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
Santa Cruz 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.

  • Additional oversight needed for viewing and observing White Sharks. The Sanctuary should develop a 'code of conduct'.
  • Extend MBNMS shark attraction regulations to all three Sanctuaries. Regulations should address:
    • -Limited entry -Impacts on research
    • -Speed control-approach limits/guidelines
    • -Permit process
  • Concern over water quality and storm drain runoff.
  • Concern about desalination &endash; how will it impact the resources
  • Water quality plan needs to address ongoing water quality issues.
    • - More Interaction/ coordination with agencies
    • -Integrate upland water quality issues into plan
    • -Help local municipalities/jurisdictions solve water quality problems
  • Coastal Watershed Council applauds water quality plans
    • -More emphasis on water quality and education (higher priority)
    • -Citizen Monitoring Network could be expanded
    • -More funds or resources to implement water quality protection program
  • Resolve San Mateo Coast Boundary Issue
  • Need better coordination/ interaction with San Francisco Bay/ Delta (pollution, invasive species). Melting of government bodies to oversee water issues
  • Extend boundaries of MBNMS to Channel Islands NMS (Create a California Sanctuary)
  • Affiliation of communities to Sanctuary (identity). Not a good idea to combine all 3 sanctuaries to one name.
  • Sanctuary should identify regional contacts for communities.
  • MBNMS is better managed than GF/CB (SAC established). Should be similar management for all three sanctuaries.
  • Sanctuary needs to work on linking people "living" in the Sanctuary. More comprehensive/interactive outreach.
  • Sanctuary needs to partner with local organizations to educate the public. Need resources to make happen on a larger scale (higher priority).
  • Emphasize how global human population affects the Sanctuary.
  • Sanctuary should be involved in the sate marine reserves process.
  • Help educate the public about issues related to marine reserves.
  • Sanctuary should help educate fishing community about potential benefits of marine reserves.
  • Education about our oceans (history and future) to children at an early age should be integrated into school curriculum.
  • Jet Skis: Eliminate 2-stroke motors (pollution concerns). Standardize thrill craft regulations to apply to all.
  • Apply a noise standard for the Sanctuary (Jet Ski issue)
  • Keep the military out of the Sanctuary (ATOC) certain activities could be harmful to resources.
  • For Cordell Bank and others- Need to prohibit the dumping of bilge water in the Sanctuary.
  • Use satellite technology to monitor health of the environment and observe possible harmful impacts (enforcement)
  • Sanctuary should play coordination role in researching and monitoring resources
  • Seawalls/armoring coastline- Sanctuary should play a bigger role. Don't allow any more emergency permits because they affect resources and surf breaks (users).
  • Concerned about drainage of pollutants into Sanctuary.
  • Sanctuary should educate about rules and enforcement discharge violations
  • More education-if public is more aware of issues, less problems may exist.
  • The Sanctuary is contributing to pollution by producing brochures.
  • Enforcement not the solution to pollution issues.
  • Duke Energy facility should be monitored for potential impacts
  • Tourism-needs to be more signage-how to handle creatures, etc. multi-language.
  • Educate students in classroom via speakers in assembly
  • Sanctuary should take a look (SC County office of Education-Bay area) at access points in counties regarding environmental education. Sanctuary could be conduit for information flow.
  • The Sanctuary needs more partnerships, expand BayNET
  • Scenic trail could be better equipped with interpreters and signage
  • Santa Cruz County Office of Ed needs to be better linked to Sanctuary
  • Visitors, tourists need to have more outreach focused to them. Sanctuary should increase advertising with visitor convention center.
  • Terrwiliger Nature Center and Audubon Canyon Ranch Visitor are developed as pilot programs, perhaps they can share information, create partnerships.
  • Sanctuary should address fisheries more. Consideration should be given to areas specifically inside Sanctuary.
  • Fishing gear should be examined for problems-non-degradable, entanglement. Sanctuary should look for ways to partner with existing agencies to address issue.
  • What extent is data from Urban Watch being used? Make information more available to public through education, PSA, Nova, public broadcasting. General public needs information readily available without seeking Sanctuary. Possibly use a monthly newspaper insert.
