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
Rohnert Park  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.  A synthesis of comments will be available soon.

  • Fishermen fear NMSP will impose new regulations. Message is not clear about intent of management plan review process.
  • Ranchers and other new residents are contributing to deteriorating water quality.  NMSP should educate public about how actions can impact coastal water quality.
  • Set up mechanism for sanctuary to coordinate with local/regional planning/development agencies to address ways to lessen impact on sanctuaries.
  • Concerns about radioactivity in GFNMS and better education.
  • Concerned about oil spills and other pollutions in sanctuaries -protect the wildlife.
  • Interested in the welfare of marine life.
  • Should not allow jetskis in sanctuaries or allow landing on beaches.  Should be banned from CBNMS/ Bodega Bay.  (Ban all noisy, polluting recreational personal motorized water craft.)
  • Concerned about watershed practices- need to better educate public on how pollutants affect health of sanctuaries- need to know what specific pollutants have impacts on sanctuaries.  Work with those who are polluting so they can use better practices.
  • Propose the sanctuary go farther north than Bodega Bay to incorporate biological significant portions of entire ecosystem.
  • Better education of public and better enforcement about PWC regulations and regulations in general.
  • No large-scale factory fishing vessels in all sanctuary waters, including at least 10 miles from Cordell Bank.
  • Greater use of MPAs including no-take zones to rebuild fisheries and protect biodiversity based on scientific knowledge.
  • Should have scientific inventory of biological resources and associated habitats.
  • Work with public schools to educate.   Encourage ocean oriented classes to be taught.  Start from bottom up.
  • Work with public TV to have programs on sanctuaries/oceans.
  • Work with agencies that regulate fisheries to better monitor/study/ and protect fish populations.
  • Need more information/ exhibits at many locations frequented by the public and schools.  Create localized marine education facilities.
  • Have interpretive kiosks and signs on-site to educate public at the source of resources (e.g. tidepools).
  • Concerned about mining-things should stay as they are.
  • Prefer no kelp harvesting in sanctuaries.
  • Give Marin county portion of MBNMS to GFNMS.
  • Need to place boundary markers in sanctuaries.
  • Need some type of informational center in Bodega Bay using renewable energy sources (e.g. wind and solar).
  • Need more enforcement for all regulations- no one is minding the store.
  • GF/CBNMS should mirror agricultural programs of MBNMS (build on successes to reduce agricultural run-off).
  • Increase funding.
  • Get all regulatory agencies together to have better inter-agency cooperation.
  • Prohibit and fine cruise ships for all unlawful discharges (e.g. shotgun casings from skeet shooting).
  • Wants fishing in Tomales Bay protected from watershed pollution- keep a balanced approach.
  • Ranching community is an element in watershed pollution- but is also an economic contribution to the area.
  • Increase monitoring in gulf, especially of radioactive barrels, mercury, and other pollutants.  Whatever happened with RAD study?
  • Mercury has negative impact on fisheries. 
  • Intensive agricultural development carries increasing adverse impacts.
  • Need stricter regs for big agricultural businesses than for family style farms.  Should protect Estero Americano from airborn emissions as well as fluid discharge.  (e.g. ammonia) (Petaluma mushroom farm is immediate example).
  • Can sanctuary provide incentives to farmers, etc. to comply with sanctuary regulations to enhance water quality?  Are small farm subsidies possible?
  • Wants Estero water quality increased so water supply won’t be contaminated when flooding occurs.  Manage of the bars keeps the water levels low.  Give same consideration to farmers as we do to wildlife.  Too much grazing land is lost to flooding.
  • Agribusiness lobbyists erode environmental protections. 
  • Certain agricultural industries, e.g. grape vineyards, have more serious impacts than others, e.g. dairy farms.
  • Because of new agricultural business methods- watercourses and drainages impact ground water and the sanctuaries water.
  •  Gravel mining undermined roadway and Russian River.
  • Other agencies standards are not as strict as sanctuary standards.
  • Need better interagency cooperation to raise protection levels.
