SAC Meeting Minutes
BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
Minutes October 5, 2001
Street Community Center
4400 Jade Street
Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) Advisory Council met on Friday,
October 5, 2001, at the Jade Street Community Center, Capitola, California.
Public categories and government agencies were present as indicated:
State Parks: Bill Berry-ABSENT
Large: Ron Massengill
Large: Pat Conroy
Large: Deborah Streeter
& Industry: Dave Ebert
& Harbors: James Stilwell
Coastal Commission: Tami Grove
Dept. of Fish and Game: awaiting appointment
EPA: Craig J. Wilson
Resources Agency: Brian Baird
Coast Guard: LT Tom Stuhlreyer - ABSENT
non-voting members were present as indicated:
Islands NMS: LCDR Matt Pickett
of the Farallones NMS and Cordell Bank NMS: Ed Ueber - ABSENT
Slough NERR: Becky Christensen-ABSENT
Bay NMS: William J. Douros
Rhodes, CA State Parks
Mitteldorf, At Large
TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 3, 2001 DRAFT MEETING MINUTE
introduced John Laird, candidate for State Assembly for the 27th district.
Mr. Laird spoke regarding redistricting, and gave some background on
the designation process and how Option 5 (the largest size option for
the Sanctuary) was selected. He was active in anti offshore oil drilling
in the 1980s, and he had worked with Save Our Shores to adopt ordinances
33 in cities and municipalities. He reminded the Council
members that the ordinances are still in place.
The SAC adopts the minutes from the August 3, 2001 Sanctuary Advisory
Council meeting, with the following changes.
Ken Topping, Bob Harmson, are correct names.
Chris Harrold requested that we focus the meeting minutes on actions
and concerns, and not reference names for people, and not try to capture
the discussions as conversations.
Stephanie Harlan suggested that we could tape records the meetings,
and provide summary meeting notes.
After a short discussion, the following motion was passed.
The SAC asks staff to purchase a taping system to record future SAC
meetings, and to reduce minutes to a short summary.
Introduced by Chris Harrold, seconded by Vicki Nichols
(Vote: 16 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous))
II. COUNCIL MEMBER & STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS, & OUTREACH EFFORTS
The Sanctuary Scenic Trail was officially launched. The MBNMS announced
a commitment of $100,000 to kick off the capital campaign to build the
signs and exhibitry. Congressman Sam Farr participated.
State Parks coordinated a clean up effort, and offered award patches
for participating scouts.
Save Our Shores (SOS) and the Ocean Conservancy are providing public
workshops on the MBNMS management plan review process.
SOS in cooperation with Moss Landing Marine Lab is providing public
education using seal lions. They have so far provided fifty classes.
Vicki Nichols would like to provide more information at a future meeting.
State Resources Agency has announced for final comment, the Coastal
Impact Assistance Program grantees SAC members can send an email
to help move this process forward. Final approval occurs at the Governors
Update on NMSS Leadership Team meeting the budget allocation
not yet determined. We are told that the SIMoN program will receive
funding for the necessary staff and program management.
Sanctuary Shark Fest and Celebration had a good turnout from the public.
Tami Grove the California Coastal Commission is now accepting
license plate grants.
III PUBLIC COMMENT AND DISCUSSION & PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT
ON THE AGENDA
Monterey Dive Clean Up successfully removed about three tons of waste
from the MBNMS.
An emerging situation is occurring with brown pelicans and gear entanglement.
A recorded 200 birds in six weeks have been observed entangled in fishing
Beach Combers are also monitoring for pelican mortality.
Barbara Grave representing the Soquel Creek steelhead restoration project
commented that we need to promote and create greater interagency cooperation.
Please protect all our resources including fish.
Lydia Bergen introduced herself as the policy coordinator for the PISCO
project with UCSC. Her role is to outreach to California on the results
of the PISCO project, funded by Packard Foundation. Project goal is
long term and interdisciplinary research; trying to understand recruitment
in diverse ecosystems. She expressed that this project will benefit
managers and councils across the state.
Dave Danbom representing the fishing industry (and is SAC alternate
for fishing seat) commented that the public needs more education on
the positive contributions that are made by the industry.
Alec Arago summarized last weeks Sanctuary Trail meeting as focused
on mobilizing efforts to complete the trail. They identified current
and proposed trail sites. Congressman Farr is looking for funding sources
for the trail.
IV UPDATE: ALLIANCE OF COMMUNITIES FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES
Erica Burton - At the Sept 10 meeting with the Alliance Reserve Group,
Craig Fusaro, representing the Science Panel of the CINMS reserve process,
gave a detailed overview of the scientific literature regarding the
effects of reserves.
Following the meeting, the Alliance executive committee met with Bill
and Holly for discussion on the Sanctuary's role in fisheries, reactions
to the past letter on MLPA, and establishing a more collaborative relationship.
