Forwarded from ba_diving e-mail list for those interested in the welfare of Monterey Bay in California. Warning: somewhat long, but important information to all users of the Monterey Bay. ---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ---------------- Subject: [ba_diving] Divers: Important Monterey City Council Meeting Date Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:53 AM From: David Clayton <drc_at_ccnet.com> To: ba_diving_at_yahoogroups.com <ba_diving_at_yahoogroups.com> Divers: The City Council of Monterey will be meeting at 7pm on November 20, 2001 to discuss recommendations for the Sanctuary's Management Plan Review. It is important for the diving community to support the Draft City of Monterey Recommendations at this meeting and via email at: suggest_at_ci.monterey.ca.us Here is some history as to why these changes are needed: The Sanctuary Advisory Council Agenda: When the Sanctuary was created the the public was told that they would have a strong voice in the Sanctuary via the Sanctuary Advisory Council. The public did indeed have a strong voice via the SAC - for a while. Then the Sanctuary imposed a set of Charter an Protocols on the SAC which dramatically limited public input via the SAC. This set of Charter and Protocols mandates that the Sanctuary Superintendent have approval power over all items placed on the agenda - and all letters the SAC sends out. Consequently the SAC can only provide advise to the Sanctuary if the Sanctuary is willing to hear it. The current Sanctuary Superintendent has vetoed important items that SAC members have tried to put on the agenda. One of the Draft City of Monterey Recommendations is to remove this veto power so SAC members can bring issues to the table and write letters without censorship. Sanctuary Advisory Council Appointments: In the past, the process for SAC member appointments involved advertising for appointment candidates. The Sanctuary Superintendent would then ask the SAC to form a subcommittee to evaluate the applications for qualifications of the individual and outreach capability to the constituents the candidate wishes to represent. The subcommittee would then offer the names of the three best qualified candidates to the Sanctuary Superintendent to chose from. Earlier this year nine new SAC positions opened up. The above mentioned process was followed and for each of these nine positions the SAC subcommittee forwarded the three names of the most qualified individuals for each position. In four of the nine positions the Sanctuary Superintendent threw out all three recommendations and filled them with other people. An example: The SAC subcommittee forwarded three names for the Business Representative position on the SAC. The SAC Superintendent threw out all three recommendations and selected a kelp harvester from Santa Cruz to represent the business community on the SAC. Ed Cooper and I represented the diving community's views concerning kelp harvesting. We also wrote a letter to Dan Basta stating that the Sanctuary Superintendent broke commitments he made to the diving community. As a result this kelp harvester wrote a blistering multipage letter personally attacking Ed Cooper and I. Another interesting aspect to this issue is the fact that the City of Monterey had previously passed an ordinance (later deemed unconstitutional) barring non-Monterey kelp harvesters from cutting kelp in the waters off of Monterey. Now the City of Monterey finds that the Sanctuary has appointed a kelp harvester from Santa Cruz to represent their business community. The recommendations below call for an independent SAC member appointment process. The bottom line is that the Sanctuary Advisory Council was created to provide local community advice to the Sanctuary. The current SAC Charter and Protocols undermines the SAC's ability to represent the public. The current SAC appointment process undermines the composition of the Sanctuary Advisory Council. Many of the non-government SAC members are employees of, or are principles of, corporations that can be financially impacted by SAC and Sanctuary decisions. David Clayton _______________________________________________________________________ DRAFT CITY OF MONTEREY RECOMMENDATIONS for the Sanctuary Management Plan Review Program Accomplishments Issue Statement: Much of the public is unaware of the successes of the program. Recommendation: The positive accomplishments of the program should be lauded and actively supported by the City, such as the Water Quality Protection Program; Education; Research; Offshore Ship Traffic; no Oil or Gas development, etc. The creation of Sanctuary-related signage located in appropriate areas of the Recreation Trail is an example of a way the City could actively support the Sanctuary Educational goal. Understand And Respect Original Consensus-Building That Created the Sanctuary Issue Statement: With a variety of special-interest groups advocating for changes to the Management Plan, consensus-building agreements struck with many local communities of interest (i.e., agriculture, fishing, the Harbors, etc.) may be overturned, which could cause a loss of credibility for the Sanctuary Program. Recommendation: The Management Plan Review needs to include a thorough re-visitation of these commitments to the original communities of interest who supported the formation of the Sanctuary. Time should be spent actually going to the leaders of these communities, asking if their expectations for the Sanctuary Program have been met. If changes are proposed that affect the nature of the original consensus, they should occur only if supported by the community of interest. Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) Issue Statement: The SAC is organized within NOAA and is subject to Federal Law. The Sanctuary Superintendent appoints SAC members. All SAC correspondence and agendas must have the concurrence of the Superintendent. The SAC can offer advice when asked, but cannot exercise the oversight of the program that was originally expected. The SAC is sometimes not consulted or asked to offer advice on important Sanctuary issues, and sometimes its advice is not taken, with little consequence. The SAC cannot write to Congress if concerned about the direction of the Sanctuary Program from either a national or local perspective. Generally, there is no formal structure or process that makes the Sanctuary Program accountable for its decisions to the local communities and the SAC has been unable to fulfill this role. Recommendation: Request that the SAC Charter and Protocols be changed to allow the SAC freedom in setting agendas, drafting correspondence, including to members of Congress, and have SAC appointments made through a community process rather than by the Sanctuary Superintendent. SAC communication to members of Congress should be limited to policy issues, not include "grass roots lobbying" for increased funding, and only occur if representing a majority view of the SAC. If the SAC Charter and Protocols cannot be changed, then alternatively it is recommended that the SAC be organized not within NOAA, but rather under State law, or through a local joint powers arrangement or MOU. An "arms length" relationship to NOAA would provide for truly independent advice and oversight. For each of these options, it is also recommended that a conflict of interest disclosure statement be required of SAC members, similar to what is required of public officials throughout California. It should be clearly noted that this recommendation is aimed at fixing a problem inherent in how the SAC is currently organized and in no way is meant to diminish the good will and expertise that each individual member brings to the SAC. Fishing Issue Statement: The Current Management Plan mostly reflects promises made to the fishing community and states that the Sanctuary will not regulate fisheries; however, other language which calls for "habitat protection" and "ecosystem management" could be interpreted to create "no fishing zones". This appears contradictory. Recommendation: Clarify that the Department of Fish and Game and the National Marine Fisheries Service (including the Pacific Fisheries Management Council) are the agencies responsible for fishing regulations as per the original intent when the Sanctuary was designated. Any zones or regulations proposed by the Sanctuary which affect fishing would occur only if they are the result of a cooperative effort with the fishing and or aquaculture communities and they have the support of those communities. Human Impacts Issue Statement: The Current Management Plan calls for Sanctuary resources to be conserved and protected, but also allows for "multiple uses" as long as they are consistent with the above. Under existing language, conflicts between use and protection are resolved in favor of protection. Since it is nearly impossible for human activity not to create some impact on Sanctuary resources, there is a concern that this situation will lead to more and more restrictions on human use of the Sanctuary, affecting fishermen, divers, surfers, kayakers, etc., and in turn dilute the broad public support which the program should enjoy. Recommendation: Clarifying language needs to be added to the Management Plan to allow for human uses as long as there is no significant and sustained impact that permanently damages the resource, (i.e., allow for minor impacts). Include a guidance statement to help Sanctuary staff define major/minor impacts. Create more of a policy balance between conservation and use, with a strong educational program being the key to achieving this balance. Add language to include the concept that "ecosystem" includes an understanding of the socio-economic impact on a business or community of any particular sanctuary permit or regulation. In making this recommendation, it should be clearly noted that any serious, sustained and permanent environmental degradation that might arise from human use or activities would still be evaluated by the Sanctuary program with regard to future regulations and the Program's mandate to protect Sanctuary resources. To do otherwise would cause public concern. As previously recommended, the Sanctuary Program should work cooperatively with the appropriate communities of interest in developing any further regulations. Harbors & Dredging Issue Statement: The existing language characterizes all dredging as bad, and does not allow for minor impacts. When the Sanctuary was being negotiated, Harbors were told that the Sanctuary would not have permit authority over dredging, but it does. Many businesses and recreational users are dependent on open harbors. The existing language seems to constrain the Sanctuary staff from being as helpful to harbors as they could be. Recommendation: Suggest language changes to also acknowledge the positive benefits of open harbors and dredging operations. Clarify that the Sanctuary does not regulate or issue permits for dredging, as it is already highly-regulated by numerous other Federal, State and local agencies. Acknowledge that harbors are the access corridors to the Sanctuary for commerce, education, research and law enforcement. Harbors and the Sanctuary should be partners, allied in the goals of the Program. The Sanctuary Program should be empowered to be more accommodating to the needs of its harbors. Any Sanctuary policy regarding dredging should be no more restrictive than other directly responsible regulatory agencies. Regulatory and Permit Authority Issue Statement: The vast majority of early public support for the idea of forming a Sanctuary came from seeking an oil and gas development ban. Education, research, the work that has been accomplished by the Water Quality Protection Program were added dividends. The program does involve itself in a regulatory and enforcement role already. It is likely that certain special interest groups will seek even greater Sanctuary regulatory and enforcement roles in the future. Recommendation: Stress in the Management Plan Review that the essential work of the Program is the oil/gas ban, education, research, and the work of the Water Quality Protection Program. Also stress its need to accomplish its goals by working with other agencies and NGO's rather than by becoming a larger and larger organization itself. Any permit process administered by the Sanctuary Program should be streamlined, coordinated with other agencies, and "user friendly". An appeal process should be instituted. Generally, the Sanctuary should not add another layer of permit regulation if other Federal/State/Local/permit authorities are already in place. It is important that the Sanctuary Program not be viewed by the public as an onerous Federal bureaucracy. Water Quality Issue Statement: Both point and non-point pollution continues to plague our Bay. Recommendation: The Sanctuary has made a good start on this issue, but more needs to be done in working cooperatively with other agencies to prevent accidental sewage spills and to identify the sources of polluted urban runoff. The City should actively continue with the support it has provided to the Sanctuary Program in this effort. Facilitation of Human Use Issue Statement: The facilitation of human use of the Sanctuary is a stated program goal, yet very little has been done to promote this goal. Recommendation: Sanctuary use and economic opportunities need to be actively promoted. Add a staff position or redirect staff time or contract to develop a Sanctuary marketing plan and facilitate the use of the Sanctuary. Create specific, measurable goals. Conscientious (through education) use of the Sanctuary should be as much of a goal as research and conservation. Overlapping Jurisdictions Issue Statement: Does it make sense for a highly protected area to immediately adjoin a highly urbanized area? Activities such as harbor management, fireworks shows, maintenance, desalinization facilities, etc. can be more complicated and difficult to accomplish. Each of these activities already have numerous levels of environmental review in place. Recommendation: Request that the Management Plan Review process include an analysis of jurisdictional issues. This analysis should consult with all coastal jurisdictions and property owners, and be available for public comment. The benefits of Sanctuary status for the very near shore urban areas should be weighed against any jurisdictional issues. If jurisdictional problems are evident, a possible solution would be to create an "urban buffer zone", which would still be within the Sanctuary boundary and which would continue to allow for Sanctuary education, conservation and research programs, but which would not be subject to Sanctuary Permit Authority. The Sanctuary does already have the authority to create special zones. This recommendation should not be construed as an effort to avoid scrutiny for coastal projects. Rather, it reflects the Management Plan Review as an appropriate time to access intergovernmental relationships in an open and honest manner. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: ba_diving-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ----------------- End Forwarded Message ----------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Flory, San Jose, CA. daflory_at_pacbell.net Go Sea Kayaking!! (C)2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Speak softly and study Aikido, then you won't need a big stick. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:24 PDT