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 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
- 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
- Concern about desalination &endash; how will it
impact the resources
- Water quality plan needs to address ongoing water
- - More Interaction/ coordination with
- -Integrate upland water quality issues into
- -Help local municipalities/jurisdictions solve
water quality problems
- Coastal Watershed Council applauds water quality
- -More emphasis on water quality and education
- -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
- Sanctuary should identify regional contacts for
- MBNMS is better managed than GF/CB (SAC established).
Should be similar management for all three
- Sanctuary needs to work on linking people "living" in
the Sanctuary. More comprehensive/interactive
- 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 should be involved in the sate marine
- Help educate the public about issues related to
- 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
- Jet Skis: Eliminate 2-stroke motors (pollution
concerns). Standardize thrill craft regulations to apply
- Apply a noise standard for the Sanctuary (Jet Ski
- 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
- 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
- Concerned about drainage of pollutants into
- Sanctuary should educate about rules and enforcement
- More education-if public is more aware of issues,
less problems may exist.
- The Sanctuary is contributing to pollution by
- Enforcement not the solution to pollution
- Duke Energy facility should be monitored for
- Tourism-needs to be more signage-how to handle
creatures, etc. multi-language.
- Educate students in classroom via speakers in
- 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
- 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
- Fishing gear should be examined for
problems-non-degradable, entanglement. Sanctuary should
look for ways to partner with existing agencies to
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Concerns about tidepool trampling. Sanctuary
awareness should be increased, possibly education through
- Maintain the prohibition on oil and gas exploration
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Consider seasonal zones for jet skis. And limited
- Never have oil pollution in MBNMS from either oil
drilling and/or oil tankers.
- Multitude of small spills from smaller boats, etc. is
- Need more enforcement-"eyes" for the Sanctuary.
- Concerned about pollutants along Cannery Row.
- Increase trained staff and volunteers to
- 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
- 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
- Coordinate enforcement efforts-especially in offshore
- Need a public awareness campaign regarding balloons
on the bay-releasing them into the air.
- Regulations are good-important to give people
- Look to other regions with fisheries collapsing and
- Public Education-lots of people with different
skills-need to reach out to them and get them involved.
- Need target education to user groups, esp.
- Provide coordination of other groups-Sanctuary to be
- Sanctuary to be leader of all regional
- Direct education to users.
- Provide protection and conservation to marshes and
- Conserve wetlands.
- Concerned about MTBE in water.
- Concerned about 2-stroke engines polluting Sanctuary
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Concerned about water quality + impacts on
- Support the linkage between research and the
- 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
- Sanctuary has done a good job with water quality
program + to reach out to others. MBNMS has been very
- SIMoN program is an example of good research
&endash;database to not be redundant in efforts in the
- 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
- 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
- Concerned about kelp harvesting, need to regulate and
- 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
- 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
- Concern about cables.- How do we remove them - Are
they sustainable? - Worried than animals may get caught
in them and technology is changing rapidly
- 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
- Concern about run off and sedimentation in local
- How can MBNMS help
- Confused about federal and state cross over on the
- Do we have a policy or regulation on hard
- 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
- 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
- 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,
- 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
- 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
sure MBNMS abides by this.
- Can Sanctuary monitor impacts of dredge
- Worried about thermal pollution from Duke
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Perhaps 3 Sanctuaries should be 1.
- San Francisco and Marin areas should be part of
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- SAC limited from direct communication to Congress
(supports allowing SAC to communicate directly with
- Separate fishing seat on SAC &endash; Commercial and
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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 to Navy Sonar due to marine mammal impacts /
- Landslide dumping &endash; haul away, not into
- 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
- 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
- Great white sharks rare and mostly here &endash;
MBNMS should coordinate yearly ?
- Create a volunteer corps
- Get rid of the donut hole (offshore San
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