A variety of positive recommendations were floated and we will be jointly
considering which of those should be pursued.
Alliance member, Tom Canale, commented that the presentation had useful
information. Reserves can increase biodiversity and can create a controlled
area; the group talked about the spill over effect. No studies
exist for that effect on the Pacific coast to date. He still has more
questions than answers. He is not as enthusiastic as some. He feels
the consequences to establishing marine reserves are that fishing will
be blocked in one area, and we will potentially see double the effort
someplace else. Also, socioeconomic issues need to be addressed. Current
management is not doing well, and we are not correcting the problem
by proper use of the management tool. Quotas are being lowered, and
a buy back program will get industry more in line with what the resource
Julie Novy Hildesley representing the World Wildlife Fund commented
that NRDC has commissioned an independent panel of scientists for a
general review by region of the States proposal for marine reserves
(through the Marine Life Protection Act). Available studies on marine
reserves are now posted on the WWF website.
Steve Schieblauer commented that he is forming a listserv, and has information
that can be passed on regarding the Alliance group. He summarized the
collaborations that could occur with the Alliance.
Tom Canale commented that we (the fishing industry) need more positive
Kaitilin Gaffney commented that NRDC has a website, that is in the initial
stages. They have agreed to post some key studies on that website.
Matt Pickett commented that when the discussions move toward fisheries
management strategies, all parties should remember that ecosystem protection
is another goal that is accomplished by marine reserves.
V DISCUSSION: AFFIRM SAC PRIORITY(S) FROM AUGUST RETREAT
Stephanie Harlan gave background on the SACs discussion at the
August SAC/Staff retreat to adopt the Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR)
as their priority. Other SAC members commented that this was the right
choice and support the decision.
The SAC adopts the management plan review as its top priority for the
next two years.
Introduced by Vicki Nichols, seconded by Tami Grove
(Vote: 16 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous))
VI DISCUSSION: ESTABLISH LISTSERV PROTOCOLS
SAC members discussed the internal issue of the SAC 1 and 2 listservs
both being used to air issues. They reviewed the agreed-upon protocol
that was discussed at the August retreat in Cambria and the need to
formalize that policy. After further discussion, SAC members agreed
upon the following motion.
At the August SAC retreat in Cambria, the SAC unanimously agreed to
a protocol of behavior. The recent email transmissions from David Clayton
did not agree with said protocol. The SAC directs the Executive Committee
to meet with David Clayton to discuss options. The SAC agreed to include
a protocol for use of listservs with the pending memo Bill Douros and
Stephanie Harlan will send to the SAC regarding the results of the August
Introduced by Brian Baird, seconded by Dan Haifley
(Vote: 16 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous))
FIBER OPTIC CABLE PERMITS IN MARINE SANCTUARIES
Vicki Nichols led the discussion as she and Kaitilin had worked on the
draft letter. Vicki went through the main bullet points of the letter.
A number of SAC members offered comments such as adding language that
better defined the estimated % fair market value at a level that
clearly reflects the value of the use of the special resources protected
by the Sanctuary. They also discussed where that FMV money would
go, if not to National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP). Bill responded
that the monies could be allocated to other agencies above the NMSP,
such as NOS or NOAA.
The SAC approved the fair market value comment letter, with several
revisions as discussed, to be forwarded on to the appropriate NOAA contacts.
Introduced by Dan Haifley, seconded by Vicki Nichols
(Vote: 16 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous))
UPDATE: NAPA REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Stephanie Harlan introduced the document, and gave some background as
to its development. SAC members commented on some of the details of
the text, and offered some revisions. Stephanie explained that the audience
for this document was the SAC members, and she recommended linking it
to the JMPR process.
ACTION: By consensus, the SAC accepts the report from the Legislative
Working Group on the priorities for the NAPA Report, and referred them
to the management plan review process.
IX PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION: CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS
Matt Pickett, Manager of CINMS gave a power point presentation. (It
is available on line with the October
5, 2001 SAC meeting agenda)
Matt briefly touched on the CINMS management plan review process as
it relates to their Advisory Council. He discussed how the SAC gave
input, what strategies worked well, and described some of the challenges
and lessons learned. Heres a brief summary of those points:
Whats Worked Well:
has been fully engaged in the process
is very aware and involved
at meetings (has been as high as 50-75+)
levels of media coverage
public comment (thousands of letters, e-mails, petitions)
issues scoped out thoroughly with SAC; especially boundary expansion
assistance with data collection/review
and working relationships strengthened through SAC
Advice from SAC worked best
decision making role in the management plan review process not clearly
defined in the beginning - no prior framework as it was a brand new
decided to not create management plan review subcommittee(s)
of the decisions/recommendations the SAC were asked to make were too
complex & divisive for such a large group of diverse backgrounds
voting on items less helpful; split votes were hard to interpret
overload: exceeded SACs time or ability to read and absorb necessary
information to make informed decisions
division of camps on SAC over key issues (i.e., boundary
not speaking with one voice on key issues
in NOAA/CINMS -- suspect pre-determined agenda
taking too long -- public and SAC frustrated
Matt gave several recommendations to the SAC, including they should
consider forming a separate management plan review working group to
research issues and bring back information to the SAC.
