SAC Meeting Minutes
BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
December 7th, 2001
Douglas Beach House
311 Mirada Road
Half Moon Bay
The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) Advisory Council met
on Friday, December 7th,, 2001, at the Douglas Beach House, Half Moon
Bay, California. Public categories and government agencies were present
Agriculture: Richard Nutter
CA State Parks: Bill Berry
AMBAG: Stephanie Harlan
Conservation: Vicki Nichols
At Large: Ron Massengill - ABSENT
Diving: David Clayton
At Large: Jenna Kinghorn
Education: Pat Clark-Gray
At Large: Deborah Streeter/Harriet
Fishing: Thomas Canale
Business & Industry: Dave Ebert
Ports & Harbors: Linda Horning
CA Coastal Commission: Tami Grove
Recreation: Dan Haifley/Heidi Tuira
CA Dept. of Fish and Game: awaiting
Research: Chris Harrold
CA EPA: Craig J. Wilson
Tourism: Ted Balestreri
CA Resources Agency: Melissa Miller-Henson
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. Douros
Ruth Vreeland, AMBAG
Lynn Rhodes, CA State Parks
Kirk Schmidt, Agriculture
Kaitilin Gaffney, Conservation
|Pat Conroy, At Large
Mike Murray, CINMS
I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, APPROVAL OF THE October 5, 2001 DRAFT MEETING
Dan Haifley requested that we dedicate the SAC meeting in memory of
Cathy OBoyle. A number of SAC members commented about her many
contributions to the local community.
The SAC adopts the minutes from the October 5, 2001 Sanctuary Advisory
Council meeting, with the following changes.
- Chris Harrold change sole to top
priority on Motion on page 5.
- Dan Haifley spelling errors on page 4
- Dave Clayton spelling correction on page 4, and he read and
submitted written comments in regard to motion made for item VI Establish
- Stephanie Harlan - we will enter David Claytons comments into
Motion introduced by Deborah Streeter, seconded by Chris Harrold
(Vote: 15 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous))
Stephanie introduced Susan Danielson from Save Our Shores northern office,
and invited her to say a few words. Susan spoke briefly about the program.
II. COUNCIL MEMBER & STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
David Clayton gave a brief summary of the Sept 15, Clean up dive.
Tom Canale announced that crab season was open.
Pat Clark Grey handed out the Sanctuary Education Panel November meeting
Craig Wilson announced a new EPA initiative - Total Maximum Daily Load
Vicki Nichols announced that the Alliance group had identified the need
for expanded public education, and so there will be a community education
forum on marine protected areas on March 11 and 12. Pacific Coast Fisheries
Association (PCFA) will co-sponsor the event
Dick Nutter announced a February 2002 ground-breaking ceremony for an
exhibit on the history of agriculture in Monterey County.
Mike Murray announced that he will stand in as alternate for Matt Pickett,
Manager of Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. He is the CINMS
SAC Coordinator, and involved with their management plan review process.
Stephanie Harlan announced the restoration habitat council is developing
a national estuary restoration plan.
Bill Douros gave a brief update on the progress of the joint management
plan review (JMPR) scoping meetings.
Stephanie Harlan requested that we move the deadline for receiving applications
for the SAC seats to January. The SAC decided that January 18th, 2002
would be the deadline for submitting applications.
III PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA &
IV PUBLIC COMMENT: SCOPE OF JOINT MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW
Ruth Vreeland briefed the Council on a new sculpture in Monterey, and
commented that the artists would like to do something for the Sanctuarys10th
Jenna Kinghorn offered welcoming comments and gave a brief overview
of her perspective issues for the Half Moon Bay region of the Sanctuary.
She offered the staff her compliments for the evening meeting at the
community center, and that during Sanctuary designation it had been
filled to capacity. Boundary issues had come up at last nights
meeting, and she offered background on why the San Mateo coast was included
in the original designation. Jenna described the area as representing
an active fishing, whale watching, and tidepooling community. Other
activities and issues include beach cleanups (led by Save Our Shores),
jet skis and use of rip rap, and sewage spills.