  • Large polluters-different measures should be taken versus uneducated members of the public. Expand awareness through beach cleanup or other programs which would incorporate education (in terms of what exactly are the violations).
  • Education-recruitment of more volunteers and partners to spread information.
  • Sanctuary should develop more relationships with agencies, perhaps regulatory changes to better protect environment should be strong part of management.
  • Sanctuary should resist dredge disposal in bay or ocean. Upland disposal more appropriate.
  • Gillnet Fisheries are damaging (incidental catch) should be prohibited in Sanctuary.
  • Moss Landing should be dredged and deposited in the ocean. Onshore disposal costs too much, is labor intensive and highly polluting. More damage is caused by onshore disposal than is being protected.
  • Water Quality treatment plants are a potential enforcement issue- they need to be brought into compliance.
  • Concerns about tidepool trampling. Sanctuary awareness should be increased, possibly education through local schools.
  • Maintain the prohibition on oil and gas exploration and development.
  • Sand transport-beach nourishment. Sanctuary should advise Coastal Commission and participate in commenting capacity. Sand transport may be due to human structure-keep it natural environment.
  • Sanctuary should play 'recommendation role' in fishery issues.
  • Education of consumers is important. Sanctuary should be involved in that.
  • Sewage plants-should have proper pre-treatment.
  • Sanctuary should be proactive in regards to Low Frequency Acoustics in Big Sur.
  • Sanctuary needs to do more on water quality, development, discharge, ag, river transportation and pollution issues, DDT.
  • Sanctuary should discuss with USACOE to make improvements to harbors + improved technology for dredging.
  • Sanctuaries should remain as 3 entities.
  • Encourage city planners growth planning + communication for entire coast. Networking + sharing resources. Ecosystem eval. Focus on watershed.
  • Tow in surfers-jet skis-concerned about future planning
  • Consider seasonal zones for jet skis. And limited conditions.
  • Never have oil pollution in MBNMS from either oil drilling and/or oil tankers.
  • Multitude of small spills from smaller boats, etc. is a concern.
  • Need more enforcement-"eyes" for the Sanctuary.
  • Concerned about pollutants along Cannery Row.
  • Increase trained staff and volunteers to enforce/inform users.
  • Team OCEAN was very successful-Monterey, Elkhorn Slough (station 2 people 4 days week) and Santa Cruz. Potential in Half Moon Bay and Cambria/San Simeon.
  • Levels of use are not a problem as long as there is adequate staff.
  • Concerned about Health of fish populations in relation to commercial fishing.
  • Sanctuary to provide roll with CDFG in regards to fish stocks. &endash;Especially with recreational fishing vs. commercial. Example: Salmon Regulations.
  • Coordinate enforcement efforts-especially in offshore waters.
  • Need a public awareness campaign regarding balloons on the bay-releasing them into the air.
  • Regulations are good-important to give people boundaries.
  • Look to other regions with fisheries collapsing and learn.
  • Public Education-lots of people with different skills-need to reach out to them and get them involved. Example -artist
  • Need target education to user groups, esp. boaters.
  • Provide coordination of other groups-Sanctuary to be an adviser.
  • Sanctuary to be leader of all regional groups/institutions.
  • Direct education to users.
  • Provide protection and conservation to marshes and sloughs.
  • Conserve wetlands.
  • Concerned about MTBE in water.
  • Concerned about 2-stroke engines polluting Sanctuary waters.
  • Increase in levels of funding to make sure all these great ideas can be implemented.
  • Sanctuary should support City of Santa Cruz in closing wharf to fishing to protect the Brown Pelicans from being entangled in fishing hooks/lines during times when sardines are there.
  • Market Sanctuary items (hats, etc) for fundraising.
  • Sanctuary has done a great job, --great community involvement --would like to see more educational efforts &endash;Ed programming through Save Our Shores --Would like to see more clean-up efforts &endash; More community involvement. Marine Debris is a large issue &endash; education would help with this.
  • Support the Sanctuary as an area for research aimed at protection of marine biodiversity. &endash; look at connection between land and sea activities. &endash;there isn't as much protection as there should be to protect marine biodiversity.
