Plan Review (JMPR)
Scoping Meeting & Dates
of Scoping Meeting Comments
Priority Issues New!
Sanctuary Advisory Council Meetings
Current Sanctuary Management Plans &
State of the Sanctuary Reports
Press Releases & Notices
Links to Sanctuary Websites
Bank, Gulf of the Farallones & Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuaries
Scoping Meeting Summary
Cambria 6:30 PM
Please note that these are the raw comments extracted
from the scoping meeting held at the location listed above.
They were edited for the purpose of clarity where necessary.
Duplicate comments were not repeted. A synthesis of comments
will be available soon.
- Concerned that if boundary were extended southward to
Morro Bay, the existing wastewater outfall would be
- Concerned that additional regulations would become an
obstacle to harbor maintenance.
- Sanctuary should collaborate and coordinate with
existing fishery management groups (NMFS and CDFG) in
terms of monitoring resources and issuing
- More educational interpretation about the Sanctuary
and its resources.
- More education and outreach in general.
- Utilize models and hands on exhibits for education
throughout Sanctuary area.
- Sanctuary should be able to show that mitigation
measures are cost effective. (E.g., regarding vessel
traffic tracks, how much does it cost the consumer and
shipping companies to go further offshore?).
- Concerned about decline in catches by recreational
- The Sanctuary should adopt marine reserves, where no
fishing is allowed.
- The Sanctuary should ban all forms of net
- More cooperation and collaboration with existing
regulatory agencies should occur, not more regulations.
Sanctuary should examine current interactions and explore
ways to improve coordination.
- There should be one management plan for each
ecosystem, not one management plan per agency. This
public thinks of ecosystems as one, not as six agencies
with varying degrees of management responsibility.
- The Sanctuary Advisory Council should have a
representative from the military to increase awareness of
proposed military activities. The Sanctuary could also
take advantage of certain military expertise and
- Concerned about overpopulations of pinnipeds.
Sanctuary should investigate the feasibility of
controlling these populations.
- Sanctuary should be concerned about the impacts of
desalination plants from construction and brine effluent
- Concerned about large coastal development projects
(Hearst Corporation), and their impacts on coastal
- Sanctuary should look at the big picture of overall
environmental impacts, and manage the resources
appropriately. For example trawling has significant
impacts, yet much more attention is given to fiber optic
- Sanctuary should conduct research on dynamics of fish
populations and ecosystems. Need to understand
ecosystems better in order to make wise management
- Sanctuary could provide information and advice
concerning marine ecosystems, to other government
agencies and the public, to facilitate sounder resource
- The Sanctuary should work more closely with, and
utilize the business and tourism sector.
- Sanctuary should establish an interpretive center in
the Cambria region for the 800,000 plus tourists that
visit the area each year. Involve the business and
tourism sectors in establishing this visitor center.
- Sanctuary should utilize existing interpretive
centers (Hearst Castle), for education and outreach, by
setting up exhibits or video documentaries.
- Sanctuary should establish a "Monterey Bay NMS South"
research center in the Cambria area.
- Sanctuary needs to conduct more research, to reach a
better understanding of the resources, and their current
- Expand the current MBNMS sanctuary boundary south to
the Santa Barbara County line.
- Concerned about the live fish fishery, and depletion
of fisheries by marine mammals.
- Use decommissioned oil platforms (from Channel
Islands) as fish habitat.
- Sanctuary staff is fantastic (cooperative, helpful,
especially with education).
- Sanctuary should utilize volunteers to help foster
- Continue current degree of communication and
cooperation with other resource management agencies.
- Sanctuary should protect the rights indigenous people
- Sanctuary should not restrict access to habitats or
- Management should strive for long-term sustainable
use (e.g., not taking juvenile fish).
- Sanctuaries require more financing to achieve
adequate resource protection.
- Sanctuary should be open to the possibility of
desalination (local communities need water).
- Sanctuary should continue its work on a regional
policy for desalination.
- Sanctuary should increase research and public access
to information on the resources.
