Getting Involved

Scoping Meeting & Dates

Summary of Scoping Meeting Comments

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

Scoping Meeting Summary
San Francisco  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.  A synthesis of comments will be available soon.

• Wants information on radioactive barrel dump and its effect on food web made public, especially the effect on feeding whales in gulf and humans.
• Sanctuaries should not get into fisheries management.
• Wants to maintain Sanctuaries as healthy wildlife habitat, suggests blinds for non-invasive wildlife viewing.
• Low level radiation bioconcentrates  in wildlife.  Fish are especially likely to bio accumulate.  Monitor and assess radioactive levels and identify consumer species.  Examine whole food web.
• Is radiation in our food supply? Current radiation assessment survey needed.  Want to see updated radiation standards used, not ten year old standards. 
• More public information needed on radiation and effect on fish, fishing industry and humans -whole food chain.  Provide reference info.
• Tighter regulations needed for approach distances to white shark research activities at Farallon Islands.
• Need more public outreach and education on public involvement in environmental conservation (Research, cultural, etc.) in sanctuaries.
• Radiation-we  need surveys and assessments and public information (in lay terms) of issues and threats.  Also need public outreach in schools, through park service and other agencies. Concerned about ATOC and other potential impacts on whales, from any source.
• Concerned about impact of fishing on target and non-target species, and impacts on marine mammals, birds, etc. 
• Bottom trawling destroys habitat and should be restricted or severely limited.
• Fisheries could suffer from public information on radiation but we need this information.
• Dirty fishing- e.g. longlines and bottom trawlers are destructive.  Federal and state agencies are biased toward commercial fishing, they should control bycatch immediately.  Ban commercial fishing in all 3 sanctuaries.  More outreach needed.
• Sanctuaries need more staffing to fulfill their missions.
• Sanctuaries should not be areas exploited for their resources. 
• More outreach is needed and public education and staff education.  Ecotourism is one approach. 
• Public input should be a transparent process.
• Radiation: analysis must be done on sponges, phytoplankton, etc. to see if mutation has occurred.
• Need to involve broader public in sanctuary related issues and programs.  Use libraries, schools, media, etc. to get the word out.
• Marine preserves should be created in sanctuaries, also ban gill and drift nets.
• Water quality monitoring and hotline are needed.  Examine watershed impacts.  Work with more NGOs and agencies to inform the public.  Educate the youth. 
• Write materials in lay language, not jargon, for benefit of public and staff of agencies.  Be frank and forthright in preparing information.
• Radiation: need historical analysis of radiation in Gulf of Farallones.  NECO= US Ecology, Ind towed waste into GF.  Hold NECO accountable for illegal radiation dumping.  Do biological and ecological survey of barrels, sediments and fish/ invertebrate/ algae.  Let fishers know of situation.  Locate and deal with USS Independence.
• Bottom trawling should cease at once in radiation-affected areas.
• Investigate LOFAS effects on marine life.
• Concerned government will not be honest with public- we are entitled to this information.
• Go to professional scientific organization education committee  for technical information.  Use this resource.
• Navy should provide funds for sanctuaries to do independent testing- see defense journal website.
• Would like sanctuary to add a policy to the National Marine Sanctuary Act that specifically addresses radioactive wastes and other pollution in sanctuaries.
• Conduct more comprehensive biological research.  Expand sanctuary lecture series and make it more accessible to the public.
• Management plan needs to address and control impacts from invasive species and threats they cause.
• Need comprehensive data to make management plan decisions and be able to check accuracy of data.
• Study impacts of parasite introduction on health of native abalone populations.
• National Marine Sanctuary Program needs to push envelope on engaging public on importance of ocean conservation and protection.
• Ban all 2-stroke engines in sanctuaries.  Regulate speed of other recreational watercraft.
• Improve inter-agency communication and coordination.
• Develop a watershed plan similar to MBNMS that addresses terrestrial sources of pollution in other two sanctuaries.  Need to look at pollution sources in all sanctuaries.