Dick Nutter mentioned the importance of the agricultural community and
that a number of people had turned up today from that industry.
Lenny Roberts offered more information as to where our SAC meeting was
taking place (an unincorporated area of San Mateo County), and had comments
about land use issues relative to coastal stream issues, and improving
habitat for anadromous fish species. Most of San Mateo is included in
the San Francisco Regional WQ Control Board down to Pescadero.
Paul Perkovic representing the Mid Coast Community Council for San Mateo
Board of Supervisors commented on a number of issues including the Park
and Recreation interest in Fitzgerald Marine Reserve(12, 000 people
are represented), and that the mid-side county has embarked on reducing
storm water runoff, and he is concerned about the potential impact on
water quality by the proposed abalone aquaculture facilities in Pillar
Peter Grenell welcomed SAC members and invited them to view at the Pillar
Point Harbor some of the issues that are going to be seen in the JMPR
process. He mentioned surfing at Princeton, and the Mavericks big wave
contest this weekend. Concerning water quality the inside outer
breakwater is not Sanctuary water; outfall is in the harbor and has
high ecoli counts. He also wanted to correct misinformation concerning
the proposed abalone facilities, as the permits have expired, and so
issues related to above statements, probably wont occur.
Kirk Schmidt commented on water quality related to agriculture, and
that six counties are beginning monitoring projects and have identified
project sites. Additional funding is necessary to develop baseline for
watersheds. Monterey Bay farmers support the clean water initiative
in Pajaro Valley. Manual for best practices is now completed and ten
farms have been certified. He showed a prototype of the preferred sign.
Cattle farmers are not currently included.
Tony Fromm is involved in the agricultural industry in San Mateo county
farm bureau commented that they developed the volunteer program as part
of the MBNMS umbrella, with help of Holly Price and Katie Sigler. They
have established two watershed working groups in San Mateo, with good
representation of all partners.
Dick Nutter added a little background. Four staff people for Natural
Resource Conservation District are focusing on the six county effort,
and he suggested we have a more detailed presentation at the upcoming
Salinas meeting in February.
Ernie Koepf commented that over the past 10 years, revamping of regulations
have occurred by state and federal agencies. Commercial fishermen are
trying to make do with new regime. MBNMS Charter states that Sanctuary
will not get involved in fisheries.
Heidi Tiura gave an update on observations from her whale watch cruises.
She has noted a decline in Blue whales in Monterey Bay at this season.
(Late fall on). Many more Orcas this year.
Jean Salane representing the Half Moon Bay Fishermens Association
reiterated Ernies prior comments. We were responsible for stopping
Oakland dumping their dredging spoils.
George Bread commented that the Sanctuary management planning process
is very complicated, and requested that we adjust the boundary to Santa
Cruzs county line.
Dave Clayton commented that since desalination is one of the SACs
priorities, and since a large permit is pending, we need to agendize
the item for the Cannery Row Market place permit, and add it to the
February or April meeting. We need to know the specifics on outfall,
Bill Douros responded that there is a voluminous amount of information
available on this project. We can help get city copies to David C.,
Jenna, and Dan.
Tami Grove added that she would like to see the Sanctuary continue focusing
on a more general policy for the entire Sanctuary.
Kaitilin Gaffney offered comments on the list of issues compiled by
the CWG. Following is a summary. All of the people she had spoken with
are glad the Sanctuary exists, most were familiar with at least some
of the Sanctuarys activities and responsibilities and support
the increased protection offered by the MBNMS. Many would like to see
protection increased. Maintain primary goal of resource protection as
required by the National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA). Follow Precautionary
Principle when determining whether a proposed activity is consistent
with the NMSA or the MBNMS Regulations. Increase public outreach and
education efforts too many area residents and visitors still
do not know the MBNMS exists or what it does. Increase enforcement efforts,
staff a boat, ensure visible resource protection enforcement activities.
