BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY ADVISORY
February 25, 2002
National Steinbeck Center
One Main Street
Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) Advisory Council met on Monday,
February 25, 2002, at the National Steinbeck Center, California. Public
categories and government agencies were present as indicated:
Agriculture: Richard Nutter
CA State Parks: Lynn Rhodes
AMBAG: Stephanie Harlan
Conservation: Vicki Nichols
At Large: Ron Massengill
Diving: David Clayton
At Large: Jenna Kinghorn
Education: Pat Clark-Gray
At Large: Deborah Streeter
Fishing: Thomas Canale
Business & Industry: Dave
Ports & Harbors: Peter Grenell
CA Coastal Commission: Tami
Recreation: Dan Haifley/Heidi
CA Dept. of Fish and Game: awaiting
Research: Chris Harrold
CA EPA: Craig J. Wilson
Tourism: Ted Balestreri - ABSENT
CA Resources Agency: Melissa
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
Monterey Bay NMS: William
Conroy, At Large
TO ORDER, ROLL CALL. SWEAR-IN OF NEW SAC MEMBER BRIAN FOSS, PLAQUE TO
MOSS LANDING HARBOR DISTRICT, PLAQUE TO STEINBECK’S CENTENNIAL
Brian Foss was sworn in as alternate to the SAC Harbor seat.
Linda Horning of Moss Landing Harbor District was presented with a
Jim Stilwell, former manager of Moss Landing Harbor District, was
also awarded a plaque for his four years of service in the SAC in
the harbor seat.
Marie Lefebvre, public relations coordinator for Steinbeck Center,
welcomed SAC members, and on behalf of the Center, accepted the SAC’s
sponsorship of an engraved brick to help reconstruct the Center’s
Mayor of Salinas, Anna Caballero made some comments and welcomed SAC
members to the region.
The SAC adopted the minutes from the December 7, 2001 Sanctuary Advisory
Council meeting, with the following changes.
on page 4 & 5
Kaitilin Gaffney’s testimony
Motion introduced by Vicki Nichols, seconded by Deborah Streeter
(Vote:16 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous))
II. COUNCIL MEMBER & STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Bill Douros reported on progress with the Joint Management Plan Review.
He referred to an email he sent to the SAC about a visitor center
update, as Monterey Bay Aquarium was mentioned as a site the MBNMS
should consider in a television editorial. Bill also reported on the
meetings around the county, supported by NMSP Director, Dan Basta,
that provide forums for exchange for common thoughts and issues. Recent
workshops include the SAC Chair & Coordinators workshop in Florida,
the research coordinator workshop in North Carolina, the leadership
team meeting, and the upcoming education coordinator workshop in Florida.
The 2002 September meeting of the leadership team (Managers) for the
National Marine Sanctuary Program, is planned for Santa Cruz.
Ruth Vreeland requested that workshop reports be generated in order
to share highlights on the meetings, and Bill said staff would send
those around when available.
A Seacliff resident asked why the visitor center feasibility is limited
to three sites; Seacliff State Beach, Heritage Harbor in Monterey,
and a site to be determined in Santa Cruz. Bill responded that the
thinking has been that the State is interested in doing something
at Seacliff, and there is a high visitation already. Bill gave an
update on where we are now. Lynn Rhodes gave comment on the Sanctuary’s
position being consistent with California State Beach plans for that
Vicki Nichols announced the upcoming SOS fisheries forum in March.
Chris Harrold announced three events: March 9th Sanctuary Currents
Symposium; March 10th PISCO event; and, the MLML Conservation forums
– Who’s Eating Whom – March 20th.
Ruth Vreeland requested that Chris Harrold bring updated Monterey
Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch cards to the next meeting.
Dave Clayton announced that Ed Cooper’s cancer is out of remission.
Cards, notes and donations are welcome.
Dick Nutter announced the agricultural exhibit groundbreaking ceremony.
