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
San Luis Obispo 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.

  • Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) members should be chosen by their constituency rather than by the Sanctuary, and the SAC. Selection committees should be avoided.
  • Sanctuary should advertise SAC seat openings better, to get a larger pool of applicants.
  • Sanctuaries should not require permits for dredging.
  • Sanctuary should not be involved in permitting of activities. It is better left to agencies like the California Coastal Commission. The Sanctuary should serve an advisory role to other agencies.
  • Permitting process has to many layers and should be simplified.
  • The Sanctuary should not be involved in the State's MLPA process.
  • Sanctuary should not allow trawling. It caused significant degradation of seafloor.
  • The Sanctuary should not regulate fisheries, with the exception of trawling.
  • Move Sanctuary boundary south to Point Sal.
  • Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary should not change its name.
  • Concerned with environmental degradation along SLO coastline. Sanctuary should protect this area.
  • Sanctuary boundaries should be moved to protect SLO coast from offshore oil drilling.
  • The Sanctuary should prohibit desalination, because brine discharge would affect the ecosystem.
  • The economic impact of the Sanctuary is positive; boundaries should be adjusted to include the SLO area.
  • Sanctuary should conduct testing for pesticide residue.
  • The Sanctuary is doing a good job.
  • Sanctuary should involve community, to arrive at solutions.
  • Sanctuary should do more monitoring and tracking of non-point source pollution.
  • MTBE discharge should be prohibited in the Sanctuary. Jet fuel discharge should also be prohibited.
  • Concerned with existing facilities such as Diablo Canyon and Morro Bay, and how they should be dealt with if the MBNMS is expanded southward.
  • Concerned about intake pipelines for power plants. Entrainment and impingement kill millions of larvae and small species. Sanctuary should impose limitations or measures to reduce these types of impacts.
  • Sanctuary should regulate discharge into ocean by industrial plants/facilities.
  • Sanctuary boundary should be expanded further offshore.
  • Over flight restrictions should be expanded to cover entire Sanctuary. Limits should be raised to 2000 or 3000 feet.
  • Current uses (power plants, commercial fishing, etc.) should be grand fathered into the management plan, if the boundaries change.
  • Sanctuary should ensure that shoreline armoring is appropriately carried out. Sensitive areas where armoring should not occur must be identified, as should more developed areas where armoring is appropriate.
  • Recommend changing terminology to "fishing culture" instead of "fishing industry" which has negative connotation.
  • Sanctuary should investigate and address the effects of feral animals acting as disease vectors, and their connection to sea otter mortalities.
  • A comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of presence of the Sanctuary should be conducted; results should be distributed widely to the public.
  • Sanctuary should better address land based point and non-point source pollution.
  • Sanctuary should not expand its boundary southward.
  • Too many overlapping jurisdiction regarding over flight regulation. This issue needs to be resolved.
  • Over flight restriction should be more specific, "blanket prohibition" of over flights below 1000 feet should be changed.
  • Sanctuary should assess the constitutionality of its over-flight regulations and fines.
  • Sanctuary should conduct more education to pilots about flight regulations.
  • Sanctuary should collaborate with the FAA to get the regulations placed in the FAR.
  • Sanctuary should develop a regional desalination policy.
  • Desalination should be addressed in the revised management plan.
  • Beach nourishment and marine disposal should be addressed in the revised management plan.
  • Concerned about commercial feeding of marine mammals
  • Sand from the Guadalupe oil field cleanup project, could be used for beach nourishment projects.
  • Sanctuary should manage the resources using a holistic watershed approach.
  • Sanctuary should better coordinate with other local agencies, specifically Morro Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.
  • Multiple gear types for fishing should be represented on the SAC
  • Sanctuary should promote/educate community about commercial fishing efforts in the Sanctuary.
  • The Sanctuary should endorse commercial fisheries with in its boundaries.
  • New regulations and enforcement should be uniform across the board for all user groups. Sanctuary must acknowledge need for fairness, and should not specifically target certain users (i.e. Commercial fishers).
  • Sanctuary should not regulate aviation activities. The FAA regulations are sufficient.
  • Sanctuary should increase outreach to aviation community.
  • Scoping meeting should have been held in Morro Bay or somewhere on the coast.
  • Concerned about the poor quality of some of the marine mammal studies. On the water studies can be very limited.
  • Input from local users is overshadowed by academic input. Sanctuary should involve and work directly with local users and those that would be regulated.
  • Concerned that if boundaries are moved south, the protected status will cause a local increase in human visitation and impacts, as occurred in the Channel Islands.
  • Avoid duplicative regulations or excessive "red tape".
  • Cannot see any evidence that conditions are better today than the day the Sanctuary was designated.
  • Sanctuary needs to conduct research to assess the current biological condition of the resources today. It is necessary to have these baseline data in order to measure future success.
  • Concerned because many of the people who make decisions with socio-economic impacts are not long term residents and do not have to live with their decisions.
  • Too much agency emphasis on locking up resources.
  • Facilitation of multiple uses should be a higher priority for the Sanctuary.
  • The Sanctuary should hold meetings inland as well as in coastal areas.
  • Sanctuary should educate people who live inland about how their actions can impact the Sanctuary.
  • Don't understand why is there a gap between the Monterey and Channel Island Sanctuaries
  • Need to investigate the pros and cons for all stakeholders and the general public of extending the MBNMS South to protect the SLO coast. The Management Plan should clearly discuss these pros and cons.
  • Supportive of the approach of the Management Plan Review process (outreach, meetings, etc).
  • There has been local interest in and support for National Marine Sanctuary protection of the SLO County Coast, since 1988.
  • In these processes, "bureaucracies are building kingdoms".
  • Sanctuary should be revising its management plan each 5 years.
  • Does not understand whom the Sanctuary program is accountable to. There should be more accountability for the actions of the Sanctuary.
  • Sanctuary Advisory Councils should be strengthened, and should better represent the local voice regarding local issues.
  • The Sanctuary should address the issue of overpopulation of seals and sea lions.
  • It is not realistic for the Sanctuary "to maintain the natural biological communities"…and "restore and enhance". This is impossible because there is not enough of an understanding of the natural history of the area.
  • Sanctuary studies and research findings must be subject to scientific peer review.

 

 

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 18, 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/sanluisobispo.html