Develop visitor centers, kiosks, signage to let people know the Sanctuary
is here and learn more about its resources and regulations. Boundary
issues: expand boundary to South (esp. from Cambria and SLO folks),
confirm jurisdiction over Northern MBNMS (North of Ano Nuevo) and clearly
assign it to MBNMS or GFNMS.
V SUMMARY OF PUBLIC & SAC MEMBERS INITIAL SCOPING COMMENTS; SAC MEMBER
Sean Morton summarized a number of SAC member and comments from public
scoping meetings. Representing their constituencies, individual SAC
members gave testimony, as follows:
Dan Haifley commented that jet ski regulations should be looked at,
and we need better posting of water quality alerts, approaching distance
to marine mammals for kayakers, signage at harbor launch ramps, alternatives
to coastal armoring, extension of boundary to tidelines and shorelines,
no offshore oil drilling, need more aggressive marketing campaign, establishment
of fisheries preserves, and Santa Cruz Surfriders does support establishment
Sean Morton gave a summary of the last nine meetings.
Tom Canale suggests the addition of a recreational fishing seat, and
to keep and maintain the division between National Marine Fisheries
Service and the Sanctuary.
Linda Horning requested assurance that the management plan update maintains
the original commitments. Include a statement that clarifies that Sanctuary
will not become an fisheries management agency. Harbors are gateways
to the Sanctuary, and dredging should not be restricted. The SAC should
be allowed to elect members by local citizens, and free to communicate.
David Clayton commented that we need to change the SAC appointment process
to recruitment by a third party. Charter and protocols need to be amended
and should not require concurrence by the Sanctuary Superintendent.
Revisit kelp harvesting issue, and not have harvesting allowed in a
reserve on Cannery Row. Alternative foods are available.
Peter Grenell commented on dredging disposal of dredged material
that the current blanket prohibition be lifted. Beach replenishment
of non contaminated material is a good alternative. Please address Pillar
Point Harbor we have a solution.
Dick Nutter requested no new regulations for agricultural community,
particularly dealing with non point source pollution. We need more funding
for the six county project. He is concerned with the SAC appointment
Kirk Schmidt Dont impose regulations on agriculture that
they cant manage.
Bill Berry referred to the partnership description in the State of the
Sanctuary Report. Our partnerships have been critical. The Sanctuary
is larger that just the marine-related community. Seamlessness
is what we need to attain. Artificial boundaries related to jurisdictions
are hard to defend. Those overlapping jurisdictions might benefit to
having more agencies involved, and enforcement may be better represented
in the process.
Tami Grove commented that the California Coastal Commission has been
happy to work with Sanctuary. We need to reflect on the last ten years
and how we can improve that. It is an integrative force research,
WQPP, for example. How did that success come about? By providing a forum
for shared resources, funding, etc. The new management plan should be
approached the same way, as the Sanctuary can provide an umbrella in
that joint management. We are managing human activities, not the resources.
Public relations aspect is important, and how we work with other groups.
CCC will also provide written comments.
Ted Balestreri commented that since the Sanctuary is a federal organization,
we must continue to stop oil drilling, and preserve the Sanctuary for
all Americans. Protecting resources is good for all groups. We have
to coexist. For example, kelp harvesting is a non-issue. We need to
make decisions based on scientific fact. Lets not be provincial
in our vision. Keep the coastline user friendly. Dont micromanage
Vicki Nichols commented that she would like to dispel the notion that
Save Our Shores and the environmental community are trying to shut down
the fishing industry. SOS supports sustainable fisheries. Kaitilin Gaffney
has already given a summary on the fifteen main issues, looking at Sanctuary-wide
policies on all issues. Some issues we need more information, and assessments
to discover impacts. We support marine reserves, but we are not telling
the Sanctuary to go out and develop them, but we would like them to
be a player. Water quality plans need to be implemented. Sewage and
beach closure issues more funding. Oil drilling, a strong message
to DC is critical, and no slant drilling. Harbors, better coordination
among agencies, use the San Francisco Bay Model approach. New dredge
disposal sites. Strong enforcement is needed for all regulations. More
research is needed on issues coming down the pike. Lets be proactive.