• Use public polling research to gauge public knowledge and concerns about sanctuaries.
• Develop a cooperative monitoring and research program using fishermen and others to conduct science activities.
• NOAA public speakers need to tell public two things that they can do to make a difference.  Public education should be a high priority for National Marine Sanctuary Program.
• Would like to see comprehensive approach to managing human interactions with Great White Sharks.  Need a comprehensive management plan that addresses chumming and shark attraction methods.
•  Shark chumming needs to be monitored and controlled.
• Would like more underwater exploration in three sanctuaries.
• Want comprehensive testing of extent of area and magnitude of radioactive waste.  Need to develop a comprehensive clean up plan.
• Important to increase monitoring of biological resources in sanctuaries and track changes in ecosystem over time.
• Concerned about fishing regulations and if they are being observed and enforced.
• Develop and implement regulations that are ecosystem-based to increase protections for habitat and all biological resources; particularly for Cordell Bank.
• Would like wildlife, fish, and all habitats to be left alone and no-take in sanctuaries- coordinate better with US Fish and Wildlife Service to increase protections in sanctuaries and along coastline.
• Concerned about pollution already in sanctuaries.  Would like sanctuary to monitor and test areas where radioactive waste is in ecosystem and where radioactive waste has traveled toóclean it up! 
• Expand protection measures for all three sanctuaries, including no-fishing measures for areas of high biological value and enforcement of regulations.  Stricter regulations on fishing, including recreational activities throughout the sanctuaries.
• Concerned about Navy and all other active sonar testing- would like all testing stopped in sanctuaries.
• Would like NMS to take a more holistic management approach and consider what is happening in the ocean environment outside sanctuary boundaries.
• Concerned the motorized personal watercraft are being singled out as major impact on sanctuary habitats/resources.  Technology is improving to reduce motorized personal watercraft emissions.  No discussions about outlawing all 2-stroke engines in NMS.  Allow use for rescue purposes.  Would like NMS to document damages of PWC and compare with other human interactions- need to look at the benefits of PWC.
• Concerned with nuclear waste in landfill in Hunters Point- NRDL washing into the bay and sanctuary with the 12 hour tidal cycle.
• The waste at Hunterís Point and offshore dumping near the Farallones needs to be cleaned up.
• Sanctuary boundary should only be changed after current management problems are solved- lets stay focused.
• Examine current tools (funding, staffing) and regulations to manage sanctuary resources and work towards new tools, if needed.
• Priority to clean up Farallones dump site- this should be the highest priority.
• There were no meetings held in the East Bay- there needs to be a meeting there.
• The meeting should stay as one group to allow everyone to hear other comments and benefit from them.
• Money from the Dept. of Energy and UC must be used to clean up, monitor, and evaluate the more than 40,000 barrels of radioactive waste at Farallon Islands.
• Concerned with water quality in ocean due to sewage outflow.  Water clarity is very bad.  Marin Sanitary services is dumping sewage.  Specifically Stinson and Duxbury.
• Concerned with ship traffic in sanctuary.  Would like stronger regulations and random checks for possible leaks or violations.  Concerned with oil spills.
• Concerned that the sanctuary needs to be a sanctuary for humans and marine life.  Need for high water quality.
• Enjoyed breaking into small groups, more personal and more meaningful.
• Allow use of environmentally friendly recreational products and encourage their manufacture.  And applaud manufacturers that make these products.
• More enforcement and regulation at fueling stations.
• Examine human impact by recreational use.
• MBTE additive- encourage use of fuel without MBTE additives in the sanctuary which can be regulated and enforced through a purchase receipt.
• Concerned with oil spills- preventing and cleaning up.
• Need to address the key resources of the sanctuary and need to disseminate the information, including maps.  Highlight key resources and key management issues.  Possibly issue reports.  Provide increased outreach to better explain it.  Explain what is being done and what is not.
