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
Santa Cruz 1:00 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.
- Need more coordination of all agencies (state fed
& others) to protect seabirds (eg murres, oil spills,
bilge water & other species)
- Need more agency coordination regarding non-point
- Need sanctuary support for seabird
rescue/restoration; existing facilities and programs too
far apart Need greater cooperation and a better response
- Concern about pollution from San Francisco Airport
- Concerned about oil spills and oil pollution
- Don't allow any offshore oil and gas production
- More monitoring of contamination, non-point
pollution, examine current policies and enforce existing
- Need to examine effectiveness of policies and
regulations of pollution, discharge and dredge
- Continue and expand presence of Sanctuary kayaks on
Elkhorn Slough, It is a very good knowledgeable program.
- Would like to see expansion in geographic range of
tests for pollutants and bacteria.
- Concerned with reduction of sea otters in Elkhorn
slough last few years. Would like to see research on
cause/effect of increase or decrease of sea otter
- Need research on pollutant effects on sea otters
- Sanctuary projects/programs are very helpful
including urban watch, first flush.
- Increase Sanctuary funding & personnel to fully
- Review existing Action Plans and fully implement to
help with public awareness.
- Make water quality monitoring data available as
outreach but not to scare people.
- Need weekly news item in newspaper(s) for public
outreach, education, involve public.
- Urban watch volunteers were appalled with First Flush
- Concerned about storm drains & sewage
- The Sanctuary should spend more time investigating
drainage into Sanctuary (pollutants, sewage). The
Sanctuary should enter into a cooperative with San
- Concerned about increasing human population &
fishery take; also concerned with increased recreational
uses. The Sanctuary should be involved and
- The NMFS doesn't lead outreach with fisheries.
Sanctuary should take this role.
- Improve newsletter dispersal. The Sanctuary could
link to other groups via the internet.
- Kayaking &endash; need education not
- Maintain permanent oil drilling ban. No slant
- Need more help/plan in case of oil spills, especially
in southern areas (Big Sur,Cambria)
- Concerned with post-report and follow-up of sea otter
deaths (once reported personally) by CDFG or other
- Boundary between GF & MBNMS is gray
area&emdash;Ano Nuevo to Farallones needs resolution of
- GFNMS has programs that MBNMS does not (seabirds
counts on San Mateo coast). Need coordination and
- Need live bird count on Monterey bay beaches
(coordinate with PRBO).
- Concerned about permitting fireworks, effects,
environmental consequences, investigate impacts&
share results with public(include cities & counties).
Disruption not during the event but also post-effects,
e.g.; migration problems, flight patterns.
- Sea walls need to be addressed. Efforts should be
continued with Coastal Commission.
- Need more money for staffing
- Public (personal) reports to Sanctuary should be
followed up by MBNMS staff.
- Sanctuaries need 800-phone number.
- Test for cholera (H20 quality) & viruses.
- Concerned about desalination
- Concern with bottom trawling. Dredging, fiber optic
cable. Concern with bottom animals.
- Like idea of marine reserves.
- Coordinate with Golden Gate National Recreation Area
in San Mateo county (newly expanded).
- Update water quality protection program brochure
- Sanctuary expansion to include Davidson seamount
& northern seamounts because of their biological
significance & diversity.
- There are four harbors in the Sanctuary. Ports live
by dredging. The Sanctuary regulations are not flexible
with respect to dredging. They do not address the concept
of beneficial uses of dredge material. Use emerging and
new information on currents to determine best placement
areas. US ACOE, CCC,EPA all issue permits. Silts and
clays and contaminants need to be better understood in
their transport in the water column.
- Capitola lost the beach with the creation of harbor.
Without dredging of harbor, there is no placement of sand
at Capitola cliffs and other cliffs. Disruption flow of
sand transport has caused this erosion. We need to
replace this sand either on the beach or in the
- Harbor had to haul out dredged material 40% sand, 70
truckloads for upland placement. 80% sand rule is an EPA
"rule of thumb". Sanctuary should work with other
agencies to deal with this issue. Dredge discussions
should be based upon best science.
- Do not like jetskis but not in favor of current
boundaries. They are set too far offshore. This can be
unsafe. Would rather see a ban than these unsafe zones.
Suggests a zone close to shore. Very few jetskis make it
out that far.
- Light the jet ski buoys. They are difficult to see
- Need to avoid sensitive environmental areas if moving
the jet ski zones.
- Moss landing is a less used beach, It may be a better
area for jet ski zoning.
- Surfers create a navigational problem for jet skis in
the mavericks area
- Jetskis should stay out of the inshore areas and
where swimmers are in the water.
- With the use of small mesh nets, you could see the
decline of the cod fishery. Now there is a decline from
the live fish market; major problem is use of nets and
- There should be a buyout of the commercial live fish
- Sport fisherman should not be targeted as the
problem; it is the use of small mesh nets and longlines.
- Salmon and cod fisheries are different and fishery
managers should not stop all fishing in one area if we
are only concerned about one fishery
- The area from Lighthouse Pt. to Pigeon Pt. is good
for salmon fishing and should not be closed for salmon
- Why don't we do artificial reefs out on the west
coast? This is good for fishing habitat. Like the idea of
artificial reef creation
- Does the sanctuary have data that could be used for
fisheries management? Would like to see the sanctuary
produce this type of information.
- A misunderstanding of what the sanctuary's role with
respect to fishing
- The Sanctuary need to better educate the public on
what the Sanctuary does and what their mandate is. The
management plan needs to be put in clear terms.
- There is no easily accessible information on the
state's zoning process. The Sanctuary needs to clear up
what the sanctuary is doing and better communication to
avoid the state's problem.