Dan Haifley commented that we are a national marine sanctuary. We need
to establish a national constituency for budget and regulatory support.
We need to reach out to folks in Kansas.
12:30 1:15PM LUNCH BREAK & OPEN SESSION TO REVIEW POSTERS
VI CONTINUATION OF SAC MEMBER COMMENTS
Chris Harrold commented that on the boundary issue, no scientific evidence
exists that supports a boundary change. Keep the boundary where it is,
as we are the largest sanctuary and get the resources due to that. Ecosystem
monitoring - we need more research and therefore, additional funding.
For example, information on fisheries impacts are needed - what is changing
and why is it changing? SIMON could address that information gap. The
Sanctuary Superintendents job is to make decisions about human
activities to protect the resources. It is difficult, especially in
regards to industry. The SACs job is to provide advice to him,
so he can make better decisions. It is my job to assist with that. The
current SAC setup is best way to provide help. So Im not in favor
of any change in charter and protocols. Maintain the current Sanctuary
boundaries. At the same time, make sure sanctuary regions north and
south of Monterey Bay receive sufficient resources and attention from
Sanctuary staff. Marine reserves agrees with fishermen that the
Sanctuary should not be a regulator. The Sanctuary needs to think about
fisheries, and should continue to work with agencies to address those
issues. Get a larger vessel.
Mike Murray offered a cautionary comment on getting bogged down on issues
that dont call on the SACs collaborative strengths. Inter
SAC coordination could be expanded.
Jenna Kinghorn commented that the Sanctuary needs additional visitor
centers, goals for signage, and its volunteer programs could be expanded.
Additional staff would be needed for Half Moon Bay. Add a volunteer
coordinator position, and education programs will benefit.
Harriet Mittledorf commented that the Sanctuary staff is doing a great
job with the scoping procedure, and is open to comments. They are also
keeping the responsibility for protecting the resources. The need for
greater resource protection is established, and must be supported. We
need more intense research, and to enhance the community education.
Pat Clark Gray commented that the Sanctuary Education Panel reviewed
the five priorities in our presentation to the SAC, and they match with
public comment to date. Education is different from public relations,
and so we need to better define those goals. In regards to the SAC structure
- ditto with Chris Harrold, as she is content with the current SAC structure.
Craig Wilson in regard to EPA issues, enhancing the understanding
of environmental monitoring is important. We need to be able to prove
that the resources are in good shape, or not. Bring SIMoN into the plan,
but be clear on the goals of each study design. Think in terms of the
status of the resource. In 2003, a state-wide study on state waters
will be initiated the Sanctuary should integrate with that. The
new management plan needs to consider updating the MOU on the water
quality program, and integrate with state-wide WQ protection plan. Lastly,
the program is focused on integrating the efforts that are going on
within the Sanctuary boundary. SAC is a fabulous forum for giving advice
to the Superintendent, and he supports the way the SAC is organized
Deborah Streeter requested that we reaffirm that the highest priority
is resource protection. Articulate and educate the public about the
meaning of the concept "Sanctuary." Define more clearly as
well the concept "stewardship" which is used variously in
our documents (local and NOAA) - how does this relate to conservation,
protection and preservation. Think as long term as possible. This plan
is designed to last 5 or 10 years, but maybe we also need to name some
issues that we think are 50 or 100 year issues (not necessarily put
them in the plan, but at least spend some time thinking about them).
As to the "Issues" - the easiest thing to say is that the
list on page 18-20 of the State of the Sanctuary report are ALL important!