  • Sonoma county approving agencies must consider history of violation and past impacts in planning decisions.  Can GF/CB sanctuaries override county approvals as the ultimate impacted area?
  • Sanctuary must require notices of all potential impacting projects proposed.
  • Increase levels of staffing and funding so agencies can carry out their work.
  • Make interagency cooperation more efficient and increase monitoring efforts.
  • Distribute sampling results and survey data among all potential involved agencies.
  • Increase outreach efforts on sanctuary regulations.
  • We did a good job advertising scooping meetings!
  • This was a good forum for learning some of the issues.
  • More education needed in high schools- especially volunteer monitoring programs.  Use students as a resource.
  • Against offshore oil drilling in sanctuary.
  • Glad sanctuaries were established to prevent offshore oil drilling.
  • Would like to see boundaries of NMS in California extended northward, particularly to include San Andreas fault line and Cascadian subduction zone.
  • Opposes any contraction of boundaries.
  • Opposes offshore oil drilling and any other polluting activities.
  • Favor all measures to protect marine life.
  • Concerned about protecting integrity of both Estero Americano and San Antonio because protection beyond literal boundary of sanctuary does not exist. (focus more upstream in Esteros) (Non-point source pollution)
  • Worried about pollution (noise, air, water) interrupting the tranquility of enjoying the coast.
  • Opposed to offshore oil drilling.
  • Concerned about upstream pollution (run-off and sewage) flowing into sanctuary.
  • Would like to ensure that sanctuary concept does not disappear in this administration.
  • Education of public absolutely necessary for protection of resources.
  • People have to know what we’re saving for them.
  • No offshore oil drilling.
  • No non-point pollution.
  • No light, noise pollution (esp. jetskis)
  • Sanctuary should be aware of and involved in land-based efforts like establishment of CCT (California Coastal Trail).
  • Oppose Sea Walls.
  • Concerned about any commercial endeavors both in NMS and outside (mining, logging, fishing).  And other technologies yet to be developed which may adversely affect the sanctuary resources.
  • Our fisheries are in crisis.  Worried about effects of logging, agriculture, dams, etc. on fisheries.  Would like to see our fisheries restored, especially the impacts to streams and anadramous fishes).
  • Concerned about adverse effects of non-point source pollution, especially from transportation-related run-off.  80% of non-point source pollution is from roads (tires and pipes of autos).
  • Concerned about pollution from military experiments.  It dangers marine wildlife.
  • Worried about oil transportation over Cordell Bank.  Potential spills threaten the resources.  Look into alternatives to minimize potential impact to Cordell Bank resources.
  • Worried about pollutants entering food chain and causing healthy problems in both humans as well as marine life, possibly leading to extinction in the future.
  • Should be responsibility of sanctuary program to work at an international level to spread the use of sanctuaries to educate people about marine resource protection.
  • California Coastal Trail is a perfect educational tool for NMS.
  • Worried about lack of state/federal cooperation.  There should be a healthy working relationship.
  • Need to locate mean high tide line- identify actual sanctuary boundaries.
  • Would like to educate federal government on National Marine Sanctuary Program to reduce our dependency on oil.
  • Would like to see more materials available to public in public libraries, Natural history museums, etc for public education.  Start at elementary school and work up.
  • Would like to see research promoted, such as programs at Bodega Marine Laboratory, which are available free to the public.
  • GFNMS should be concerned with water-borne pollutants (non-pt. source pollutants) coming from the watersheds into SF bay and then into the GFNMS, along with their concerns for watershed issues into Bodega Bay and Esteros.
  • Maintain traditional fisheries to be sustainable.  Commercial fishing needs to be preserved and sustainable.  Do not ban fishing.
  • Do not view the three NMS as separate with separate goals and staffing.  Combine all 3 NMS with one supervisor.  View as a combined region but keep as 3 separate sanctuaries.  Consolidate management at the top.
  • Increase staffing to clean the beaches.
  • Sanctuaries are not large enough.  Need sanctuaries along all of Sonoma and Mendocino Coast to Stewarts Pt. at least, because it’s all interconnected.
  • No oil drilling or exploration for oil off coast of California anywhere.
