BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
Meeting Minutes -
August 3, 2001
Cambria Pines Lodge
2905 Burton Drive
The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
(MBNMS) Advisory Council met on Friday, August 3rd, 2001, at the Cambria
Pines Lodge, Cambria, California. Public categories and government agencies
were present as indicated:
Agriculture: Richard Nutter
CA State Parks: Bill Berry
AMBAG: Stephanie Harlan
Conservation: Vicki Nichols
At Large: Ron Massengill
Diving: David Clayton
At Large: Pat Conroy
Education: Pat Clark-Gray
At Large: Deborah Streeter
Fishing: Thomas Canale
Business & Industry: Dave
Ports & Harbors: James Stilwell
CA Coastal Commission: Tami Grove
Recreation: Dan Haifley
CA Dept. of Fish and Game: awaiting
Research: Chris Harrold
CA EPA: Craig J. Wilson - ABSENT
CA Resources Agency: Brian Baird
U.S. Coast Guard: LT Tom Stuhlreyer
The following non-voting members were
present as indicated:
Channel Islands NMS: LCDR Matt
Pickett - ABSENT
Gulf of the Farallones NMS and
Cordell Bank NMS: Ed Ueber - ABSENT
Elkhorn Slough NERR: Becky Christensen
Monterey Bay NMS: William J.
Ruth Vreeland, AMBAG
Lynn Rhodes, CA State Parks
Harriet Mitteldorf, At Large
Dave Danbom, Fishing
Kaitilin Gaffney, Conservation
I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, APPROVAL
OF THE JUNE 1ST, 2001 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
A) Call to Order and Roll Call
The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Stephanie Harlan, at 8:40 a.m. Dan Haifley conducted the roll
call, a quorum was present.
B) Approval of June Meeting Minutes
The SAC unanimously adopted the minutes from the June 1st, 2001 Sanctuary
Advisory Council meeting, with the following changes.
- Page 3, 2nd line - revise to -
"how to utilize sediments for beach nourishment"
Motion introduced by Dan Haifley,
seconded by Deborah Streeter
(Vote: 16 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous))
C) Approval of SAC Annual Report
Stephanie Harlan - asked Dave
Clayton if he wanted to lead this discussion, as he had revisions
Dave Clayton - he agreed and
referred to Stephanie's copies of his notes. Item #1: Duke Energy
Moss Landing Power Plant Expansion: I think it is important to note
that the SAC took no action on this issue. The text states "Various
SAC members were instrumental in helping ensure the mitigation package
was comprehensive and well funded." This sentence could be interpreted
that the these SAC members were representing the SAC on this issue.
As you know, there is considerable negative publicity concerning this
mitigation package, and I think the fact that the SAC had taken no
action on this issue should be made clear.
Chris Harrold - Is this considered
a SAC activity? Or, is this an activity that SAC members participated
in on their own.
Dave Clayton - reiterated his
Bill Douros - Dave is right,
that the SAC took no action. We could remove the section.
Kaitilin Gaffney - concurs
with Bill and Dave.
Bill Berry - we need to stick
with the technical actions that the body of the SAC is involved with.
Tami Grove -can we be more
precise, and say SAC members in their individual activities, were
involved in this project.
Deborah Streeter - how about
rewording the section, "A number of individual SAC members in their
various capacities participated in the issue. The SAC took no action
on this item."
The SAC agreed to reword the section pertaining to Duke Energy to
"A number of individual SAC members in their various capacities participated
in the issue. The SAC took no action on this item."
Introduced by Deborah Streeter, seconded
by Dave Clayton
(Vote:16 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous))
Jim Stilwell - Page 6, Legislative
Working Group Report states: In late September, Jim Stilwell, on behalf
of the subcommittee, ...Should state: In late September, chairperson
Jim Stilwell, on behalf of the Legislative Working Group
Stephanie Harlan - I understood
that the group is a subcommittee, not an official working group.
This issue was discussed and it was
decided that that the group is a working group of the SAC, and so
the sentence should include "chairperson."
The SAC unanimously agreed to include the title "chairperson" in the
annual report section describing the legislative working group.
Introduced by Dave Clayton, seconded
by Jim Stillwell.
(Vote: 16 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous))
Dave Clayton - 3rd item is
the Diver Partnership Program - The period covered by this SAC Annual
Report is from October 1, 1999 - September 30, 2000. As of September
30, 2000 the diving community still considered the Diver Partnership
Program as being dissolved. Therefore the second paragraph should
stop after the following sentence. - "After consulting with their
constituents... ...gave notice that the diving community was withdrawing
from the Sanctuary's Diver Partnership Program."
Bill Douros - explained that
he recollected that the issue was resolved in the Summer 2000, and
thus was completed prior to September 30, 2000.
SAC members discussed this item, and
resolved that in order to not include any negative connotations, the
addition "As of the date of this report,
" should be inserted
in the annual report's diver partnership program section.