Becky Christensen requested continued focus on watersheds. The National
Estuarine Research Reserves (NERRs) feel that the watershed focus should
remain. A comment about sharing boundaries with NERRs the management
plan should reflect a closer collaboration between Sanctuary and Elkhorn
Slough NERR. Issues to address collaboratively include tidal scour,
invasive species, recreational use of the Slough, and water quality
Melissa Miller-Henson offered comment on prior testimony related to
use of the term extraction in relation to resources. The
term has been commonly used in state regulations. Also, the Marine Life
Protection Act (MLPA) process is only looking at state waters. We now
have a comprehensive list of issues that focuses on managing human activities,
and how we affect those resources. Ocean agenda inland issues
affect the waters, and we continue to support that focus. Kudos to staff
on the process. Collaboration with agencies should continue, and we
have such an opportunity to keep that intact. Water quality monitoring
program is a great example.
Peter Grenell commented that we should consider who should be educated.
How do we translate research findings, and also translate that to Bills
level. We could break new ground, if we can take findings and translate
the information to decision makers and managers.
Becky Christensen commented that the NERRs new coastal training
program is designed to do exactly that - translate scientific information
to decision makers and managers.
Stephanie Harlan commented that the Sanctuary should develop a comprehensive
plan to educate, encourage support of, and coordinate activities with
all local governments and community organizations. This plan would address
such topics as water quality: urban runoff, storm drains, catch basin
improvements, street sweeping; best restaurant practices; local posting
notices for beach closures; Zone 5 practices; and sewage spills. Develop
an education program for the schools which would include speakers, videos,
etc. Continue to work on the Sanctuary Scenic Trail in Santa Cruz and
Monterey Counties and in other locations if possible. Develop visitor
centers in each county. Continue to maintain local offices in each county.
Assist with local economic development focused on the Sanctuary. Develop
a close working relationship with local user groups and business groups.
Build local political ties. Increase Superintendent and staff's presence
in the local communities. Build closer working relationships with watershed
groups. Work with local officials, water boards, and the community to
educate regarding desal. Continue to be vigilant regarding offshore
oil drilling and its impacts. Increase public relations activities.
Ruth Vreeland commented that the constituent groups should choose their
own people to be represented in the SAC.
Lynn Rhodes concurs with Deborah Streeters comments on the meaning
of Sanctuary also use of seamless. The public
wants to have a quality experience when they visit the Sanctuary.
Kaitilin Gaffney commented that we should look at the National Marine
Sanctuary Act (NMSA), and realize how amazing and visionary the act
is, as it gave us a very broad mandate. No other agency provides that
type of mandate. There is value in having that comprehensive look at
all the pieces within a complex system. As we go forward in time, the
pressures are going to increase, and we need to be able to weigh that.
We need to find out what that means. Remember that the primary purpose
of the Sanctuary is resource protection.
Kathy Fosmark commented that we need to streamline the dredging process
as it is a financial issue for a variety of reasons.
Bill Douros requested input on how we could know when a constituency
elects a SAC member. Please send us a letter describing a process that
would ensure the elected SAC member does represent their constituency.
Send the letter to myself and/or Stephanie Harlan.
VII DISCUSSION: NEXT STEPS IN MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW, SAC INVOLVEMENT
SAC members discussed this in detail and settled on the development
of two documents to assist with the next important step in prioritizing
and narrowing issues for the JMPR.
The SAC requests the staff develop the following products for review.
- A comprehensive list that includes all public comment to be posted
on the website (if possible, sorted by issue)
- A synthesis of all comments received through January 31, 2002,
organized into priorities with assessments and analysis of those topics
that may be priorities, and why.
Motion introduced by Melissa Miller-Henson, seconded by Vicki Nichols.
(Vote: 15 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous))
Next SAC meeting will by Monday the 25th of February at the National
Steinbeck Center in Salinas.