• Education- need to address inland, urban waste.  Beach cleanups are too late.  Aqua smart:  Educate inland communities school age kids.
• Harbors- need to maintain them.  Better maintenance.
• Sanctuary Advisory committee-need more representatives from various communities and user groups.
• Would like enforcement of current regulations.
• More education and use of 4-stroke tech. for recreation.  Against a ban on recreation/personal watercraft.
• Increase opportunities for volunteers in management.
• Sources of pollution (Water and land based) should be addressed.
• White shark eco-tours at GFNMS are a threat.  Sites should be consistent (in terms of regulations) to protect vulnerable species.
• Sanctuary should address the issues of aquaculture, water quality, introduced species.  Sanctuary should have policy both individual and cumulatively to look at these issues.  Salvelids and withering syndrome is a hazard.
• Oil drilling permitsÖnone should be allowed off coast.  Just say no to oil drilling.  36 leases are of concern.
• Oil drilling is of concern.
• Should have outreach at the highschool and college level.
• Hunters Point nuclear waste facility (and naval shipyard- nrdl) has > 50 K barrels.  More monitoring by independent agency characterization of what is down there is needed.  Clean up- what can be done?  Some containers exposed.  Follow-up on studies from years past is needed.
• Abnormally large sponges should be examined to determine if they vary genetically.
• Education about why nuclear waste dumping happened and get back to its root cause- especially Hunters Point naval shipyard.
• Occupants of Hunters Point facility have a right to know about radiation and have role in discussing clean-up or lack of.  Should have jobs involved in this.  Locals should be given preference.  Work on dangers of radiation should be done by non-biased agencies or people.
• Project should involve going to San Bruno records to determine what exactly happened at naval shipyard.  Not currently available through navy- in national archives.  This should be part of project.
• Something should be done for those who have been made sick.  Those/their stories should be told.
• USS Independence should be located.
• Visitor Center could cover the nuclear story.
• Site should perhaps be superfund site.
• Water quality- Cordell Bank and Gulf of Farallones should have a Water Quality Protection Program like MBNMS.
• Donut holesÖshould be closed and made part of the sanctuary.
• Areas within harbor and nearshore areas (SC and SC harbor) should be made part of sanctuary.
• Sanctuary should be more than just paper sanctuary.
• Should be more involved in federal permitsÖdredging, storm water, 404, 401, pt. source, highways to protect water quality.
• Water quality standards should be developed.  Designate uses by water quality criteria, i.e. no discharge zones, and anti degradation protection under CWA, sensitive areas should be indentified. 
• Discharge not appropriate and FMR, Ano, Duxbury, Carmel should be protected under sanctuary law. 
• Sanctuary should be involved in storm water permits.  Should be engaged in process.  It is permitted through RWQCB.  Sanctuary could be powerful voice in the process.
• More enforcement is needed to enforce sanctuary regulations.
• Sanctuary should develop regulations or areas of no-fishing in conjunction with Magnuson Stevenson Act.  Exercise to regulate fisheries should be enacted.
• Marine reserves should be set up to protect spawning areas, benthic habitat or sensitive great white areas.
• Recognition, protection and management of biodiversity within sanctuary could be accomplished by no take areas/ zones, and marine reserves.
• Life history of great whites makes them vulnerable.  Live bearers, slow breeders- strict implicit protection is needed.
• RegulationsÖsimilar to whale watching should be in place in terms of how close, how quickly they can be approached.
• White shark hunting successors tied to disturbance by tourism boats, loss of meal, loss of energy.  Needs stronger regulations in GFNMS to remain consistent between sanctuaries. 
• Concerned about pollution, particularly point and non-point source.  Serious effort should be in place to prevent sedimentation flow to the ocean via soil conservation.  The effects of a clear cut into Watershed affect ocean and are felt downstream by salmonids, rocky reefs, benthic layer, and general quality of water and habitat for micro organisms.