The SAC unanimously agreed to insert the "As of the date of this report,
in the annual report's diver partnership program section.
Introduced by Tami Grove, seconded
by Chris Harrold
Vote: 16 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous)
Chris Harrold - is the annual
report going to get editorial reviews? I noticed some grammar and
Stephanie Harlan - we can definitely
have some additional revisions made to catch grammar errors and typos.
Can we move to adopt the annual report with the editorial revisions?
The SAC unanimously adopted the SAC Annual Report, with additional
Introduced by Vicki Nichols, seconded
by Ron Masssengill.
Vote: 16 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous)
D) Welcoming Comments by a Local Representative
Ron Massengill - introduced
Richard Maceto, who thanks us on behalf of San Luis Obispo County
Supervisor, Shirley Bianchi and District 2. Also introduced were Ken
Topping and Bill Bianchi, Shirley's husband.
II. COUNCIL MEMBER & STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS,
& OUTREACH EFFORTS
Stephanie Harlan - passed
out the newly revised 50 Ways to Get Your Feet Wet in the MBNMS.
Pat Clark Gray - announced
the Sanctuary Education Panel meeting on August 15 at the Monterey
Sanctuary office, and the SEP's September 20th meeting at ESNERR.
Brian Baird - announced that
the State Resource Agency grants will be distributed soon. Stay tuned.
Dave Clayton - announced the
September 15th, Monterey wharf clean up dive. The Santa Cruz region
is also planning on partipating in Monterey this year to learn about
conducting such an event.
Stephanie Harlan - regarding
the Santa Cruz wharf, we will be assessing what kinds of items are
under the wharf, and then look at how to organize the clean up effort.
We are very impressed with what occurs in Monterey, and are looking
forward to your (Dave's) help.
Kaitilin Gaffney - Clean Water
Day is August 25th, 11-2pm at Cowells Beach.
Chris Harrold - Kirsten Wassen,
Research Coordinator at Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research
Reserve has produce a pamphlet "Least Wanted Invasive Species List"
that identifies 20 or so invasive species to look out for
Dave Clayton - there is a dead
Humpback whale on the beach at Jade Cove.
Bill Berry - we are just finishing
a pilot program that consists of a partnership between inner city
youth from Oakland with the O'Neill Sea Odyssey program in Santa Cruz.
The 2nd day, students visited Mount Diablo - and were able to see
the connection between the land and sea. Bill spent both days with
the kids, and feels this a good opportunity with the partners to expand
on these kind of activities.
Dan Haifley - 236 youth participated,
and we are really excited about the State Parks program.
Ron Massengill - has focused
lately on talking with water quality monitoring agencies, and speaking
to potential business for the BTAP.
Dan Haifley - is busy doing
outreach to recreation constituents. He handed out summary of the
groups he has been making contact with.
Deborah Streeter - September
22nd is the blessing of the Carmel River, at 3pm. Many religious organizations
are participating, and all are welcome to join us.
Rachel Saunders - gave an update
on SEA Lab Monterey Bay, a new residential science camp for schools
and teachers. They conducted a pilot program last summer. It is the
space camp of the oceans. They are currently finishing their business
planning. They will run nine week long sessions next Summer in 2002.
She would like to present to the SAC at a future meeting.
Heidi Tiura - Stephanie requested
she plug Sanctuary Cruises, and Heidi also gave update on whales that
they are seeing in Monterey Bay.
Jim Stilwell - recounted his
interaction with people coming off Heidi's boat to harbor office,
and how they loved the cruise. He commended the skipper for picking
up trash while cruising.
Karen Grimmer - announced the
resignation of Burke Pease from the SAC's tourism seat, and that Pat
Conroy will be attending more meetings as alternate for one of the
at-large seats .
III PUBLIC COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
SOUTHERN SANCTUARY ISSUES & OPPORTUNITIES
Ron Massengill - gave
an overview of southern region meetings. There is almost 300 miles of
coastline, yet harbors, agriculture, fishermen, and research institutions
are all based in the Monterey region. The southern region has all of
the above, but on a smaller scale. The biggest difference is now we
have more agriculture products, several million visitors, and an increase
in visitation based on Hearst Castle tours last year. We are custodians
of the Sanctuary. The payback for enjoying the resources is that we
need to get involved. Briefly, issues to touch on are fisheries, MPA's,
and the MLPA is in process.
