MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
ADVISORY COUNCIL

FINAL
Meeting Minutes
October 1, 1999
Douglas Beach House
Half Moon Bay

The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) Advisory Council met on Friday, 
October 1, 1999 at the Douglas Beach House in Half Moon Bay.  Public categories and 
government agencies were present as indicated:

Agriculture: Richard Nutter - ABSENT
Diving: David Clayton
AMBAG: Ruth Vreeland
Education: Patricia Clark-Gray
At Large: Steve Webster
Enforcement: Doug Huckins
At Large: Erik Schmidt
Fishing: Dave Danbom
At Large: Chet Forrest
Ports & Harbors: Steve Scheiblauer
Business & Industry: Steve Abbott
Recreation: Sally Smith
CA Coastal Commission: Tami Grove - ABSENT
Research: Gregor Cailliet
CA EPA: EMPTY
Tourism: Matthew Twisselman
CA Resources Agency: Brian Baird
Conservation: Ron Massengill
U.S. Coast Guard: LCDR Phyllis Blanton - ABSENT


The following non-voting members were present as indicated:

Channel Islands NMS: Ed Cassano
Gulf of the Farallones NMS and Cordell Bank NMS: Ed Ueber
Elkhorn Slough NERR: Becky Christensen
Monterey Bay NMS: William Douros

I.	CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, APPROVAL OF AUGUST 6, 1999 DRAFT 
	MEETING MINUTES, REVIEW OF CORRESPONDENCE

A)	Call to Order and Roll Call

The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 9:40 a.m.  Lisa de Marignac conducted the 
roll call - a quorum was present.

B)	Approval of Meeting Minutes

The minutes from the August 6, 1999 Advisory Council meeting were approved as 
amended.

C)	Review of Correspondence

The Chair passed around the sign-up folder for Advisory Council correspondence written 
since the last Council meeting.

II.	PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

Amy Zumwalt, Save Our Shores, provided an update on SOS activities at their satellite 
office at the northern end of the Sanctuary.

Allen Tom, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, encouraged 
the MBNMS and HIHWNMS Advisory Councils to contact each other.

Sally Smith reported that Robert Dearing, recreational fisherman, is concerned about the 
large commercial vessels and spotter airplanes fishing for blue fin tuna in the Monterey Bay 
area.

III.	WORKSHOP:  INCREASING MBNMS FUNDING USING THE 
			  SANCTUARY FOUNDATION

Steve Webster, Chair, opened the workshop by reviewing the Advisory Council's roles 
beyond attending the regular Council meetings, the funding task force's first meeting, and 
the July 26, 1999 memo from Bill Douros regarding funding.

Bill Douros reviewed the Sanctuary office's fiscal year annual operating planning and 
budget process, explaining that the office has submitted two budgets for FY2000 - a base 
budget and a budget with new funding - to its headquarters.  Because the federal budget 
has not yet been approved, the Sanctuary office is currently operating on a base budget with 
a continuing resolution for the entire federal government.

At the request of the funding task force, Bill provided a Sanctuary budget summary for 
FY2000 which included a list of office needs.  Orally, Bill provided details on the following 
projects which need additional funding, even if the Sanctuary receives its larger budget 
request:

… Water quality monitoring
… Multicultural education
… Core operations
… Visitor centers
… Patrol and research vessel
… Urban runoff plan
… Agriculture plan
… Harbors/marinas plan
… Tidepool management
… Salmon habitat management
… Sustainable fisheries research
… Harmful algal blooms
… Land use planning
… Outreach materials
… Marine mammal habitat/sea otters
… Kelp forest monitoring
… Habitat monitoring programs
… Beach COMBERS
… Exotic species
… Partnerships in business

Bill introduced Dennis Long, Executive Director, Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation.  
Dennis gave a presentation on the Foundation's origins, the current scenario, a summary of 
activities, his two-year and five-year vision for the Foundation, and other nonprofit models.

The Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation was founded in 1995 as the California Marine 
Sanctuary Foundation (501(c)(3) Public Benefit Corporation) with the purpose of 
advancing the understanding and protection of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary and other 
California Sanctuaries.  The Foundation focuses on conservation and education.  Today, 
the Foundation has five Board of Directors, a part-time executive director, bookkeeper, and 
accountant.  Funding is primarily restricted - designated for specific activities.  The 
Foundation acts a fiscal sponsor for projects, develops and administers educational and 
outreach programs, and develops and distributes products.  Dennis discussed current 
project supported in part or in whole by the Foundation, and Foundation products and 
special events.

The Foundation's major constraint is solvency.  As of October 1999, the Foundation has 
$450,000 in total funds, $425,000 which are restricted.  Total expenses to run the 
Foundation for a year are $23,000.