•  Monterey is not an appropriate place for commercial fiber optic cables.  Habitat impacts and geology make it inappropriate.  Should be prohibited and studies on fair market value are drastically undervalued.  Have cables installed terrestrially.  Presently glut of cables.
• Use of LFA should be forbidden.
• Education should include various issues that have been raised tonight.
• Elevated levels of cancer at Hunters Point should be examined.
• Separation between land management and ocean management is artificial.  Sanctuary should work with land management agencies to integrate the two.
• Agriculture pollution from feed lots/ fertilizer/ pesticide/nutrients are problem and should be addressed by sanctuary.
• Sanctuary should be involved in coastal erosion issues to ensure no new seawalls.
• All NMS should create and adopt a response plan for oil spills.
•  Remote sensing is possible to identify bilge pumping and tarballs - the offenders should be caught.
• There is a lack of clear regulations in GFNMS regarding White Sharks and the recreational pursuit of them.
• Extend the existing regulations from MBNMS and CBNMS regarding White Sharks into GFNMS.
• Model fisheries management in the sanctuaries after the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, including reserve classification
• Support the establishment of Marine Protected Areas in sanctuaries
• Would like to see continued recreational use of ocean activities including surfing, boat use, ìtow-in surfingî, and use of personal watercraft for safety
• Do whatever needs to be done to clean-up radioactive waste dump. The future management plan needs to facilitate this clean-up.
• While re-writing the management plan focus first on the larger issues such as raw sewage, garbage/debris entering ocean, use of firearms to kill sea lions, before working on the smaller issues such as use of jet skis and the pollution they create.
• Continue to assure that no oil drilling or exploration will occur in Sanctuaries.
• Any naval/military testing (i.e. weapons, UW sonar) must be out of range from disturbing any wildlife.
• Non-wildlife research is not okay to take place in the NM Sanctuaries.
• 47,000 barrels of radioactive waste were dumped just past the Farallones, Information regarding dumping of radioactive waste needs to be disseminated to all residents @ the Farallones. (SF Weekly-May 2 2001 vol. 13 and 14; May 9 2001 vol. 20) 
• Sanctuary should be educating the public about this event, or change their name.
• Reference to this document was made as to being necessary to disseminate to the public: July 1988 USDOE, DC Env. Survey Preliminary Report Env, Safety, and Health Office of Env. Audit, Appendix G.
• Sanctuary needs to censure Laurence Livermore Lab, University of Berkeley for creating three  superfund sites and dumping that radiation in the Farallones.
• All Nobel Prizes should be returned to the mayor of San Francisco until that radioactive waste is removed.
• The sanctuary needs to create a 1000 year plan to develop a clean up plan at this site.
• The government should be pro-life for humans and wildlife. The Sanctuary should instigate and investigate a survey regarding water currents, fog and air patterns in the Bay Area extending past the radioactive dump site and a map should be produced and made public.
• The sanctuary needs to fully disclose what we know is out there (radioactive waste) and how it affects us.
• It is good that the Sanctuaries are hiring more educators, to promote general awareness of what sanctuaries are and how the public can use them.
• In the future, the sanctuaries should take a conservative approach to any future exploratory activities.
• Guidelines for wildlife viewing need to be developed.
• Limited viewing entry to boats that target White Shark feeding events.
• A permitting process needs to be instituted to limit the number of boats that can approach white shark feeding events, speed at which they approach (slower than what is now done), and a maximum viewing distance.
• Stronger regulations can be put in place in Sanctuaries to maintain fish populations, and diversity in breeding grounds, wetlands, and any areas of significance.
• Expand MBNMS education and public outreach program regarding water quality and non-point source pollution, and expand this program to all the NMS.
• Work with land based regulatory agencies to collaborate outreach effort regarding non-point source pollution.
• Regarding use of intertidal area at Pillar Point school groups should be accompanied by a trained docent to reduce impact.
• Increase awareness and education of water pollution in inland communities.
• Use of intertidal area at Pillar Point should be regulated by permit.