  • Concerned about beach closures + effect of storm drain runoff.
  • Need to do more public education &endash;outreach about the program &endash; greater public/private partnerships should be included.
  • Water Quality &endash;need to be vigilant about pt and non-pt sources of pollution.
  • Sanctuary needs to have a greater relationship with community.
  • Concerned about water quality + impacts on divers/surfers.
  • Support the linkage between research and the Sanctuary
  • Research states "what is being affected by what" &endash; it answers questions-and that fits the purpose of the Sanctuary.
  • Sanctuary needs to work with other entities on land (Farmers/City local governments) to work on water quality issues.
  • Sanctuary has done a good job with water quality program + to reach out to others. MBNMS has been very receptive.
  • SIMoN program is an example of good research &endash;database to not be redundant in efforts in the region.
  • Make sure the MBNMS continues to support the Ag+Rural lands water quality plan &endash; wants to see that the other agencies fulfill their part of this plan.
  • The Ag and Rural Plans need to have more flexibility in how they are carried out by different agencies.
  • Has changed attitudes of perception of the Sanctuary to more positive.
  • The concept of the Sanctuary is elite &endash; Elitest people are making the policies.
  • The Sanctuary should support watershed groups &endash;Sanctuary won't come to meetings and won't fund watershed group projects.
  • The permit system &endash; too many regulators.
  • Need a streamlined one-stop-permitting process for restoration work (County, USACE, Dep F+G, Coastal Commission, Water Quality Board) Projects such as culvert removal.
  • Would like assistance from Sanctuary &endash;Technical assistance help instigate a permit process for restoration projects &endash;Help with navigating through the permitting process.
  • Sanctuary needs to reach out and educate the local community (outside of research community)
  • Sanctuary staff should branch out to Chamber of Commerce, civic associations and other community institutions (other than research community)
  • Public will accept activities to protect water quality if they know about the Sanctuary.
  • Sanctuary should attend quarterly Blue Circle meetings (of all watershed groups)
  • Research community reaches out to Sanctuary program. &endash;Our job is to help the Sanctuary reach out to these groups beyond water quality issues to the other issues identified as more offshore resources.
  • Jet skis are not appropriate for the Sanctuary.
  • Marine reserves are needed since the status of the fishery has declined &endash; needs to be sustainable.
  • Concerned about kelp harvesting, need to regulate and enforce it.
  • By enlarge, marine reserves do work &endash; many may be opposed at first, but eventually get community buy-in and will achieve protection.
  • Concerned about dumpsites for hazardous material + dredged material in Sanctuary waters.
  • Looking at Sanctuary boundaries (CB, GF, and MB). Overlap needs to be done during this process.
  • Names of Sanctuaries should not be changed but should look at streamlining efforts among the three.
  • Supportive of marine reserves.
  • What are we planning to do to control the harbor seals in the rivers. ? &endash; Concerned that they are eating the salmon.
  • Do not slack regulations, MBNMS is doing well.
  • Would like to see stronger outreach for visitors.
  • Would like an interpretive center on the Bay wharf would be a good site
  • Concern about seabirds being harmed by recreational fishing on wharf
  • CalTrans dumps dirt in October - This form of dumping should not occur in a Sanctuary - Should re-use the dirt as fill
  • Concern about cables.- How do we remove them - Are they sustainable? - Worried than animals may get caught in them and technology is changing rapidly…may be outdated soon.
  • How do you plan to deal with water quality issues when the entire watershed plays a role and Sanctuary only goes to mean high-tide. What kind of MOU's are you developing?
  • Concern about run off and sedimentation in local rivers
  • How can MBNMS help
  • Confused about federal and state cross over on the MPA process.
  • Do we have a policy or regulation on hard stabilization.
  • Concerned about impact of sea walls
  • Consider regulation with long term vision (erosion lasts longer than 50 years)
  • Would like to get anadramous fish back up the streams
  • Need stronger MOUs to tie all jurisdictions together. Need to have all agencies work together.
  • How do you get a plan together that crosses over boundaries
  • Protecting seals is hindering salmon. These policies are at odds…This is symbolic of many problems resulting from coordination issues.
