al., 2013) and for conformance with administrative feasibility guidelines developed by CDFG. In the third and fourth study regions, State

Parks and Initiative staff provided assessments of MPA proposals regarding compatibility with existing state recreation and public access opportunities. Initiative staff also provided basic statistical evaluations of proposals against goals of the MLPA. The BRTF also provided feedback on preliminary proposals Ergoloid based on several factors including: SAT guidelines, CDFG feasibility guidelines, socio-economic impacts, and cross-sectoral support. RSG members revised proposals for MPAs through an iterative process in response to additional information, and feedback, especially from the SAT and CDFG assessments, while encouraged by BRTF exhortations to the RSG to heed those assessments. Facilitators of the stakeholder processes used a variety of techniques to support these changes, including ranking, voting and testing (Fox et al., 2013b). The BRTF provided feedback and guidance to the RSG and helped to identify and make tradeoffs anticipating what they would forward to the Commission.