July 16th meeting in Morro Bay, 15%
turn out from this town. Just like the kelp management meetings, we
had great turnout. San Simeon is our local harbor, and is a safe harbor,
recreation boats, fishing boats, commercial sport boats, surf perch
and rock fishing, skiff fishing is popular, kayaking by sport fishers
also, spearfishing is common. Salmon are present, and guides are distributing
information about protecting the habitats. Last 2 years, we have had
good populations. He hopes we can make some improvements. Water Quality
- Bianchi is concerned about erosion, agricultural practices, streams
are silting out, and affecting salmon habitat. Compared to urban areas,
little pollution exists. He sited report that was MTBE focused. Caltrans
is proposing a Highway 1 realignment. Tidepools need to be considered,
and Elephant Seal programs needs to be considered too. With the Sanctuary
emergency response plan, he worked with Pat Cotter, who used to be
the lead and has moved on from the Sanctuary. What are the resources
and issues in this area? Ron has met with the fire captain, Bob Putney.
The North Coast Ocean Rescue team are going to be the first to respond
in a local emergency. Coast Guard are 30 miles away. We need to finish
the plan, and outline how this area will respond locally. He introduced
the Cambria Fire Chief.
Bob Putney - he is the Fire
Chief for the Cambria area. He gave the SAC a brief background on
OSPR, and his past experience with emergency response. He explained
that the Clean Seas operation is now defunct, and that no more resources
are available. Coast Guard has large ships, and sometimes a long response
time. He requested that the SAC give him some direction on finding
available funds for HAZMAT materials. He would like to keep the materials
here on a trailer as a first response band aid measure, to delay oil
getting to sensitive areas. The trailer would then be available to
other local area agencies to use if needed. Bob explained that Cal
Fish and Game are willing to donate large trash and garbage drums
to hold HAZMAT materials.
Dan Haifley - asked if he is
writing grants to obtain funding for the purchase of the needed materials.
Bob Putney - he wants to know
what is available, in regards to existing resources. They are looking
for 55 gal drums to store for a first response type spill. Small responses
have been ongoing. Coast Guard typically has a 45 minute to 6-8 hour
Vicki Nichols - are you involved
in the area committee?
Bob Putney - no he is not connected
with that committee. How would he get involved?
Jim Stilwell - the agency in
charge of that committee would be the Coast Guard, and should be the
Ron Massengill - he was in
touch with Scott Kathey of the Sanctuary, about getting information
about the system, and applying it to extend down here. Next he introduced
Michele Roest, MBNMS education and outreach specialist.
Michele Roest - . As an update
for SAC members, Green Space, a water-quality monitoring non profit
organization would like to expand their program, and is similar to
the Monterey program. BeachCOMBERS South - six beaches are now covered.
State Parks is our partner for the September Coastal Cleanup effort.
We are also hoping to expand next year to an underwater clean up.
In fact, September 16th, we are conducting a Kayak cleanup. Lastly,
local public lands are managed by State Parks and the US Forest Service.
Preliminary discussions about joint signage projects are beginning.
This is a natural cooperative collaboration.
Bill Warren - a Cambria resident,
would like the same level of protection south of Cambria afforded
to people and resources living within the Sanctuary's boundary, and
we need your leadership and protection. We need your help!
Bill Allen - urges the SAC
to take action to extend the boundary down, or the Channel Islands
boundary up, or designate a new sanctuary. I'm here to nag, nag, and
nag. Fishing industry is hurting more and more.
Bob Hanson - father of a fisherman
in Morro Bay. This discussion on MPA's is affecting his son's life.
New rules and regulations are putting people out of business. He recounted
the historical background on how tuna boats were forced to move out
of the area, and now people in California are losing that money. He
reminded the SAC that they are dealing with people as well as the
environment. Fishermen in Morro Bay feel they are not being listened
to, and they are wasting their time going these types of meetings.
William Bosworth - there are
water quality problems up at Sea Cliff beach, and we are advised not
to swim in the water. Water quality is the biggest issue, and should
be focused on by the Sanctuary, not fishing.
Stephanie Harlan - Capitola
creek flush, high coliform was found, and closed. We have to continue
to remain vigilant.
Dave Clayton - WQ should be
kept as a primary focus.
Bill Douros - MBNMS spends
a lot of time on this priority. It is quite likely beach closures
are going to be a focus in the Management Plan Review. Urban runoff
and ag. runoff are collaborative projects and we are going to deal
Tom Hafer - he is a member
of the Live Fish Trap (Trap Association). He has developed a trap
ring that keeps sea otters out of the traps, as well as big fish.
The rings really work to catch smaller fish. He agrees with some of
the potential MPA areas, but not Big Sur or Piedras Blancas.
Clyde Warren - he is involved
with a Steelhead spawning project. He handed out a letter, and gave
the SAC background on the project.
Bill Bianchi - he helped Clyde
on the Steelhead program. Shirley has been looking at watersheds,
and understands the connection to the ocean. Multiple jurisdictions
are involved, meetings and resolutions are needed. A watershed appraisal
is needed. Update county watershed management plan. This needs to
be done, and a follow through is needed.
Dave Clayton - Asked for more
information about the live trap fishery, or stick fishery. The PVC
pipes are washing up in the surf zone. He'd like to see DF&G push
people away from use of the sticks. Tom Hafer concurred that is a
Chet Forrest - thanked Ron
Massengill for his opening remarks. He addressed the SAC - "Look around.