VIII UPDATE: ALLIANCE OF COMMUNITIES FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES
Erica Burton gave the following update for the November 26, 2001 Meeting
of the Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries Marine Reserves
They created a framework for the next several meetings. The timelines
for the MLPA and Sanctuary management plan processes and the fact that
many fishermen will be leaving to go fish in late April or May make
the next few months an important period for the workgroup to make progress
on its recommendations
The framework agreed on for the next few Alliance workgroup meetings
includes the following steps:
- establish timeline for developing workgroup products
- redefine workgroup products in more detail
- redefine evaluation criteria for proposed MPAs
- develop list of specific recommendations as raw material
- consolidate comments and recommendations into package(s)
for management processes.
There are four relevant socioeconomic studies that are planned for the
central California coast:
- The Sanctuary Program is beginning a socioeconomic study of the
Monterey Bay, Gulf of the Farallones, and Cordell Banks Sanctuaries
to support their management plan processes. This study will not be
limited to fishing but will include all major economic activities
in the Sanctuaries. This study will be led by NOAA economists from
DC who was also involved in the socioeconomic study for the Channel
Islands management plan / MRWG , Rod Ehler and Bob Leeworthy.
- Also in association with the management plan review, Rick Starr
of California Sea Grant will soon begin a NOAA-funded socioeconomic
study of the central California coast that is more directly focused
on fishing activities and will include a workshop in February to identify
long-term socioeconomic needs.
- The California Department of Fish and Game will conduct a study
of the economic impacts of the reserves proposed under the MLPA when
funding becomes available in February.
- Monterey County is planning a socioeconomic study of the importance
of the local fishing industry. Carrie Pomeroy of UC Santa Cruz will
carry out this study.
The workgroup agreed that a set of specific evaluation criteria would
be useful to organize their responses to MLPA and Sanctuary proposals
and to develop their own recommendations. The group made numerous comments
on the following criteria and will finalize the criteria at the next
meeting. Some of these criteria include: Sustainable fisheries, Biodiversity,
Socioeconomic, Education, and Research.
IX UPDATE: BEACH CLOSURES
David Clayton offered background on the issue related to beach closures
at San Carlos Beach and Del Monte Beach in Monterey, and requested that
we look into genetic testing for bacteria. Bill responded that a $20k
study in Santa Cruz is being conducted to address that concern, and
also a $300k study in Morro Bay. The outcome of the management plan
review will determine if the Sanctuary will work on this project. Then
well need to find funding for the plan.
The SAC had some discussion on the subject of funding. The Department
of Agriculture was suggested as a resource, as well as the City of Monterey.
Other testing alternatives might be looking into such as an EPA approved
Stephanie asked for volunteers to serve on the SAC recruitment sub committee,
and recorded the names of a number of volunteers. She also said that
some absent members may be interested in participating.
X ITEM ADDED TO THE AGENDA
Tom Canale requested time for comments related to the MBNMS State of
the Sanctuary Report. Tom commented that the SOSR was passed out at
Pacific Coast Fisheries Association meeting recently, and many complaints
were made to the negative bias. Tom expressed concerns that the report
is used as a reference for the public, and does not in his perspective
offer a balanced story. He felt that the fishing industry is marginalized
as a relatively small industry. Tourism is promoted as a
ripple effect, not so in fishing. Boccacio rock cod, the live fish fishery,
and the condition of salmon in the Sanctuary are acknowledged as concerns,
but no specific information as to the status of those fisheries. Salmon
is not a fishing issue, as no ocean harvesting of those species occurs.
A healthy fall run of Chinook salmon had occurred. The problem for salmon
is habitat degradation. California Chinook salmon is listed on the Monterey
Bay Aquariums green card, and should have been described as such.
Bill responded by pointing out references to fishing in the SOSR that
are positive statements. On page 19, the issues are listed. Page 28
provides more facts about fishing. The last page talks about the sustainable
fisheries. Bill shared how we came to this description. A few additional
comments were made by the public.
Peter Grenell commented that when drafting documents down the line
give attention to developing a process to minimize the potential for
this to happen, as this is a valid concern.
Letter From Dave Clayton (Diver Represenative)
to Stephanie Harlan (Chairperson) and MBNMS SAC (this is an Acrobat
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council Coordinator