Pat Clark-Gray updated the SAC on the Sanctuary Education Panel annual
LT Tom Stuhlreyer announced that US Coast Guard had acquired an additional
47ft vessel all-weather lifeboat.
Mike Murray commented that Department of Fish and Game has announced
an alternative set of marine reserves for CINMS. Timeline for the
decision is the August meeting. The draft Environmental Impact Report
should be out soon.
Melissa Miller-Henson announced that The State Resources Agency is
co-sponsoring a second World’s Ocean Conference in Santa Barbara,
California in October 2002.
Jenna Kinghorn announced a past news article in the Half Moon Bay
Review highlighting the nuclear waste dumping ground in the Gulf of
the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.
Ron Massengill announced the National Scenic Byway proposal is exciting
the southern community. Bill added that the Sanctuary is been participating
throughout the Caltrans Hwy. One management plan review process.
Stephanie Harlan gave a report on SAC Chair & Coordinator meeting
that occurred in February.
Please see http://www.mbnms.nos.noaa.gov/Intro/advisory/sac_agendas/
2002SACagendas/022502sacagenda.html for more information.
Stephanie also requested that SAC members send updates via email about
announcements to be posted on the agenda web page.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Alec Arago gave an update from Congressman Sam Farr’s office.
Bill Schram, an instructor at CSUMB teaching ocean science, commented
that from his perspective, the Sanctuary’s creation did not
add to the protection of resources. He posed the rhetorical question
“Has there been any change since the sanctuary’s designation?”
He does not believe so, and requests that the Council take action
in the future based on the protection of resources.
Kathy Fosmark asked if the Research Activity Panel meetings were open
to the public. She had been denied entrance to the Naval Post Graduate
School, the site of the last RAP meeting.
Chris Harrold responded with an apology, and that limited access was
security-driven by the school, and assurance that future RAP meetings
would be held at facilities open to the public.
Heidi Tiura gave an update on whale sightings in Monterey Bay. In
addition, she requested the SAC adopt an anti-whaling resolution.
She requested that we add that item to the next meeting agenda.
David Clayton read his letter dated February 25, 2002 concerning the
selection for the SAC nomination committee. Please see the attached
letter. Bill Douros responded that the letter contains misinformation,
which Bill clarified on numerous previous occasions.
IV. PRESENTATION: LEON PANETA & THE PEW OCEANS COMMISSION
Pew Oceans Commission Chair, Hon. Leon Panetta addressed the Monterey
Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. Council Members invited
him to the meeting to share his experiences with the Pew Oceans Commission.
During his almost 90 minute presentation at the National Steinbeck
Center in Salinas, Mr. Panetta touched on a number of topics including
his involvement with the Sanctuary's original designation process
as former Congressman to the Monterey Bay area, over a decade ago.
Mr. Panetta's main theme was "collaboration", and he sited
a number of key experiences in dealing with the process of consensus-building
relative to resource management issues. He also summarized the resource
protection concerns that the Pew Commission has selected to study
and make formal recommendations on in a report to Congress and the
nation in Fall 2002.
For more information on the Pew Oceans Commission (POC) visit their
website at http://www.pewoceans.org
Following is a brief summary of Congressman Panetta’s presentation.
Mr. Panetta was born and raised in Monterey County, a place where
diverse people gather. He recalls Monterey as a fishing village, and
that most people felt fishing was the legacy of this city. Protecting
the legacy of our ocean was a special accomplishment, and commended
the Advisory Council on their work to that end. He noted that full
participation in the designation process by the SAC was key, as the
council predates the Sanctuary and represented a good cross section
of the community. He recognized Dick Nutter as an original member,
and that the precursor of the Advisory Council helped a great deal
with the original designation process. Mr. Panetta had introduced
designation legislation during that time. Current work with Pew Commission
now confronts the same issues with our oceans. There are now two national
commissions working toward the goal of protecting our legacy - the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission.