All of these people are concerned about the ocean, and they cooperate.
It tells you that you need to pump more resources down south. These
people want to work with the Sanctuary."
Jim Stilwell - asked Dave Clayton
for clarification on his prior remark. Are you a proponent of the
SAC pushing for fishing regulations?
Dave Clayton - No, my concern
is with stick fishing, and that is a DFG issue, not a Sanctuary issue.
He would like to see DFG push toward trap fishing.
Tom Canale -What keeps the
rest of the fisherman from getting into trap gear?
Tom Hafer - responded that
most fishers have small boats, or kayaks, and cannot carry the traps.
Tom Canale - he would like
people to note that fishers are being proactive and working to solve
Chris Harrold - concurred with
Tom Canale, and then asked Chet to clarify which resources are needed.
Chet Forrest - responded with
- signage on the new walkway on Moonstone Drive; oil clean up resources.
Provide Bob Putney with more direction such as names and contact information
for the area committee.
Bob Putney - it would help
to identify the southern end of the sanctuary. Where is it?
Michele Roest - responded that
the east-west property is not public land, and we could maybe move
the Shamel park monument to that ranch.
IV PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON
Ruth Vreeland - thanks
for allowing the alternates to join the Staff/SAC retreat. She brought
out some signs that were used during the Sanctuary's original designation
in the early 1990's. Ruth commented that we need to listen to our different
perceptions carefully. And make it open to everyone. We need to stay
together and work together.
V PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION:
SAC PRIORITY -DESALINATION PLANTS
Holly Price - introduced
Brad Damitz and gave a brief overview of the presentation. Following
is a summary of Brad's presentation.
This presentation covered existing
and potential desalination plants in the MBNMS; environmental impacts;
mitigation measures, and what the Sanctuary is doing to address it
Three Sanctuary regulations relate
directly to desalination. The first involves discharging or depositing
any material from within Sanctuary boundaries, since the brine effluent,
and in some cases other materials, are usually disposed of in ocean
waters, this activity requires Sanctuary authorization of regional
water quality control board permits. The second regulation pertains
to discharging materials outside of the boundaries, which subsequently
end up in Sanctuary waters. As with the previous reg, this requires
Sanctuary approval. The third relevant regulation involves activities,
which cause alteration of the seabed. Thus installation of an intake/outfall
structure on or beneath the ocean floor will also require Sanctuary
There are currently 3 existing plants,
and 7 or 8 proposed or potential plants in the Sanctuary;
The existing plants are the Duke power
plant, Marina Coast Water District, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium.
Other potential plants include the Santa Cruz County Sanitation Department
and Soquel Creek Water Management District, Fort Ord; Monterey Bay
Shores, Sand City, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District&emdash;Carmel
River, Ocean View Plaza, and the Cambria Community Services District.
The environmental impacts of desalination
include impacts from construction, brine discharge, desalination plant
intake, and growth inducing impacts.
Potential mitigation measures include
proper siting of the intake/outfall pipeline, and the use of appropriate
technology and engineering. Avoiding sensitive habitats is also crucial;
generally discharge to rocky substrate is more damaging than to sandy
seafloor. The impacts can be greatly reduced if discharges are combined
with sewage treatment plant discharges (which are not saline and are
less dense than seawater discouraging settling), or by combining with
power plant cooling water discharges. Piggybacking the discharge has
the added advantage of eliminating the need for construction of a
new pipeline structure; which as I mentioned previously can have severe
The Sanctuary is currently involved
in a joint effort with the CCC evaluating the emerging issue of desalination,
and developing a series of regional guidelines and recommendations,
so we can deal with it more comprehensively. Additionally we are updating
and expanding a report that was put out by the commission in 1993,
titled Seawater Desalination in California, and developing a regional
version of that for the sanctuary. We hope to have this completed
between 6 months and a year from now.
Steve Scheiblauer -. Can we
get a copy of this presentation? How will this fit in the Management
Plan Review process?
Holly Price - Yes. We wanted
to be proactive and not wait for 2 years, and the MPR process to be
Bill Berry -. Are you aware
of any alternate uses for the brine?
Brad Damitz - So far, I haven't
come across any.
Chris Harrold - In your regional
planning - any thought on cumulative impacts? Projected use and what
is the combined affects should be looked at.
Holly Price - we are looking
at that issue and are private plants better than bigger commercial
plants. We are looking at this with the California Coastal Commission.
Dave Clayton - regarding the
Ocean View Plaza - do they have a permit in review now?
Holly Price - responded they
are rewriting the proposal and the EIS portion.
Michele Roest - can we clarify
who authorizes the permits?
Holly Price - we authorize
permits to other agencies.
Vicki Nichols - is there currently
an arbitration process in place?
Holly Price -we have an MOU
with the Regional Water Quality Control Board - there is an appeal
process in place in that MOU.