  • Look at effect of global warming on the marine ecosystem.
  • Look at effect of air pollution from China on the California marine ecosystem.
  • Prevent shipping channels from going through the sanctuaries.  Minimize potential impacts to NMS and adjust shipping lanes to reduce impacts as much as possible.
  • NMS should be more active in working with Dept of Justice with water quality violation, watershed and offshore areas.
  • Seek funding to fill-in gaps of water quality monitoring in areas where RWQCB are not effective.
  • Sanctuaries should be involved with minimizing shoreline development and work more cooperatively more frequently with coastal commission as well as other agencies with shoreline jurisdictions. 
  • Reexamine the boundaries to be a more realistic representation to oceanographic conditions.
  • Extend sanctuary north so CalTrans will be stopped from dumping asphalt black-top into the ocean (especially at Salmon Creek and Marshall Gulch Beach/ Area Rock Beach).
  • Support the research and include volunteers in monitoring the ecosystem.
  • Expand sanctuary education into the public schools (and private schools).
  • Examine the shark attractant by eco-tourism and determine if having impacts on the sharks or pinnipeds.
  • No oil drilling.
  • Must stage adequate oil spill response supplies in Bodega Bay, not just San Francisco Bay.
  • Need more education on camping at the beach to develop an increased sense of dangers and beauty of the ocean tides, and respect of the ocean.  Work with state, county, and NPS to do this. 
  • Do not increase recreational facilities along the coast, it will increase the population along the coast.  This is bad. 
  • Consider changing the boundary to inland areas and watershed areas.
  • Concerned with health and protection of the intertidal.  Also work with private and public agencies.
  • Increase boundaries and strengthen resource protection regulations within sanctuaries.
  • Need more education and outreach with more structure.  Address K-12 as well as even geographic distribution of that outreach, make it available to more people.
  • Education is missing in general, concerning sanctuary program and its resources.
  •  Concerned about protection and preservation of sanctuaries as well as sanctuary bio-diversity.
  • Would like permanent ban of drilling in sanctuary waters. 
  • Would like sanctuary curriculum K-12 linked to local schools and their curriculum.
  • Concerned that pharmaceutical  companies would like to explore vegetation.  Ban bio-processing in the sanctuary. 
  • Also concerned about leaking nuclear drums off islands.
  • Concerned about aerial disturbance i.e. noise pollution of flight path private and government in Bolinas and Point Reyes area.
  • Concerned about kayaks disturbing seals, birds, etc.  As well as an inordinate number of surfers in Bolinas area. 
  • Concerned about recreational  impacts of too many recreators.
  • Would like to see a map of terrestrial watersheds that flow into sanctuary, how the land influences sanctuary.  Education which connects action on land that effects sanctuary waters.  Work with community groups on this topic.  Simple presentation.
  • Concerned that more effort needs to be made to educate coastal residents on their connection with sanctuary and the consequences of their actions.  Specifically school children.
  • Same as above but include anyone in the sanctuary’s watershed.
  • Does not understand why Monterey Bay comes all the way up to Marin Headlands.  More logical for GFNMS to cover the area that is logical to non-educated observers.
  • Spread sanctuaries north to Russian River to Oregon if possible.  Revisit the donut.  Fill in holes.
  • Education needs to be understandable and accessible.  Local understandable education.
  • People need to be educated about farmed versus native fish and their choice/ consequence.
  • Concerned about funding limitations.
  • Support advocacy in community.  Train the teacher as well as watershed group and non-NGO consitiuents.
  • Worried about voices being heard.  Thinks NMS under commerce is a dangerous affiliation.
  • Educate about importance of genetic diversity as far as wild caught versus hatchery.
  • Tap small fishermen who are a resource and a wealth of knowledge.
  • Do not over regulate small fishermen.
  • Push for no ocean dumping, in all waters both in and out of sanctuary.
  • Education of dumping and consequences. 
  • Small fishermen are an asset too.  Keep connection for community.
  • Managing ocean should consist of restricting negative influences.
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 January 25, 2002 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/rohnertpark.html