SAC members gave the following comments:
would be helpful for them to understand what issues are controversial,
and consider identifying those as ones the SAC as a body wont
focus on because they are too controversial to reach consensus.
will weigh the SAC opinion, and see the divergent votes.
topics may be too divisive, and split votes are hard to evaluate.
need to find the greatest amount of common ground.
diverse groups identified what they agreed upon. Some points could
be discussed, some were known to be divisive.
with vote for consensus as oppose to number of overall votes.
about the philosophy if we can reach agreement, that is advise
too. Maybe we dont need to pursue the topic, because it may
become a wedge.
was most effective way to get information out to public? (Notices
to the mailing list before every meeting, listservs, newspapers and
community calendars. Plus, SAC mechanisms.)
could be the acclamation of the group, with no vote. Lets look
at decision-making approaches for our SAC.
12:30 1:15PM LUNCH BREAK
X UPDATE & DISCUSSION:MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW
ROLES; DECISION MAKING
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING MPR PRIORITIES IN FEBRUARY
Sean Morton (MBNMS JMPR Coordinator) began by passing out new Joint
Management Plan Review (JMPR) brochure. He announced the new JMPR website,
and that the JMPR power point presentation will be available next week.
Dates for scoping meetings will be online on the new joint website.
He requested that SAC members who are interested in participating in
our scoping meetings, please join the All Hands training on November
7th in Santa Cruz. He reiterated that we are very interested in SAC
being involved in the JMPR public scoping meetings.
A question was asked that relative to crab season, there are fishermen
who may have difficulty reaching a local scooping meeting. Will it matter
where they go to give input? The reply was no, it shouldnt have
a bearing on their ability to give input. The comment period will go
until the end of January, and input can be given in person as public
testimony at any of the 20 public scoping meetings, by letter, or email.
Sean explained that the State of the Sanctuary Report will
be released early in November, kicking-off the comment period. Meetings
will begin at the end of November through December. The February SAC
meeting will be looking at what weve heard so far, and well
need input from the SAC on those issues. Well be narrowing down
the issues, and deciding what were not going to work on. At Aprils
SAC meeting, we could look at frequency of meetings, getting more information,
and steps needed to develop actions plans. That process takes place
from April through December. In December, our schedule call for releasing
a draft management plan and a draft EIS; that is a very tight schedule.
To recap the SACs role, outreach will be very important over the
next few months, as will assistance with scoping meetings, input in
February on narrowing the issues, and in April, input on solving issues
and developing action plans.
The SAC followed the presentation with a lengthy discussion and dialogue
about how their own scoping meeting should be structured, and other
management plan review topics such as:
SAC decision making/advice giving should happen
the SAC should do a programmatic review of the MBNMS programs, in
addition to addressing issues.
is the best way to represent SAC member constituencies.
do we structure public input at SAC meetings; especially at the December
7 SAC meeting.
the staff summarize issues that have been heard to date.
Public comment on this item addressed:
public should be here to address issues to the SAC.
SAC meeting is for the SAC to give input to NOAA, not the public.
should be encouraging people to go to the scoping meetings.
SAC is an important voice, and people are going to want to give input
to the SAC.
SAC members need to reflect their constituencys perspective,
a perspective that has been developed over time. Any input given a
few minutes or days prior, should not change or adjust their constituencys
Request by Stephanie Harlan please send an email to me as to
your choice of decision-making. Voting ; Consensus; or Melding both
Stephanie Harlan will meet with staff and Executive Committee to identify
how to structure the December 7, 2001 SAC meeting, and suggest specific
roles of the SAC in advice-giving.
XI PRESENTATIONS BY SAC WORKING GROUPS RELATIVE TO THE MBNMS MANAGEMENT
The following four working group presentations were given, led by each
of the WG Chairs. Each of the presentations can be accessed online in
pdf format at the October
5, 2001 agenda. Additionally, MBNMS staff will provide a summary
of these at the December 7, 2001 SAC meeting in Half Moon Bay.
Research Activity Panel Recommendations presented by Chris
Conservation Working Group Recommendations presented by
Sanctuary Education Panel Recommendations presented by
Business & Tourism Activity Panel Recommendations
presented by David Ebert
XII ACTION: SET DECEMBER AGENDA
adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council Coordinator