Kathy Fosmark - what degree
or percentage of impacts are you citing? Is there a way to measure?
Brad Damitz - generally - no.
Individual plants could be studied.
Dave Clayton - any data on
existing plants like Monterey Bay Aquarium?
Chris Harrold - we can't detect
a significant brine, so we have not measured the impacts.
Brad Damitz - we can use modeling
methods to measure at the outfall.
Dave Clayton - over time, some
impact must occur.
Bill Berry - is the brine going
to the ocean? Or is there enough pressure to push the brine up into
freshwater sources? Is there enough information to know?
Brad Damitz - yes there is
information. There is a well under Marina State Beach that they inject
the brine effluent into, and pressure takes over and the water seeps
into the ocean and is diluted through the surf action.
Wade Weimer - we have been
following this process with you. He handed out a letter.
Holly Price - we will work
closely with the Cambria district in studying this issue.
Peter Shuldroft - Cambria -
we are looking at returning salt water back to the ocean with lower
Bill Bianchi - my suggestion
is to search out brackish water for use. This will reduce the amount
of energy to desalinate.
Pat Conroy - use of reclaimed
waste water might be another alternative to look at for irrigation,
Holly Price - Marina plant
is using their water for artichoke fields. We want to ask the SAC
if there might be interest in having another presentation later down
Peter Topping - please make
sure you are using the scientific approach. We appreciate Holly meeting
with us yesterday. Please look at using a regional approach. We are
using a local approach because we are somewhat isolated.
VI PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION:
CALIFORNIA MARINE LIFE PROTECTION ACT
Bill Douros - John Ugoretz
at the Department of Fish & Game had to cancel last week. In lieu
of that presentation, our staff member Erica Burton is going to give
an overview of the state MLPA process, and then Tom Canale our SAC fishing
representative will lead the discussion.
Erica Burton - she began by
defining the Marine Life Protection Act. She introduced the DFG initial
draft concepts by passing out an MPA handout that illustrates the
proposed MPAs within our Sanctuary boundaries. She defined the three
different types of MPA's being proposed (State Marine Reserve, State
Marine Park, State Marine Conservation Area). The MBNMS staff had
written an initial comment letter to the DFG in response to their
proposal and request for comments. Erica summarized the letter. (For
a copy of the MBNMS letter, please visit the SAC website:
The letter requested that the State
seek input from stakeholder groups, and specifically suggests the
Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries, and its co-chairs
as a place to start.
The letter requested that the State
consider the socioeconomic data, as we are currently getting funding
from Sea Grant and the MPA Center to engage those studies. Regarding
the proposed MPA's, there is little or no proposed protection for
pelagic species areas. So the letter suggested the addition of two
areas up by Ano Nuevo and Point Sur. Also, we requested ongoing monitoring
of the MPA areas.
Brian Baird - the Department
of Fish and Game is working hard to have rounds of public hearings.
They wanted a reaction and they got it. They are listening. And they
are aware of the socioeconomic areas. They are getting constructive
comments and are looking at funding possibilities. They are taking
this seriously. There was a lot of emotion and good discussion.
Tom Canale - DFG missed a good
opportunity to not have the kinds of conflicts that are now occurring
at the meetings. There are general problems like employment elimination.
That could have been avoided. The Sanctuary comment letter was explained
to us at the Alliance meeting last Monday, and at yesterday's Staff/SAC
Retreat. There have been concerns about the letter, and I'd like to
give our Sanctuary Superintendent the opportunity to first address
Bill Douros - I said that our
agenda is not to put the fishing community out of business. It bothers
me that conception is out there. Tom will hopefully help me to dispel
that idea. There is so much frustration about why and what we said
in the letter. I'd like to explain. First - some believe the Sanctuary
could not comment at all - and that relates to the "promise" many
people thought was made related to fishing during Sanctuary designation.
I'd like to clarify - we are not going to be promulgating regulations.
We are simply giving advice, and that is consistent with "the promise".
Why was the letter sent now? DF&G
is looking for comments now. Offering comments in the form of a letter
is routine for us to do. The Alliance group had set some initial ground
rules - all members are free to give comments individually outside
of the working group. Monday's Alliance meeting discussion clarified
to me - there were different expectations for the Sanctuary. It became
clear there is a different expectation of the Sanctuary. We probably
would not have sent the letter if that was understood.
3rdly - why not take the letter to
the SAC? DF&G needs comments now. They are preliminary comments.
The Alliance collaboration will probably lead to different recommendations.
The SAC has said in the past we need
to give more time in SAC meetings when we consider difficult and complicated
topics. The SAC endorsed a regional collaboration - and the Alliance
would come back to the SAC to get its input as a regional group, not
just the staff. Our comments on MLPA are preliminary, and we thought
the SAC would not want or need to comment. There are too many things
going on for us to bring everything to the SAC. Bill cites the Hunter
Liggett bombing issue, and Caltrans issues as examples of comments
made without SAC input, and there was not concern then, when it appears
all SAC members agreed with what we said.