Dennis' two-year vision for the Foundation includes a clearly documented and 
communicated strategy; synergy with other Sanctuary related organizations; and expanded 
ongoing revenue source which include new products, increased fiscal sponsorships and 
interagency coordination, and new revenue vehicles in the form of individuals, businesses, 
and foundations and grants.

In five years, Dennis would like the Foundation to be a substantial financial resource that 
provides grant funding for other organizations and augments the annual NOAA budget; as 
well as a significant marketing and public relations presence to create funding opportunities 
and promote the Sanctuary and its supporters.

Dennis presented an overview of other foundation models, including the National Park 
Foundation, the Yosemite Association, the Yosemite Fund, the Grand Canyon Association, 
the Grand Canyon NP Foundation, California State Parks Foundation and Cooperating 
Associations, and other marine sanctuaries.  Dennis believes the Monterey Bay Sanctuary 
Foundation has the opportunity to be a pioneer in establishing a successful national marine 
sanctuary foundation.

Discussion among Council members and presenters focused on:

… articulating why someone should donate money to the Sanctuary - what has the 
Sanctuary done for me?
… using the Sanctuary's needs list as a method to encourage financial support
… attending Sanctuary functions and talking with others about the Sanctuary meets the 
Advisory Council's fundraising role in direct and indirect ways
… recruiting a famous person to sit on the task force
… get full geographic representation on the task force
… many planning agencies will donate time to create a long-range marketing plan
… clarify misconceptions to the public
… need for increased federal funding for National Marine Sanctuary Program

IV.	UPDATE:  FY2000 BUDGET AND REAUTHORIZATION

Bill Douros gave an update on reauthorization of the NMSA.  Regarding the current 
reauthorization bills, HR1243 (Saxton) has been approved on the floor and S1482 (Snowe) is 
the most likely Senate bill to move forward; S1420 (Kerry) does not seem to be going 
anywhere.  Bill referred Council members to the latest comparison chart of the four bills, 
including the Administration's bill.

Council members discussed amendments to the reauthorization letter dated September 22, 
1999.

David Clayton made a motion to re-send the reauthorization letter with edits to the 
section on multiple use and Steve Scheiblauer seconded the motion.

Discussion ensued re: multiple use.

Ruth Vreeland made a motion to focus discussion first on the wording of the section 
on multiple use, and to then deal with the letter as a whole as a separate motion.  The 
motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

David Clayton's motion was clarified to make the following changes to the section on 
multiple use -
any deletion of the concept of "multiple use", or of the word "facilitate" when used 
in regard to "multiple use", from reauthorization language....
The motion was seconded and passed with eleven in favor and three opposed.

Discussion ensued on the section of the letter regarding enforcement.

Ruth Vreeland made a motion to strike the paragraph on enforcement.  Greg Cailliet 
seconded and the motion passed unanimously by the Council, with agreement that the 
staff would follow-up with clarification regarding authorized enforcement officers in 
the current NMSA Act.

A motion was made to strike " will make such a bill unacceptable" in the section on 
multiple use, and replace it with "is of great concern."  The motion was seconded by 
Greg Cailliet and passed with seven in favor, six opposed and one abstention.

Steve Scheiblauer made a motion to re-send the reauthorization as amended, and to 
further amend the letter by stating that it supersedes the previous letter dated 
September 22, 1999.  Greg Cailliet seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Chet Forrest made a motion to send the apology letter to the Chief of MSD as drafted 
by Steve Webster, to be signed by Steve Webster and Steve Abbott.  Steve Scheiblauer 
seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Bill gave an update on the FY2000 budget.  The House Appropriations Committee has 
recommended a funding level of $16.5 million for the Marine Sanctuary Program in 
FY2000, and the Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended a funding level of 
$18.5 million.

Discussion ensued among Council members and the public regarding Secretary of 
Commerce William Daley's response to the letter sent by California congressionals in 
support of President Clinton's proposed budget for the NMSP.

V.	PRESENTATION:  CINMS MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW

Ed Cassano presented an overview of the CINMS Management Plan review process.  The 
1992 Reauthorization of the NMSA required that five years after the designation
of any national marine sanctuary, and at subsequent five year intervals, "the Secretary shall 
evaluate the substantive progress toward implementing the management plan and goals for 
the sanctuary, especially the effectiveness of site-specific management and techniques, and 
shall revise the management plan and regulations as necessary to fulfill the purposes and 
policies of this title."