- Sanctuary should increase regulation of activities
that may impact resources.
- Increase communications among all regulatory
- Increased sharing of information with the public and
- Investigate the impacts that pinniped populations are
having on fishery resources.
- Continue working in coordination with the agriculture
- Concerned about over fishing in the Sanctuary, as
well as outside its boundaries.
- The Sanctuary boundary should be extended 1.5 miles
- The Sanctuary boundaries should not be extended.
- Concerned about over-harvesting of intertidal
invertebrates, by certain ethnic communities. Sanctuary
should do outreach to these communities to help address
- Concerned about impacts of storm drains to water
quality, and the lack of public awareness about this
- Increase partnerships with the regional water quality
- Concerned about impacts from the live fish fishery on
- Sanctuary should monitor water for detergents and
conduct bacteriological sampling.
- Sanctuary needs more enforcement officers to enforce
fishery and water quality issues.
- Locals have observed growth of new algae in the
intertidal, and are concerned. Sanctuary should increase
monitoring of coastal environments for change.
- Sanctuary should investigate the effects of bottom
trawling for potential environmental changes.
- Sanctuary should conduct outreach on the effects of
marine mammal populations on fishery resources.
- Sanctuary should work cooperatively with federal and
state agencies on monitoring water quality.
- Sanctuary needs to be an advocate in ensuring that
sewage outflows are carefully monitored. Septic systems
(i.e. Garrapata) may overwhelm natural processes and
require a sewage treatment plan.
- Concerned about potential impacts of oil tanker
- Sanctuary should investigate sources of non-point
pollution for pathogens.
- Concerned about litter and trash generated by
tourists. Sanctuary should develop and implement an
educational program that includes signage, and impose
fines for littering to address this issue.
- Concerned about cumulative effects of continuous
discharges such as that from desalination plants or power
- Sanctuary should investigate potential negative
impacts of desalination on resources, and provide more
input to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
- Concerned about the effects of MTBE that has been
found leaking into local streams. This could impact the
immune systems of marine mammals. Sanctuary should
investigate the effects of MTBE and other spills and
discharges on aquatic species.
- Concerned about the effects of marine debris. The
Sanctuary should conduct an education program to address
- Sanctuary should investigate the occurrence of
oil/tar balls. Sanctuary should work with OSPR to
identify sources, and clean-up when found.
- Concerned because landslides occur frequently on the
Big Sur coast, and feel that Sanctuary position that
prohibits the dumping into the ocean is inappropriate.
Ocean disposal should be considered a viable option.
- Sanctuary is doing a good job with the management
plan review process, in reaching out to the public to get
- Expand the Sanctuary boundary south to the Santa
Barbara County Line.
- Expand the Sanctuary boundary south to the Gaviota
Coast or Pt. Conception.
- Live fish fishery should be restricted by the
- Sanctuary must develop a clear policy to address
- Sanctuary should ban all motorized personal
watercraft and 2-stroke engines.
- Sanctuary should not allow the gravel and sand mining
operation at Piedras Blancas.
- Concerned about the proliferation of desalination
plants and the potential expansion of offshore drilling.
- Sanctuary should investigate the decline of steelhead
populations in San Carp. Creek.
- There needs to be better collaboration and
communication between the Sanctuary, Hearst Castle, and
visitors regarding opportunities to see the elephant
- Sanctuary should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of
its management programs. Revenues should be tied to
- Concerned with Sanctuary denial of over flight
- The Sanctuary should work with the FAA on developing
over flight regulations.
- Over flight regulations need to be changed, they
should be based on realistic probabilities of marine
mammal and seabird disturbances, not an arbitrary
For more information contact your
local sanctuary office at:
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Sean Morton, Management Plan Coordinator
299 Foam Street
Monterey, CA 93940
(831) 647-4217 Sean.Morton@noaa.gov
Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank
National Marine Sanctuaries
Anne Walton, Management Plan Coordinator
Fort Mason, Building 201
San Francisco, CA 94123
(415) 561-6622 Anne.Walton@noaa.gov