Joint Management Plan Review

Menu


Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR)

Getting Involved

Scoping Meeting & Dates


Summary of Scoping Meeting Comments

Priority Issues New!

Sanctuary Advisory Council Meetings
& Workshops

JMPR Process & Schedule

Announcements

Maps/Images

Current Sanctuary Management Plans & Regulations

State of the Sanctuary Reports

CA Biogeographic Assessment

Press Releases & Notices

Your Comments

Links to Sanctuary Websites

 Cordell 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 problematic.
  • 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 regulations.
  • 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 fishermen.
  • The Sanctuary should adopt marine reserves, where no fishing is allowed.
  • The Sanctuary should ban all forms of net fishing.
  • 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 opportunities.
  • 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 discharge.
  • Concerned about large coastal development projects (Hearst Corporation), and their impacts on coastal ecosystems.
  • 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 cables.
  • Sanctuary should conduct research on dynamics of fish populations and ecosystems. Need to understand ecosystems better in order to make wise management decisions.
  • Sanctuary could provide information and advice concerning marine ecosystems, to other government agencies and the public, to facilitate sounder resource management decisions.
  • 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 status.
  • 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 public education.
  • Continue current degree of communication and cooperation with other resource management agencies.
  • Sanctuary should protect the rights indigenous people (traditional users).
  • Sanctuary should not restrict access to habitats or resources.
  • 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 agencies.
  • Increased sharing of information with the public and other agencies.
  • Investigate the impacts that pinniped populations are having on fishery resources.
  • Continue working in coordination with the agriculture community.
  • Concerned about over fishing in the Sanctuary, as well as outside its boundaries.
  • The Sanctuary boundary should be extended 1.5 miles south.
  • 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 this issue.
  • Concerned about impacts of storm drains to water quality, and the lack of public awareness about this issue.
  • Increase partnerships with the regional water quality boards.
  • Concerned about impacts from the live fish fishery on fish populations.
  • 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 spills.
  • 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 plants.
  • 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 this issue.
  • 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 input.
  • 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.
  • Sanctuary must develop a clear policy to address desalination.
  • 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 seals.
  • Sanctuary should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of its management programs. Revenues should be tied to benefits.
  • Concerned with Sanctuary denial of over flight permits.
  • 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 altitude limit.

 

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

(top)
NOAA logo Revised December 14, 2001 by Sanctuaries Web Group
Many links leave the National Marine Sanctuary Web Site - please view our Link Disclaimer for more information
National Ocean Service | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | U.S. Department of Commerce | NOAA Library | Privacy Policy
Contact Us | http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/jointplan/cambria.html