The purposes of the commissions are to provide recommendations to
Congress. The original Stratton commission report in 1969 came up
with 200 mile limit, NOAA came into existence, and a whole series
of governance was put in to place.
Mr. Panetta summarized a number of the Pew Oceans Commission’s
main concerns. Pollution issues comprise a number of concerns, including
the excess of nitrogen oxides, from runoff and drainage. He sited
the dead zone in Mississippi River was an example of this impact.
Toxic chemicals and plastic debris, and invasive species from ballast
water are other issues. Cruise ships and aquaculture are additional
challenges. Aquaculture is expanding hugely worldwide. Issues with
disease and habitat degradation exist. Pollution demands our attention.
Another major concern is coastal development, as it will be increasing
from 50% to 70% in the future. Loss of fisheries such as cod, and
sardines are of concern. Salmon and ground fish are diminishing stocks.
We are watching the last buffalo. Habitat damage, by catch and foreign
fleets are some of the fishery issues. Technology has been improved
The governance issue is the last one to mention. Little coordination
exists between these entities, and so the Pew Commission is concerned
about how to improve that communication. Add climate change and global
warming to these issues and we need to look seriously on how it will
impact on our lives, our nutrition, our health, and those that earn
their living in the oceans.
Regarding Pew Oceans Commission members, they include elected officials,
scientists, fishermen, and also conservation leaders. Hearings have
been conducted nationally, in workshop format. We need to listen to
everyone in order to determine what needs to be done. Pew is also
working with the US Ocean Commission in order to coordinate the recommendations
to Congress. We govern our fisheries and our land differently. We
need to have a regional governance approach. Best examples are in
Chesapeake Bay and in Gulf of Alaska, which have local agencies, fishermen
and scientists working together to develop recommendations. Lobster
fishermen working together on the East Coast are another good example.
There has to be that kind of coordinated effort and planning, and
you need to have the best research and science. Funding is important,
and you also need enforcement. The combination of all these elements
is important. In conclusion, we govern by either crisis or leadership.
Enron is an example of crisis. Closing beaches and recreation areas
is governing by crisis. We need to be governed by leadership that
builds consensus. It is not easy; yet, we can only rebuild our oceans
and have sustainability by consensus. With that support we can protect
After his presentation, Mr. Panetta took questions from the SAC and
Dick Nutter noted that agricultural practices were a concern. We agreed
to agree on certain things, and in turn we worked with our community
to formulate a six-county coalition to address some of these issues.
Now we are looking at fisheries, another major industry. Do you have
recommendations on how to develop that consensus?
Mr. Panetta responded that fishermen need to be part of the process.
MPAs are at the top of the list of useful management tools that can
help build stocks. Fishermen need to be at the table and we will understand
how to take the steps together. This can be done. Welcome to democracy.
That is the nature of our system.
Peter Grenell asked about governance and linking the resource and
ecological protection with putting people in the equation. How could
the folks get the message to support that kind of movement?
Mr. Panetta responded that Pew Commission is thinking of how to organize
at the Washington level. He outlined certain models for how NOAA could
be moved, separated, etc. Bottom line is we can reorganize the boxes,
but if people are not committed to ocean policy, nothing will happen.
If the leadership is there, we can get funding to do what needs to
Tom Canale asked what was the intention of the relationship to be
between the Sanctuary and fishermen?
Mr. Panetta responded that it was important for the fishermen to continue
working with the regulating agencies, but those agencies still needed
to work with the other agencies to develop policies to protect ocean
resources. That is the role of the MBNMS, to work with regulating
agencies to develop more effective policies.
Dave Danbom commented that he feels that the fisheries get painted
with a broad brush. We are fortunate in this area as our stocks aside
from rockfish, are healthy. You mentioned technology, and the biomass
of sardines - they are coming back. The sardine fleet can now measure
the size of a school, make one wrap and then pump the fish into the
boats. Technology allows us to advance. Salmon - we have a lot of
sub species that are still a problem, and they are starting to curtail
our programs at the hatcheries. We truly are blessed in this area.