CINMS was designated in 1980 and its management plan and regulations went into effect 
1982.  Management Plans are site-specific documents used to manage  individual 
sanctuaries.  These plans set priorities, contain regulations, present existing programs and 
projects, and guide the development of future regulations.  Management plans are being 
revised at different sanctuaries because of statutory requirements; most sanctuary 
management plans are between 7 and 15 years old and may not address current resource 
protection issues; they may not incorporate current marine resource management concepts 
and practices; and they do not contain performance indicators to evaluate the effectiveness 
of the sanctuary

In reviewing its management plan, CINMS is using a community-based public process
organized by CINMS, and coordinated by the national office.  The process is driven by
site-specific issues, but may also address issues of national concern.  A small team of local
and national staff have been assigned to the task and the CINMS Sanctuary Advisory 
Council is participating in all phases.  CINMS is also using local contractors/consultants to 
assist.  The process will include all of the following components:

… Public scoping meetings
… Synthesize scoping comments and present results to public
… Workshops on most relevant issues to be addressed by EIS
… DEIS/draft management plan released for public comment
… Final EIS/management plan

Currently, CINMS has held seven scoping meetings from Long Beach 
to San Luis Obispo at which 150 participants commented.  CINMS has received and 
additional 150-175 letters, faxes and emails.  Regarding boundary expansion, CINMS 
received 750 signatures for boundary expansion, 150 against boundary expansion.

Major issues raised as a result of the scoping process include:

… Water Quality
… Education and Outreach
… Research, Monitoring and Enforcement
… Boundary Redefinition
… Military Activity
… Oil and Gas
… Marine Reserves
… Sea Otters
… Other Management Issues

Next, CINMS will contract an independent researcher to describe a geographic range for 
assessing ecological linkages.  The report will undergo an internal review and the finding 
will be presented to the CINMS Advisory Council prior to finalizing the study area.  
CINMS will also begin focusing on defining the issues raised during the scoping meetings 
by synthesizing and prioritizing the issues, determining feasibility, and drafting a DEIS.  
Workshops will begin in January 2000; the DEIS is scheduled for release in June 2000, 
and the Final EIS is scheduled for December 2000.

VI.	DISCUSSION:  TIDEPOOL MANAGEMENT

Steve Webster presented the draft recommendations of the tidepool working group 
subcommittee.  Advisory Council and working group members who attended the 
September 21 meeting regarding tidepool management were:  Steve Webster (SAC), Ron 
Massengill (CWG), Milos Radakovich, (CWG), Chris Harrold (RAP), Andrew 
DeVogelaere (RAP & MBNMS) and Liz Love (SEP & MBNMS).

The group decided to make general recommendations to the Advisory Council on tide pool 
issues and to initiate a list of resource management questions related to the Sanctuary rocky 
shore habitat.

Recommendations from the subcommittee regarding tide pool management are:

1. As coastal human populations and ecotourism increase over the next 20 years, 
rocky shores are a habitat that will potentially feel the brunt of this growth.  
Rocky shores should be considered a high priority habitat for resource 
management, and efforts should be made to attract state and federal funding to 
address the questions below.
2. The Advisory Council and Sanctuary staff should play a major role in the state 
process of reviewing marine protected areas.  An example of how this could be 
done is by obtaining seats on related review/advisory committees and 
demonstrating strong influence at public proceedings.  This effort would match 
well with the Sanctuary priority to study zonal management.
3. There was concern about piecemeal regulations for small segments of coastline.  
The Sanctuary should be viewed as the agency to address concerns, and then it 
should facilitate a process with citizens and management agencies to come up 
with regional solutions.  The Advisory Council may want to consider the best 
ways to inform the public of this opportunity.
4. Related to the above recommendation, tide pool management issues should be 
viewed in regional and Sanctuary wide perspectives, not site by site.  For 
example, we may be interested in increasing access at some sites for education 
while discouraging access at sites with sensitive species.  The committee does 
recognize, however, that there is so much variability between rocky shore sites 
that each merits individual assessments.
5. Sanctuary staff should be present at every Pacific Grove City meeting where the 
Pt. Pinos tide pool issue is on the agenda, clearly stating the Sanctuary's interest 
and role in this process.  It was felt that Sanctuary is not viewed as an important 
management agency related to this issue.
6. Management decisions should be based on objective information, not 
unsubstantiated perceptions.  Monitoring information with studies to address 
specific questions, see below, are needed for effective long-term conservation.  
Public perceptions, accurate or not, must be addressed as part of management 
and regulatory solutions.
7. The CDFG publishes a pamphlet for the public "1999 Sport Fishing Regulation" 
which talks about all the different regulatory agencies involved in resource 
management.  The Sanctuary should be mentioned in this publication.
8. The Sanctuary should play a lead role in coordinating and working with regional 
partners/communities to conduct education programs aimed at the importance 
of tide pool habitat etiquette (especially including reduction of human impacts 
substantiated by research and monitoring).