Lastly, please don't disagree with
what was said, then say that was bad process. That's not fair, especially
when we followed an agreed upon process. We are going to work as hard
as we can with the fishing community
and we do many other things,
such as work on water quality, Desal, etc. We have so much in common
Tom Canale - there is a difference
in the weight of the Sanctuary vs. individuals.
Dave Clayton - at Alliance
meetings, the Sanctuary's view (that was included in the comment letter
to DFG) was never brought up at.
Chris Harrold - things were
happening so fast, and positions were not developed. My understanding
is that the Alliance requested input to help formulate their position
to the DF&G regarding MPA's. We were there to support the Alliance.
I had a conversation with Mike Ricketts about that topic. We all have
our positions that we needed to maintain. I did not see Bill's action
Dave Clayton - consensus was
supposed to be the goal for the Alliance.
Chris Harrold - consensus doesn't
preclude individual positions.
Dan Haifley - after reading
the comment letter, I presumed that the Alliance was involved.
Michele Finn - I was at an
DFG workshop, and made a number of points that were not taken negatively,
as a Sanctuary staff member. I'm not clear on the difference between
testimony at a workshop and a letter.
Kaitilin Gaffney - Dave Clayton
was not at the initial meetings - we were specific, the Sub committee
was going to help the Alliance have a position. I needed to know that,
because it was an initial concern to retain our individual perspectives.
The SAC is a balanced stakeholder group, the Alliance was one avenue.
The SAC did not agree to give power to the Alliance.
Steve Scheiblauer - The Alliance
understood that the Sanctuary would be involved. The promise is a
very charged issue. The Alliance was formed to be able to give informed
advise to the SAC and Bill, so that fishermen would not feel betrayed.
The Alliance understood that the Sanctuary would comment. There was
ample time to give comments. We asked staff for review of comments.
The answer was no. What was the role of the SAC? This is a huge issue
for the SAC. If you had passed around that comment letter 10 years
ago -would there have been a Sanctuary designated?
Vicki Nichols - I'm confused.
There are various organizations, each with their own perspective.
I don't recall having to review the Alliance's comments. Why was there
an assumption that comment on letters was needed?
Dan Haifley - to respond to
Steve's question - if you turned the clock back 10 years and showed
this letter to fishermen, we would not have had a Sanctuary.
Bill Douros - well I think
it's fair to say that if we turned the clock ahead ten years and were
told we could not write such a letter, the "agreement" about the Sanctuary's
role on fishing issues would have been written down differently also.
There seems to be an unwritten contract here to many people, who perceived
agreements different than what was written down. We need to get the
rules straight. Our guiding document, the management plan, gives direction
Kathy Fosmark - we would never
have agreed to support the Sanctuary. Bill broke the trust.
Language was taken out of context
by Bill. He states in the letter very different views. Anger among
fishermen suggests that the SAC has been bypassed. How will this letter
affect fishermen? What is the SAC going to do about this? Chris Harrold
was not at the last meeting. The SAC could help with public outreach.
The whole process is taking place while fisherman are out of sea.
I am here representing them.
Holly Price - this is very
unusual situation. In my experience, you need to have a year or more
to work through this type of proposal. It doesn't need to take away
from the Alliance's ability to progress ahead. Consensus does not
happen that quickly.
Public Comment - thanks for
having the meeting here at Cambria. The City position will be addressed
in August. I attended a hearing in Morro Bay. There isn't enough time.
January is the deadline. We need more time, more than 4 months. Let's
ask for extension of the deadline, and work together. We need to get
more information - socioeconomic information. With the Alliance issue
- the subject is the content. If the content is being defended, that
demonstrates a remarkable tone to us.
Dave Elliott - I'm a two term
council members, and have served on numerous boards, I have a lot
of experience with these types of collaborations. You don't have an
Alliance, or anything if one party withholds information. This letter
signed and printed on letterhead, established the Sanctuary's official
position. You are having two separate discussions here. You need to
step back and look at why you are having these meetings. You are not
solving problems. I hear excuses, and the right to our own position.
I ask - what are you here for?
Bill Pierce - what I look for
is data. What did we learn the first time. If we don't have enough
data or evidence, that's a problem. I don't know how your organization
functions - but a letter went out on letterhead, and it means their
Mike Ricketts - most has been
said. The process. We have to be open to it whether we are a fisherman
and an environmentalist.
Jim Stilwell - the letter gets
to the very essence of the SAC. This is an issue that crosses the
whole cultural and social and multiple uses of the Sanctuary. Positions
are being taken that relate to this industry as a whole. The SAC has
a role in this type of issue. The first part of the process, should
have been the advice of the Council.