Mr. Panetta – but we shouldn’t take any of that for granted.
One discharge could wipe out a fishery for a period of time. I urge
you to look at all the factors I talked about.
Deborah Streeter asked about the use of the term “Sanctuary”.
Why was it used? I think there is some confusion. What is the history
of the use of the term?
Mr. Panetta responded - we would have used any term possible! “
Sanctuary” was the most viable kind of approach that existed
at the time. We made a case for the uniqueness of the Monterey Bay
Canyon. Our commitment should be the same whether you call it a park
or a sanctuary.
Kaitilin Gaffney commented that regionally, the MBNMS has a broad
mandate that overlaps with other agencies. It’s challenging
to do that in terms of turf. How can we work together better?
Mr. Panetta responded with the Pajaro River issue and the 3-toed salamander.
It took twenty-five agencies at the table. If all agencies do not
participate, you must go to a higher authority, and come down on their
heads if they don’t come to the table and cooperate.
Kathy Fosmark commented that out of science and research come findings.
Solutions are what we want to have. Can you think of a way to eliminate
the problem? What about an MOU between NOAA and NMFS?
Mr. Panetta responded that we need a lot more science, and in the
ocean it takes a lot of effort to see what is going on. The problem
is to figure out - what is the science showing? The research doesn’t
have the depth needed. We should be able to see who is credible and
not? The SAC is a place for that. Open it up and listen to other viewpoints.
Regional governance should be mandated someway.
Dave Clayton asked about the role of the SAC. How did you feel SAC
members be appointed? What is proper procedure?
Mr. Panetta responded - my view is that the SAC would take up issues
of substance, and be engaged and make recommendations to the Sanctuary
director. The purpose is to make sure all stakeholders are at the
table. NOAA will ultimately take responsibility, after the SAC has
made its recommendations. The appointment process occurred by soliciting
applications, and then a selection committee made the recommendations.
Design the process anyway you want, but the people here need to speak
for their interests. Representatives need to carry the credibility.
Steve Scheiblauer asked about the joint management plan review and
Sanctuary relationships with other agencies – one sentence –
if problems arise, the Sanctuary can consult with other agencies and
industry. Is that the right interpretation? Should the Sanctuary deal
only with issues that are not being dealt with? Is that the best approach?
Mr. Panetta responded - We have to sit at the table together. For
example, MPAs are a good fishery management tool, we need to work
together on it. We can do it through leadership, or fight it out.
There’s ample opportunity should you choose to fight. He implored
all parties to work together and not fight. The purpose of the SAC
and the Sanctuary is to find out the answers to these types of problems.
If not, the Sanctuary will pay the price.
V. PRESENTATION: AGRICULTURAL & RURAL LANDS ACTION PLAN
Holly Price made introductions to the key presenters which included
MBNMS staff person, Katie Siegler, Kelly Huff of the Coalition of
Central Coast County Farm Bureaus, and Daniel Mountjoy of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service. Holly also described the role of SAC
Member Dick Nutter in helping lead the successful volunteer effort
by the industry to adopt best practices.
Here are the main points of the joint power point presentation.