- With Boundary Expansion With expansion the Sanctuary
would lose focus on Monterey Bay itself ; rather see
clear cut , achievable goals instead of a larger
- Concern about beach erosion and natural sand flow
interrupted by jetty ;
- Concerned about water pollution in harbors and lack
- The Sanctuary needs better communication and signage
during sewage spills.
- Improve outreach and public relations for the
Sanctuary (visitor's center, signs, TV spots)
- Need greater accountability by cities and counties
for water quality problems
- Expand outreach to schools/teachers materials
- Prohibit jet skis that are 2 stroke engines
- Pleasure point should be recognized as a special
place, the surf break and the surfing community.
- Research economic benefits of surfing &endash; raise
appreciation and value
- The Sanctuary needs to research the effects of
seawalls on surfers and surfing resources.
- Seawalls are an impediment to access as well as
detrimental to sandy beaches
- Support no kelp take outside surf breaks.
- Improve/ consider treatment of urban runoff;( for
example, this is done in Southern California)
- Reinforce existing plans and coastal Plan Use
Pleasure Point as model for end of pipe treatments.
- The Sanctuary should provide greater protection of
surf resources (sand, reef, break)
- Expand Sanctuary outreach to regional volunteer and
- Develop signs and awareness for pleasure point and
- Sanctuary should work with state and other agencies
to establish no take reserves
- Expand enforcement of regulations
- The Sanctuary should provide more education to
recreational fishers in intertidal zone- safety issue and
pollution (hook and line entanglement)
- Encourage sport fishing over commercial fisheries
around the four harbors.
- The Sanctuary should support sustainable fishing
- Ban bottom trawling in the Sanctuary.
- Consider controlling urban growth issues working with
state coastal agencies to preserve natural watersheds.
- Encourage development of the Sanctuary Trail
- Work on a statewide program focusing on aquifer
- Concern over feed stock and anadromous fish in
- The Sanctuary boundary at the mouth of tributaries
must be clearly defined
- Extend the Sanctuary boundaries up into streams to
protect spawning areas
- The Sanctuary should not regulate fishing and there
should be no new fishing regulations.
- The Sanctuary Advisory Council should include a
recreational fishing representative
- Protect against non native and invasives- what are
the threats-how will you address them &endash; need to
increase education about controlling invasives
- Use Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as a tool for
biodiversity and ecosystem protection
- The Sanctuary should prohibit by catch
- Need fisherman's input on MPA and any other fishing
- The Ocean does not need Marine Protected areas, the
current MPAs are poorly located.
- Exclusionary MPAs may impact safety.
- Any new regulations must be clear, strong, and
- The Sanctuary should be locally controlled.
- The Sanctuary Advisory Council should become
management council and the Feds should have veto
- MBNMS should include Davidson Seamount and no
extraction should be allowed in the area in order to
protect the benthos.
- National Marine Sanctuary Program should act as a
facilitator among conservation groups.
- Commercial vessel traffic is getting too close to Ano
- Hope marine reserves will be used to aid fisheries;
hope economic analysis will include all issues including
non market issues (value of preventing extensions or
- The Sanctuary should consider future added value of
sustainable fisheries and consider the detrimental effect
of a fishery crashing.
- Need a team w/ executive authority to expedite the
regulatory process (fishing)
- 2-3 years for a mgmt plan review is way too
- Recognize that some areas are unique in their need
for regulations that are more site specific. Some
regulations are too broad based and some rules may not
apply to certain areas.
- The Sanctuary should set up regulations and policies
for Bioprospecting before projects are proposed and it
becomes an issue .
- Submerged cables should be banned
- NOAA has little permitting power in the Moss Landing
/ Elkhorn Slough area &endash; more legal power is needed
to regulate power plant's impacts to slough and ocean
- The Sanctuary should revise the jetski regulations to
be consistent with GFNMS.
- Sanctuary should advise fishing councils using
information gained from monitoring of health of ecosystem
on annual basis.
- Jetski buoys are navigational hazard
- Jetski zones do not work. Jetskiers avoid zones and
use areas causing conflicts with sea otters. Enforcement
is lacking. Ban Jetskis
- The Sanctuary needs to proactively look at having a
seawall policy so armoring isn't random and
- Sanctuary education program should look at commercial
/ recreational fishing as a resource (provides food,
jobs, adds to economy) and to promote positive use of the
- Sanctuary should actively support Santa Cruz Harbor
dredging. Permitting is difficult bureaucratic process.
Harbor needs to be dredged to maintain recreational and
- The Sanctuary should work to streamline permit
process between agencies but insure resource protection.
Use a Joint Review Panel (San Francisco model)to ensure
both coordination and protection.
- Expand time for dredging as necessary (seasonal
window needs to be more flexible)
- Dredge disposal project should continue in upper
Santa Cruz harbor..
- NOAA should develop dispersant policy
- The Sanctuary needs to develop a policy regarding
- Restrictions against sport fishing should apply to
- There needs to be better coordination among fishery
- Establish a visitor center in Seacliff in order to
educate public, promote stewardship of natural resources,
and improve coordination among small communities and
- Sanctuary needs to establish long term monitoring
program and make that information (status & trend)
- Compile and analyze existing scientific data on
fisheries, make available to other agencies.
- Sanctuary protects and allows for proliferation of
marine mammals that deplete our fishery resources.
Sanctuary gives preferential treatment to marine mammals
over other users
- Sanctuary fisheries should remain under the control
of existing agencies.
- SAC members should be chosen by the constituencies
- Sanctuaries should not be involved in enforcement of
fishery regulations but should be involved in water
- Sanctuary should not be involved in permitting of any
kind, there are too many agencies involved.
- The Sanctuary should not be in the position to
promulgate or advocate fisheries management.
- MBNMS should become more involved in water quality
and in particular working with local jurisdictions.
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