Resource management questions related to the Sanctuary's rocky shores:

1. Are there harvested (legally and illegally) species that are heavily depleted?
2. What species are susceptible to local and regional extinction?
3. How do different human uses and varying intensities of these uses impact rocky 
shore communities?  Trampling, harvesting, water quality and ship groundings 
are example human impacts.
4. What is the natural variability in time and space for the distribution and 
abundance of rocky shore species (this includes biodiversity)?
5. What is the potential for oil spills, and what are the optimum cleaning schemes 
to maximize recovery rates?  A response plan for an oil spill on Sanctuary rocky 
shores should be outlined and understood by potential responders.
6. What are the impacts of road maintenance on the Big Sur coast to rocky shore 
systems?
7. What is the potential for restoring rocky shores that have been damaged by 
human impacts (trampling, collecting, oil spill, grounds)?
8. What is the best method to assign monetary value to rocky shore resources?  This 
is critical information for mitigation after human impacts, and to know the value 
of maintaining a health ecosystem (for tourism, etc.).
9. What trends could be detected from CDFG collecting permits, and should the 
permit process be modified?
10. Are there potential management schemes, such as a rotating human access in 
time, to maintain healthy species assemblages while allowing compatible 
multiple use?
11. This list should be viewed as preliminary, not as comprehensive.

Discussion ensued regarding the issue of tide pool management, the confusing 
jurisdictional and regulatory system, the need for education and outreach.

Brian Baird stated that the CA Resources Agency would be interested in receiving the final 
recommendations.

VII.	REPORT:  CA RESOURCES AGENCY REPORT ON MARINE MANAGED 
		      AREAS

Brian Baird announced that the CA Resources Agency released its draft report on marine 
managed areas.  The Resources Agency is holding public workshops along the California 
coast to gather comments and suggestions regarding the report.

The development of the report was a result of the "Ocean Agenda" and an analysis by the 
state which found that California's current array of marine managed areas was confusing 
and in need of revision.  The current marine managed areas were created over the past fifty 
years by an uncoordinated and complex mix of legislation, regulations, and voter 
initiatives.

To address the issue, the Resources Agency convened the State Interagency Marine 
Managed Areas Workgroup to better define and evaluate state marine managed area 
classifications, and to develop a coordinated strategy for improvement.  The workgroup 
found that there are 18 different classifications of marine managed areas, many with similar 
names and very different purposes.  The limited number of management objectives, in 
addition to the large number of classifications, resulted in an overlap in the intent of certain 
classifications.  The draft report recommends four different classifications with distinct 
objectives.

Brian encouraged Advisory Council member attendance at the upcoming public 
workshops.  

The report is scheduled to be finalized in January or February 2000.

VIII.	UPDATE:  FIBEROPTIC CABLE PROJECTS

Bill Douros provided an update the proposed fiberoptic cable projects.  The Sanctuary is 
still working with Santa Cruz County to preparing a DEIS for the MFS Globenet project.  
The Notice of Intent closed and the Sanctuary held a public scoping meeting in Moss 
Landing.  The Sanctuary received nine comments on the proposed project.

The Global Photon project is continuing to work with the State Lands Commission to 
release an EIR.  The Sanctuary office has requested that Global Photon release an EIS.

Council members discussed potential impacts to Sanctuary resources as a result of these 
projects.

XI.	DISCUSSION:  CWG REQUEST RE: FORT ORD STORMWATER PIPES

Ron Massengill, acting CWG chair, presented the group's request that the Advisory 
Council consider the issue of the removal of the Fort Ord dune stormwater drains at its 
December meeting.

Steve Webster reminded the Advisory Council of its selected priorities and criteria for 
placing agenda items.  Discussion ensued regarding the staff letter sent on this issue.  The 
Advisory Council agreed to put the topic on the December agenda should time permit, and 
suggested that the Council participate in a site visit to the Fort Ord dunes prior to 
discussing the issue. 

X.	COUNCIL MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS

Pat Clark-Gray announced that the Boy Scouts participated in Coastal Cleanup.  She 
presented a patch to Steve Abbott in thanks for Duke Energy's funding.

Greg Cailliet presented verbal and written update on the RAP's activities.

Becky Christensen announced that the annual Monterey Bay Birding Festival is being held 
at Elkhorn Slough this upcoming weekend.

Ruth Vreeland announced that the City of Monterey is re-enacting the constitutional signing 
this weekend.

Chet Forrest announced that ecotourism is booming in the southern end of the Sanctuary, 
and that Highway 1's Scenic Byway designation has been extended further south.

David Clayton reported on the Coastal Cleanup activities at Monterey Harbor.  Divers 
recovered 2,000 lbs of trash, while a crane pulled another 2,000 lbs of debris from the 
water (Updated information - a total of 5,880 lbs of trash and recyclables was removed 
from Monterey Harbor).

Doug Huckins reported on an abalone bust in the San Francisco Bay area.


The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa de Marignac
Advisory Council Coordinator