Agriculture and Rural Lands Action Program:
Goal: Reduce agricultural runoff in the form of nutrients,
erosion and pesticides
Strategic Plan: 24 strategies, 6 strategy types
industry plays key role
on and leveraging existing efforts
programs based on identified gaps
Concerns of the Ag Community During Planning
concerns that working with agencies would lead to fines and regulatory
viability of agriculture would be further impacted
mistrust between agriculture industry and environmental organizations
Ag Plan Components
agriculture industry networks
technical info and outreach
education and public relations
coordination and streamlining
mechanisms and incentives
lands and rural roads maintenance
Agriculture Industry Networks
spreads from farmer to farmer
Working together on water quality improvements per watershed
of Central Coast Farm Bureaus formed in 1998
of County Farm Bureaus
Quality Action Plans for each of the counties identify priority
Bureau Watershed Coordinators organize watershed working groups
groups address local water quality issues
Farm Water Quality Short Courses
Cooperative Extension courses offered in all six counties
training, overview of water quality issues, introduction to agencies
and staff contacts
managers develop farm water quality protection plans for their
Monitoring Water Quality and Tracking Success
scale water quality monitoring
or field scale monitoring
Technical Information and Outreach
field presence, interagency cooperation
NRCS technical field staff to support water quality projects
of technical outreach materials and costs of conservation measures
and promotion of self-monitoring tools
and Public Relations
grower and public awareness of watershed management
public knowledge of and support for agricultural conservation
Permit Coordination for Conservation Measures
permits can be costly and time consuming
Remove regulatory disincentives for water quality improvement
permits protect resources while removing barriers to installing
conservation measures on properties
Elkhorn Slough Permit Coordination Results
Elkhorn Slough Conservation Benefits:
tons of soil captured on 26 farms
tons annually retained on farm
miles of stream enhancement
farmers using NRCS practice standard
Mechanisms and Incentives
Improve knowledge of and access to funding sources
and other cost share programs
status - Watershed based funding
cost share grants
to Ocean program
Lands and Rural Roads
conservation measures on agency / public trust lands
USDA allocation to NRCS
grants to Farm Bureau Coalition, Sanctuary, RCDs, UCCE, etc.
collaboration with many organizations
awareness of water quality issues
staff hires set the stage for future implementation efforts
Plan brought together diverse, often adverse, stakeholders
planning process led to long-term stakeholder support and leveraged
efforts of partner organizations
collaboration improved by strategic plan structure
program created momentum for farmer led initiatives
Dick Nutter ended the presentation by calling on SAC Members to consider
applying this model to future challenges and initiatives, such as
collaborations with the fishing industry.
VI. ADDITIONAL PRESENTATION BY REQUEST: COALITION OF ORGANIZATIONS
FOR OCEAN LIFE (COOL)
Mr. Mark Shargel, Director of Coalition of Organizations for Ocean
Life (COOL) gave a thirty minute presentation on the group and its
goals. He also requested that the Sanctuary remain actively involved
in state’s Marine Life Protection Act process.
He began by explaining the mission of the Coalition of Organizations
for Ocean Life, which is to foster the creation of a network of marine
reserves that will help restore, enhance and protect the diversity
and abundance of California's marine life and underwater habitats,
and to educate the public on the value of marine reserves and healthy
oceans. Mark then presented a slide show which focused on the bounty
and diversity of our local marine resources.
Following the slide show was a number of SAC member comments and questions.
They included: Success is dependent on consensus. Is the group COOL
going to be working in that way? Collaboration with other groups is
key, and that should be stated in the presentation. In the spirit
of Panetta’s remarks, we need to move toward to some kind of
consensus. What was heard was disturbing and not open. We need to
be more sensitive to that concern.
Vicki Nichols responded that she and Kaitilin thought it was important
to have Mark come and talk. She and the environmental community feel
that a broad stakeholder approach is needed. COOL and the Alliance
should have an opportunity to talk together, and inform people that
movements are occurring and we want to work collaboratively.
VII. UPDATE: FISHERIES ALLIANCE & MBNMS PROCESS
Holly gave a brief summary on progress for the last Alliance meeting.
VIII. ELECTION OF SAC SECRETARY.
The SAC made a motion to re-elect Dan Haifley as SAC Secretary.
