A PDF Version of this page is available here: sacmin.pdf Need PDF Help?

FINAL
June 7, 2002
Big Sur Lodge
Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park
Big Sur

The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) Advisory Council met on Friday, June 7, 2002, at the Big Sur Lodge at Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park, California. Public categories and government agencies were present as indicated:

 

 

The following non-voting members were present as indicated:

Alternates present:

 

I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL. SWEAR-IN OF NEW SAC MEMBERS

New SAC Members took the oath:

• George Cook - CA State Parks
• Frank Degnan - Diving
• Monty Criss - Tourism

NOMINATIONS & SELECTIONS FOR SAC CHAIR

MOTION: (Passed)
Stephanie Harlan was nominated for her second two-year term as SAC Chair

Motion introduced by Kaitilin Gaffney seconded by Chris Harrold
(Vote:16 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous))

APPROVAL OF 2/25/02 DRAFT MEETING NOTES

MOTION: (Passed)
The SAC adopted the minutes from the February 25, 2001 Sanctuary Advisory Council meeting, with the following changes.

• Small grammatical and punctual edits were made on pages 1, 2, 3, & 5

Motion introduced by Chris Harrold, seconded by Deborah Streeter (Vote: 16 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous))

The SAC expressed frustration that the Sanctuary’s website did not include information and materials for this SAC meeting. They asked Bill Douros to pass along their frustrations to NMSP/NOAA headquarters and ask that SAC materials be made available for future meetings and in advance of all future meetings.

II. SELF INTRODUCTION OF NEW SAC MEMBERS

III. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

Shoosh Crotzer read a letter re: continued discussion of the expansion of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary to the south. See the letter submitted for the record.

Mary Dickson asked MBNMS to drop Seacliff State Beach from list of potential visitor center sites. She suggested a 66-acre Porter Sesnon property as an alternative site to Seacliff, and asked the Council to consider more commercial areas for a visitor center, or partner with an existing facility, such as the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Bill responded with an update on the status of the visitor center on the feasibility of three sites: Santa Cruz Wharf area, Seacliff State Beach and an area to be determined in Monterey.

Mike Becker, Business & Tourism Activity Panel member, requested the Council to please read BTAP letter regarding cruise ships. He commented that Monterey County Hospitality Association supports the letter.

IV. UPDATE: REPORT ON SAC ISSUE PRIORITATION JOINT MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW (JMPR) WORKSHOPS

Sean Morton presented the Report on SAC Issue Prioritization Workshops (see http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/jointplan/pdfs/sacres51302.pdf)
The next report will include a staff analysis and we will request the SAC help again at the August SAC meeting. The timeline looks like the following. In August we will get the SAC’s advice on the list of priorities, and in September have a draft action plan and begin to form working groups. In three to six months we will be getting in to the meat of how to implement these issues.

SAC member questions and discussion included clarification on moving the boundary issue, and if it is included in the JMPR issues. Sean responded that yes, the issue is included. Also, the date of a draft management plan, should be approximately one year from August.

The SAC discussed the process of the next decision-making process. How do we look at the cross-cutting vs. the site specific. Sean responded that we should look at the results by bin as a score card.

MOTION: (Passed)
The SAC made a motion to add a special public comment evening session in Cambria on August 1, 2002, prior to the August 2nd SAC meeting.

Motion introduced by Dan Haifley, seconded by Kaitilin Gaffney
(Vote: 16 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous))

V. PRESENTATION: CRUISE SHIPS

1. Cruise Ship Visits to Monterey Bay 2002

2. This Year’s Cruise Ship Visits

• May 7 - “Star Princess” (Princess Cruises)

1,000 feet long
2,600 passengers and 1,000 crew

• September 18 - “Grandeur of the Sea” (Royal Caribbean)

  900 feet long
  1,950 passengers and 500 Crew

• October 9 - “Crystal Harmony” (Crystal Cruises)

790 feet long
940 passengers and 545 crew

3. Potential Concerns Regarding Cruise Ships

• Discharges
• Black water (sewage)
• Gray water (dishwashers, sinks, showers, galleys, laundries)
• Ballast water
• Detergents (from deck wash downs)
• Oily bilge water
• Hazardous waste
• Solid waste

4. Potential Concerns

• Transiting too close to shoreline
• Seafloor or habitat damage
• Marine mammal & bird harassment
• Potential user conflicts
• Industry’s record of violations
• MBNMS Mandate & Regulations
• Resource protection, research, education and public use
• Regulations prohibit discharges into the Sanctuary
• No discharge of oily bilge water
• No new municipal or private sewage outfalls

5. Voluntary Compliance Programs

• MBNMS uses a “stewardship” approach to resource management
• Examples of some voluntary compliance programs:

Water Quality Protection Program
Vessel Traffic Lanes approved by IMO

6. Role of MBNMS

• Lead collaborative efforts
• Identify potential environmental impacts
• Identify educational opportunities
• Recommend short- and long-term solutions

7. Voluntary Agreement with Princess

• No-discharge
• Transit in vessel traffic lanes
• Anchor at a designated location
• Work with MBNMS to provide education to passengers
• Provide records confirming no discharge