Dave Ebert - the Sanctuary
Business and Tourism Activity Panel (BTAP) has been talking about
this. I have two ideas. One - the legislation is going through. We
can ask for an extension. The impact to the fishermen is the other
concern. Two -could the SAC send a letter to Paul Reilly to ask for
an extension and write a letter of support. Time is needed on all
sides to prepare, study and look at this.
The SAC will write a letter to Flores Assembly Bill (AB1673).requesting
that the section pertaining to the MLPA process be amended to support
an extended deadline of at least one year. It will be sent to the
Secretary of the California Resources Agency, and copied to the Director
of DFG Robert Hight, Paul Reilly of DFG, Assemblymen Keeley &
Maldonaldo, State Senators O'Connell & McPherson, & local
Introduced by Dave Ebert, seconded
by Jim Stilwell
(Vote: 15 in favor, O opposed, 1 abstention,
Kaitilin Gaffney - several
organization have been sending letters to that affect.
Tom Canale - PCFFA is also
supporting that extension request.
Bill Douros - in response to
a question from the audience, Bill said the Sanctuary would send a
letter too, asking for more time.
Ruth Vreeland - this letter
could have waited, and had time for input. The Alliance, should have
been asked. I would hope that in this letter from the SAC, the Sanctuary
could do so also.
Francesca Crow and William Bosworth
- we feel that we have been lied to, especially in regards to #4 and
#5 in the Sanctuary's comment letter. Ms. Crow read an analogy of
the process compared to a patch of earth. Bill is misquoting, and
thrusting a big fist into a beehive. We feel our trust has been violated.
Ray - a trawler in Monterey.
I don't trust anyone under 40. If you close Soquel Canyon, I will
Steve Scheiblauer - the content
of the letter is the problem, nor the fact that it was submitted.
What do we do from here? The Alliance still wants to continue working
with the Sanctuary. How does the SAC feel?
Dave Clayton - the State does
want to hear input from the Alliance. I think they want to make amendments.
Dan Haifley - requests that
the staff please work more closely with the Alliance group.
Tom Canale - the SAC needs
to be involved in this issue more, especially with the MPR coming
Steve Scheiblauer -the state
scientists can get more detailed information from each site from the
Brian Baird - I have two main
questions. How is the Sanctuary going to work with the Alliance? How
is the SAC involved? Could we request an update on the Alliance progress
at the next meeting?
Jim Stilwell - do we need an
The SAC will receive an update on the progress with the Alliance at
the next and future meetings.
Introduced by Brian Baird, seconded
by Jim Stilwell
(Vote: 16 in favor, 0 opposed)
12:25 - 1:15pm LUNCH BREAK
VII UPDATE: NAPA REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
This item was continued to
the October meeting.
VIII OVERVIEW OF MBNMS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
RELATIVE TO THE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW (MPR)
Bill Douros - these presentations are meant to give you background
and information on the past nine years to help set the stage for the
STATUS OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES
- Erica Burton
Erica's presentation highlighted the recent advances in our knowledge
of Sanctuary Resources and the current status of the:
- Environmental Conditions
- Water Quality
- Living Marine Resources
- Cultural and Historical Resources
Erica noted that the status of some
of the resources is not necessarily a result of Sanctuary designation.
She gave an overview of the above, followed by questions from the
audience and SAC members. A citizen asked if the Sanctuary will be
looking at Native American cultural resources. Bill responded that
that will be focused on after completing the assessment on shipwrecks
in the Sanctuary, simply because that has been started and needs to
be completed. Another question - are we going to be looking at how
sand and sediments move along the coast? Erica responded that Moss
Landing Marine Labs are currently looking at that issue. Andrew DeVogelaere
added that we need to measure sources of pollutants being transported.
Dan Haifley thanked Erica for the comprehensive nature of the presentation
in looking at what has the Sanctuary done. Vicki Nichols asked about
the inclusion of coastal armoring issues? Bill responded that the
summary in the State of the Sanctuary report may identify some issues
- that also may change. A question - can we include the include the
increased Chinook salmon population as a topic in the report? Andrew
responded that more detail will be forthcoming in the full report.
Dave Clayton asked if the report will be available to everyone? Yes,
was the response.
RESOURCE PROTECTION - Holly Price
Holly gave a presentation on the activities that the Resource
Protection team has focused on during the past few years. A few questions
followed the presentation. Dick Nutter asked about the 1000 ft over
flight limit. Holly responded that currently, the charts don't jive
with the regulations. Michele Finn added that they are merely a recommendation
- to protect the pilot. Becky Christensen asked if the regulation
counts for remote control planes too? Is size an issue? No clear response
was given, as more information was needed. Deborah Streeter commented
if we could please include an Acronym list in the report, to promote
RESEARCH - Andrew DeVogelaere
Andrew gave a presentation on the activities that the Research
team has focused on during the past few years. He touched on numerous
accomplishments and continuing issues that will be detailed in the
State of the Sanctuary Report - due to be released sometime in October.