  • Are there possibly additional sanctuaries?
  • Will the boundaries change.
  • Can Sanctuary put pressure on sewage discharge like Pacific Grove and others
  • Can Sanctuary influence storm drain filtering? NMSP should do more public service announcements (TV, radio, etc)
  • Must beef up enforcement
  • Can volunteers be brought on?
  • MBNMS looks great, we need to continue to look for sustainable management activities
  • Should balance ecosystem needs with user needs
  • Can Sanctuary expand education message across country
  • Who can Sanctuary partner with to address threats from outside the site?
  • Who will the Sanctuary work with to deal with issues coming from places as far away as Japan
  • Concerned that areas in the Sanctuary but outside of the Bay may receive less attention
  • Are we addressing tidepool impacts
  • Concerned about oil sheen in harbors
  • Concerned that harbors are not in Sanctuaries and subject to pollution
  • Concerned about scrubbing of heavy metal bottom paint ; Paint residue ends up in the water
  • Panetta promised no fishing regulations…make sure MBNMS abides by this.
  • Can Sanctuary monitor impacts of dredge disposal?
  • Worried about thermal pollution from Duke Energy.
  • Would like to see management of resources, closures in some areas, allow individuals to harvest, allow access for viewing and/or some take (manage commercial interests)
  • Concerned with Ag runoff into Bay/Sanctuary.
  • Support Water Quality Protection Program (Ag Plan). Would like to see firm time tables of Plan, if not met
  • Would like to see implementation beyond voluntary-ism. Would like to see quick adoption of practices.
  • Would like to see guidelines for confined animal area &endash; runoff (Water Quality)
  • Non-point source pollution, runoff concern. Would like to see more active role in public outreach by CCC (coordinate)
  • Pay attention to dredging at Santa Cruz Harbor
  • Would like to see Sanctuary Headquarters in Santa Cruz County not Monterey County
  • Would like to see Visitor Centers in Santa Cruz County. Perhaps coordinate with other agencies.
  • Concerned with oil, etc in harbors.
  • Encourage funding of "Dock Walk" materials (educational information, bilge sponges, etc)
  • Strongly support no take areas (re: fisheries)
  • Be weary of redundant programs (eg. MPAs) and regulations. Ok to have concerns.
  • Realize State's MPA process and reserve designation, but OK for Sanctuary to designate MPAs within boundaries.
  • Would like Sanctuary coordination with NMFS and others to regulate fisheries.
  • Concerned with non-native salmonid smolt stocking (Feather R. system) on ecosystem, needs research on effects. (up to 120,00/year) (at least) about 9 years (Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project) Should this activity be regulated?
  • Make Sanctuary bigger, not smaller.
  • Encourage no oil drilling, mining.
  • No Fiber Optic Cables.
  • Keeping looking at invasive species.
  • Encourage savvy media campaign/outreach (low budget), including schools, to inform on point source pollution. Would lead to goods funding 20+years, sustainable fisheries.
  • Perhaps 3 Sanctuaries should be 1.
  • San Francisco and Marin areas should be part of GFNMS.
  • Making one Sanctuary, could make it stronger.
  • Small staff of Cordell Bank could benefit by joining Sanctuaries into 1.
  • Outreach should be national rather than just regional (including eg. Kansas)
  • Concerned with desalination. Think bad idea. Cost is greater than benefit.
  • Concern of research/monitoring on existing/proposed desal plants.
  • Concerned with lagoons as rearing habitat (fish, migrating birds). Support protection, enhancement.
  • Keep cruise ships out (docking) because of pollution, noise, quality of experience)
  • Stop trawling &endash; disturb bottom habitat
  • Continue use of political figures for message delivery.
  • Need a MBNMS license plate
  • Encourage outreach/cooperation with schools, agencies, universities, watershed monitoring, non-point source pollution, etc.
  • Need more funding for MBNMS and National Program (funding)
  • Need signs on Coast Highway. When crossing boundary lines, cite stats: population of species, area, etc.
  • Use market/media practices to make Sanctuary awareness &endash; hire a staff person for this purpose.