Motion introduced by Dick Nutter seconded by Deborah Streeter
(Vote: 16 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous))
12:30 – 1:15PM LUNCH BREAK & VIEW VIDEO ON OCEANS
FOR THE FUTURE
IX. SUMMARY: JOINT MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW (JMPR) PUBLIC COMMENT &
Bill expressed that staff are impressed with the breadth and diversity
of the comments received. The Sanctuary has received more comments
than for its original designation. He explained that Sean will layout
the summaries in a synthesis of the comments. We want to give you
a “Summary of Scoping Comments” document that is a basis
by which we start getting advice from the SAC. Mr. Panetta was asked
to speak to you, Holly came to present and is still just recovering
from back surgery, and Dan Basta is here from our national head quarters
for the meeting. We are trying hard to make sure you get the idea
that the SAC plays a serious role, and are bringing you some substance.
Dan Basta offered some introductory comments. SACs are an important
part of how the National Marine Sanctuary Program does business. Earlier
this month, we hosted the 2nd annual SAC Chair and Coordinator meeting
in Florida. Looking at the entire membership of SACs in the NMSP,
we have a group of almost 300 talented people that are directed toward
ocean issues. The new SAC directory will go the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, as direct participation is the process that I’m
talking about. Process must be science or information based. Biogeorgraphic
assessment project should be available when this process enters its
working group phase. Ecological linkages report assesses the state
of knowledge across ecosystems.
Dan then described the priority-setting workshop process that had
been developed. From the priority-setting, the three Sanctuary’s
and the management team will develop a draft work plan that will begin
the work for the draft action plan.
Stephanie asked the Council if we need to, or want to have a three
member SAC meeting, or prefer a separate meeting?
There was a good deal of discussion on this question that included
voting methods, facilitation methods, public participation, and how
does the national constituency weigh in? There were also a number
of other questions including what are the end goals of the management
plan document? Will it be issue-specific or programmatic?
The final outcome of the discussion was that the SAC agreed to move
ahead with the joint SAC workshop process on April 15th.
X. DISCUSSION: DRAFT CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING JMPR ISSUES
The discussion was tabled in order to move ahead with the next agenda
XI. PRESENTATION: STAFF ANALYSIS OF SCOPING COMMENTS
Sean Morton presented the JMPR document “Summary of Scoping
Comments”, as a
comprehensive report that will assist NMSP staff and SAC members from
Cordell Bank, Gulf of
the Farallones and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and the
public, in understanding
and interpreting the comments received during the scoping phase of
the JMPR. Approximately
4,000 comments were obtained from participants in the 20 public scoping
Additionally, the National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) received
8,500 written comments via letters, emails and petitions. The document
is posted on the website at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/jointplan/
Jennifer LaBarre from the NMSP gave a summary of the document and
the upcoming priority-setting workshop process. The report contains
a summary of scoping process, cross-cutting issues analysis table,
site-specific issues analysis table, and the appendices. Jennifer
requested that SAC members choose the issues from the cross-cutting
table and the sanctuary-specific table that are of highest priority
to their constituency. Also, that SAC members choose four priority
issues for each template and return them to Sean by March 22, 2002.
Jennifer explained that staff will collect the templates, compile,
copy and distribute them. The template information will be synthesized
so it can be used in the Joint Prioritization Workshop. Lastly, she
explained how the Workshop will be organized. After review by staff
of synthesized SAC templates, the group will conduct a prioritization
exercise for cross-cutting issues. Next, they will break into site
specific groups and conduct prioritization exercise for site-specific
XII. ACTIONS: SET APRIL SAC MEETING AGENDA
After some deliberation, a date of April 15th was decided upon for
the joint SAC workshop. Some members felt that an additional meeting
beforehand would be good for the Monterey SAC to share their priorities.
Others felt that one meeting was sufficient. It was decided to go
with one meeting on April 15th.
Stephanie announced that the SAC charter will need to be reauthorized
in June, and we could add that agenda item to the June meeting.
XIII. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Sean Smith representing Blue Water Network presented information on
motorized personal water crafts (PWC) impacts to the environment and
wildlife in terms of water quality, natural soundscapes/visitor enjoyment,
and public safety.
Letter from David Clayton
(SAC Diver Represenative) to Stephanie Harlan (SAC Chair) 2/25/02(PDF)
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council Coordinator