8. “Star Princess” Visit

• No passengers brought ashore due to weather conditions
• MBNMS and other agencies met with cruise line industry
• Royal Caribbean and Crystal Cruises agreed to no discharge policy for their visits

9. What About Monitoring?

• Current monitoring practices -

Quarterly reports to CA
Regular inspections by US Coast Guard and occasional surprise boardings

• Potential future options -

aerial surveys by NOAA and/or US Coast Guard to look for cruise ship discharges

10. Next Steps

• MBNMS will continue to work with the cruise line industry
• MBNMS will also continue to facilitate constructive dialog among stakeholders

The SAC discussed the above issues including the volume of discharge, and the possibility of staff onboard for monitoring and interpreting purposes. They discussed the economic benefits for return visitors potentially ranging from $90 to $200 a day for spending/per person. A Sanctuary tour for visitors was suggested. Stewardship approach is assuming good intentions and trusting people to care about the community.

Steve Scheiblauer offered a historical look at City of Monterey’s dealings with cruise ships, and explained the that the City undertook a “welcoming approach”. He advised the Council that the Celebrity cruise ship Harmony, owned by Royal Caribbean, had made inquires for 2003 and 2004. The following website will be updated on confirmations for cruise visits, and information about events. www.monterey.org/harbor.

Kaitilin Gaffney presented the Conservation Working Group letter and asked that the SAC recommend to the Sanctuary that we require no discharge. She suggested other options are to write a letter to EPA or work with the state task force. Kaitilin commented that since the cruise ship lines had agreed voluntarily to a no discharge requirement, we should take the opportunity to make it a regulation, and the SAC should be on record to support a new regulation. The City of Monterey, and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board are also supportive.

Following was a brief discussion involving the BTAP letter. Dave Ebert explained the process of drafting and reviewing the letter by subcommittee. Dan Haifley commented that as a BTAP member, he had not been offered the opportunity to review the letter, and he also asked for clarification of the term “beyond the law.” Steve Scheiblauer responded that the letter was referring to gray water. Dave added the main question is - does the Sanctuary want the benefits of cruise ships here? Bill Douros requested clarification of the 3rd paragraph and expressed concern with the process of drafting and reviewing the letter. He felt that the overall feel of the letter is negative. Ted Balistreri commented that we are all on the same page, and we need to work out a process that is beneficial to all parties. Other SAC members expressed concern that the letter seemed negative when all parties thought the issue was resolved positively.

A member of the public, Doug Lumston, President of Monterey Bay Scenic Tours offered some comments about the May 7th experience, and looks forward to working with the Sanctuary and the City to provide future land tours for cruise ship visitors.

After making and amending the first motion, the SAC agreed to the following position.

MOTION: (Passed)
The SAC made a motion to encourage staff to continue their good work, as outlined in the recommendations 2 through 7 in the CWG letter.

Motion introduced by Dan Haifley, seconded by Kaitilin Gaffney
(Vote: 15 in favor, 0 opposed (unanimous))

LUNCH BREAK

Dr. Mark Monaco, NOAA project manager, gave an introduction to the full study area of the survey, the survey process (Ecolinkages Report, GIS analysis, GIS tool development), project objectives, (organizing data in GIS), identifying important areas, producing a report, supporting NMSP, and developing products.

Dr. Satie Airame gave an introduction to her report – Marine and Estuarine Systems of Northern Central California including , geographic setting , ocean processes, ecosystems, natural perturbations, human impacts, and conclusions. She offered some of the new information generated from the report, such as a more cohesive understanding of current movement and upwelling related to Monterey Canyon. In response to boundary related questions, Satie presented the ecosystem boundary data for the entire West Coast, specific to fish, inverts and other marine communities.

VIII. UPDATE: REAUTHORIZATION OF SAC CHARTER

Holly Price introduced the discussion by explaining that special use permits granted permission to conduct activities that would normally be prohibited. One of the Sanctuary’s most restrictive permit is that one cannot destroy, damage or alter the Sanctuary’s seabed. Cables are currently covered under special permits, but ‘maintenance’ is now also being considered as covered under special use permits. Kaitilin Gaffney reminded the Advisory Council about past comments directed to NOAA on fiber optic cables, and requested that the SAC submit a brief letter to NOAA to request reconsideration of Special Use Permits as appropriate relative to cable maintenance. After considerable discussion by SAC members regarding their level of knowledge of this issue, and their awareness of the issue in general requiring an action, the SAC made a motion.

MOTION: (Passed)
The SAC made a motion to submit a brief letter to the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries asking it to reconsider whether the Special Use Permits are the appropriate permit to approve fiber optic cable maintenance.

Motion introduced by Kaitilin Gaffney, seconded by Dan Haifley
(Vote: 10 in favor, 2 opposed, 3 abstained )

X. DISCUSSION: BIODIESEL FUEL

The SAC affirmed it would have only two issues on the agenda for the next meeting-a presentation on the Davidson Seamount mission and advice by the SAC on the JMPR priorities.

The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.

Submitted by
Karen Grimmer
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council Coordinator