  • Sell apparel/gear to advertise
  • Some positive + negative views of Sanctuary. Need to address, economic benefit not perceived economic cost (Ag community negative view)
  • Need research initiative on shelf break area. Re: whales, krill, fish, birds.
  • Appreciates Sanctuary Currents Symposium and education program
  • Concerned fish not protected by sanctuary (would rather see state regulate fisheries but worried state not doing a good job)
  • We should at least be trying marine reserves; sanctuary should work with state on reserves;
  • Concerned about sewage spills; sanctuary should work with local government
  • #1 Concern &endash; Sanctuary maintain status quo regarding not regulating fishing, NMFS PFMC regulate in fed waters, DFG in state waters. If sanctuary got involved it would be a waste of resources
  • Sanctuary could work with PFMC, use existing regulatory structures
  • Sanctuary is too small to enforce regulations. Support for increased enforcement of regulations
  • Concern about future threat of oil development;
  • Concerned about farm runoff at surfing locations (3 mile north of Santa Cruz)
  • Problem with inadequate notification of beach closures
  • Concerned about sewage issue in Pacifica area
  • Interested in exploring wave power as renewable energy source; better conditions up north which would avoid sanctuary Supports pilot plant in MBNMS for 18 month test period &endash; (New Wave Power Technologies)
  • Concern wave power structure (cable) might act as Navigational /fishing hazard, especially if buried
  • Concerns about structure of SAC &endash; should provide maximum community input to NMSP
  • Limits to SAC Charter / Protocols on appointment process &endash; Sanctuary Superintendent selects but thinks constituency should choose rep (i.e. chambers of commerce could select business representative.) The Sanctuary should only be involved in coordination, not selection of SAC members.
  • SAC Agendas and correspondence should not need NOAA concurrence
  • SAC limited from direct communication to Congress (supports allowing SAC to communicate directly with Congress)
  • Separate fishing seat on SAC &endash; Commercial and Recreation
  • SAC rules too constraining
  • Not happy with Sanctuary education program's lack of focus on fishing. They should emphasize positive aspects of fishing (Food, Jobs, Recreation.)
  • Encourage sanctuary to maintain high air quality
  • Support for preserving natural state of coast ; keep natural without any more structures, or development on coast ( philosophical concern over "Sanctuary")
  • General support for NMSP staying out of fishing regulations
  • Fishing Agencies have scientific expertise public process infrastructure in place
  • 'Promise' of Sanctuary not to put fisherman out of business, Important integrity test for sanctuary, potential loss of trust with fishing community
  • Opportunity for sanctuary to work with the fishing community; work with fishing community leaders on emerging issues of concern.
  • Marine Reserves- Goal: mutual recommendations from fishing community and sanctuary to DFG on Reserves
  • Existing DFG/NMFS rules on bycatch are waste-full. Sanctuary & Fisherman could work together on this.
  • Dredging 'window' &endash; too restrictive, should allow dredging as needed (safety issue) (This was originally a CCC 'window' &endash; beach access issue, and fish migration window )
  • Upper Harbor sedimentation cost benefit concern about hauling materials vs. pumping into surf zones
  • Continue to allow disposal of clean fine grained sand in sanctuary
  • Concern about DDT in Dredge sediments
  • Dolan Road / Elkhorn Slough &endash; Xmas court hazardous fluids pouring into slough
  • Non Point Source pollution]
  • Snowy Plover education and presence is good
  • Concerned about underwater sound &endash; opposed
  • Opposed to Navy Sonar due to marine mammal impacts / migratory problems
  • Landslide dumping &endash; haul away, not into ocean
  • Need enforcement of overflight zones
  • Pilot outreach
  • I.D on FAA charts?
  • Beach replenishment and coastal armoring
  • CalTrans herbicides become algaecides
  • Focus on Human resources, human part of the system
  • Humans key part of natural system for research
  • Concerned about use surface attractants for white sharks and drumming up need to extend these regs to GFNMS and CBNMS
  • Great white sharks rare and mostly here &endash; MBNMS should coordinate yearly ?
  • Create a volunteer corps
  • Get rid of the donut hole (offshore San Francisco)

 

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 10, 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/santacruzeve.html