No questions followed the presentation.
EDUCATION & OUTREACH - Dawn
Dawn gave a presentation on the activities that the Education
team has focused on during the past few years. Chris Harrold asked
if there were evaluations for the outcomes of these programs. Dawn
responded that there is no baseline data right now. With the implementation
of the regional plan, evaluation will be put in place. Chris commented
that funding opportunities for such activities are available.
PREVIEW POWER POINT PRESENTATION
- Sean Morton
Sean highlighted the draft presentation for SAC comments. The
presentation was designed as an outreach tool for SAC members to get
the word out to their constituents about the MBNMS management plan
review process. A number of comments were offered.
Dan Haifley - a lot of work
went into the presentation, and is greatly appreciated. However, in
my experience, ten slides are the maximum number. The presentation
needs to be much shorter, with time at the end for questions and discussion.
Stephanie Harlan - please add
visitor centers to the main goals.
Chris Harrold - if the purpose
is to talk about the MPR, tune down the Sanctuary facts, and tune
up the MPR aspect. Also, tune down the images, as they are distracting.
Pat Clark-Gray - the audience
is the general public - they like graphics.
Ron Massengill - excellent
format! Can you add a voice track, and air it on public access TV?
Maybe you could have adapted versions
(with or without graphics) for different audiences.
Deborah Streeter - you need
an introduction slide detailing exactly what this presentation will
cover. I was not sure until you got to the MPR slide.
Heidi Tiura - could the presentation
be available in video formats, as I could see popping in a tape for
people traveling under way on our vessel?
Steve Scheiblauer - could you
add a box for what the program is doing for multiple uses?
Karen Grimmer - could the presentation
also be made available as slides and overheads?
Ron Massengill - are there
any mediums to reach out to national audiences?
Deborah Streeter - is there
a form or format available to guide people who want to offer written
Michele Roest - the website
will allow us to receive comments from anyone, nationally or beyond.
Chet Forrest - this was impressive.
This Sanctuary has really done something in nine years. SAC members
are going to have to cut out the bickering and get to the task at
hand. Think about how you're all gonna do that, and make the next
ten years a success.
IX UPDATE: SAC SIGN PROGRAM
Liz Love - she gave
an overview on the SAC sign program.
Cambria - Former SAC Member
At-Large, Chet Forrest, had started us off with some money from the
County that was used for the southern boundary monument at Shamel
Park. We also put some year end money toward a larger exhibit to be
installed at Hearst Castle Visitor Center in partnership with State
Big Sur - a pullout site of
Hwy One near Julia Pfeiffer State Park pull was selected. Former SAC
Member At-Large, Karin Strasser-Kaufman was the initial contact, and
didn't come up with any specific businesses interested in the project.
Liz sent in a proposal to Caltrans, which was approved. Yet, the issue
of ownership of that site needs to be addressed before the project
Monterey Harbor - Former SAC
Members Steve Webster and Steve Sheiblauer were both actively working
on this project. To date, Monterey Bay Kayaks is very interested in
funding a sign.
Moss Landing Harbor - SAC Member
Jim Stilwell secured some funding that was going toward signs in Moss
Landing. We are not sure at this time how that project is proceeding.
Santa Cruz - Marshall Miller,
owner of Sun shops, is helping to fund a couple of custom signs at
the wharf focusing on seal lions, and maybe recreate that for the
Coast Guard wharf in Monterey.
Stephanie Harlan - could Leslie
Stone help with design formats? Also, could we donate checks to the
Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation, and then have the foundation cut
a check to the design and fabrication.
Liz Love - Yes, depending on
how much money we can raise.
Chris Harrold - could we help
get funding for a prototype.
Liz Love - Yes. I believe in
the past we had circulated a packet that contained some designs and
approximate costs for signs. We could put something more specific
together if needed.
David Clayton - if we had more
specifics, divers could probably leverage more funds for a couple
Stephanie Harlan- if we could
have some hard costs, and have an idea of what we are asking for,
it would help.
Chet Forrest - a word of caution
- make sure people understand what they are paying for. If they are
donating funds for a sign or for a study.
Dawn Hayes - we have information
from a workshop with State Parks for sign production and fabrication.
Pat Conroy - please keep in
mind that Half Moon Bay and the northern region of the Sanctuary could
use the same attention. Chet's direction to continue focusing attention
on the southern region holds true for the northern region as well.
Liz Love - she gave an overview
of the past signs that we have worked on in the northern region, and
commented that if there were interest, we could definitely do more.
She will plan on getting more specific information for Monterey, Santa
Cruz, and possibly Half Moon Bay ( Julie Barrow) organized.
X ACTION: SET OCTOBER AGENDA
10 best and 10 worst from CINMS
Presentation by the four SAC working
groups relating to the MPR. 15 minutes, plus time for questions.
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council Coordinator