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
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
- Sanctuary should advertise SAC seat openings better,
to get a larger pool of applicants.
- Sanctuaries should not require permits for
- 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
- The Sanctuary should not be involved in the State's
- 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
- Sanctuary should conduct testing for pesticide
- The Sanctuary is doing a good job.
- Sanctuary should involve community, to arrive at
- 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
- Sanctuary boundary should be expanded further
- Over flight restrictions should be expanded to cover
entire Sanctuary. Limits should be raised to 2000 or 3000
- Current uses (power plants, commercial fishing, etc.)
should be grand fathered into the management plan, if the
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Desalination should be addressed in the revised
- Beach nourishment and marine disposal should be
addressed in the revised management plan.
- Concerned about commercial feeding of marine
- 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
- 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
- Sanctuary should not regulate aviation activities.
The FAA regulations are sufficient.
- Sanctuary should increase outreach to aviation
- 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
- 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
- Avoid duplicative regulations or excessive "red
- 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
- Sanctuary should be revising its management plan each
- 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
- 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
- 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