• Sanctuary Plan should regulate and enforce accordingly ballast water discharge and introduced species potentials to minimize or eliminate impacts.
• Should be public access to White Shark viewing on a limited basis (i.e.-lottery system) allow cage diving at these events.
• Restrict abalone farming because of bacteria and worms that contaminate water
• Eliminate all large scale commercial fishing/harvesting, and other commercial activities i.e. trawling, longline fishing, etc.
• Stronger regulations and funding for monitoring and enforcement of fishing/harvesting activities by small scale fisheries, and other activities which may negatively impact wildlife, to maintain populations above sustainable limits.
• Need to update the MBNMS jet ski regulations to include 3 seaters.  MBNMS and CBNMS should standardize their regulations with GFNMS.
• Need to increase habitat preservation and enforcement at the Sanctuary.
• Concerned about dumping in the sanctuary and the enforcement of dumping regulations along with all other water quality issues such as non-point source pollution.
• Need to work on oil spill prevention and the enforcement of older cargo ships, making sure that safety standards are up to date.
• Need to educate the general public, especially teenagers about the Sanctuary.
• Concerned about coastal development and want to know if the sanctuary can become involved in this.
• Agricultural runoff: need to make standards to effect the diversion of the water and take a stand on what kind of water comes in and out with the tides from the tide gate.  
• Make all of the regulations between MBNMS, GFNMS, and CBNMS consistent.
• Protect all three sanctuaries from boat and vessel pollution and the introduction of invasive species.  
• Sanctuaries should move towards fisheries management if possible.
• Need to make regulations on the viewing of great white sharks at the Farallones. Make the regulations similar to existing whale watching regulations, speed limits or special permits to work around the sharks.  
• Concerned about the toxic radiation barrels at the Farallones, there should be monitoring of this and possibly clean-up.  
• Need long-term monitoring of the rocky intertidal areas.
• Need more volunteers.
• Encourage and establish marine reserves.
• Enhance public education opportunities; increase the ways the public can learn about the sanctuary (including coastal visitors and boaters).  The more you can do the better.
• Concerned about beach closures and how pollutants are cleaned up from the sand, the sand should be tested and monitored.  
• The sanctuary should do research on what happens from the effects of bottom trawling.  
• Concerned about the dangers facing marine mammals, such as PCBs, noise pollution, and acid. 
• Need to increase funding for marine mammals.
• Increase funding for monitoring and Sanctuaries in general.
• A database for all monitoring projects should be accessible to all interested parties.  
• There is a need for sound scientific information to make informed decisions regarding fisheries management.  
• The power of our country lies within our youth; need to educate K-12 about sanctuaries in the classrooms.
• Extend the MBNMS shark attraction regulations to GFNMS and CBNMS.
• Bring classrooms to sanctuaries.  
• Map toxic barrels, know where and how many there are, and monitor them.  
• No new oil and gas development in or near the sanctuaries.
• Need stricter penalties on oil discharge in the sanctuary and better tracking of who is responsible.
• Need international exchange between countries regarding sanctuaries and marine protected areas, what works and what does not.
• Monitor beaches for coliform after sewage spills to protect visitors from contaminants.  
• Develop policy regarding increasing populations of elephant seals, what to do when they come up on new beaches.  
• Regarding sea otters, you need to maintain awareness about their population decline.
• Need to bring science into the development of the management plan.  
• Great use of volunteers in sanctuaries and a good job training.
• Concerned about effects on marine mammals from LFA sonar and vessels, need to monitor sound from tankers etc.
• Need to do outreach to teachers so they can educate their students.  
• The sanctuary is good at working with other groups ­ keep it up.
• Continue to allow diving in the sanctuary as long as it doesn’t interfere with the true resource, the resource should come first.  
• Need to enforcement of regulations.
• Want a complete ban on jet skis in MBNMS, CBNMS, and GFNMS.
• Would like to see a discussion of no take areas and fisheries management by the sanctuary, make fisheries sustainable.
• Concerned about the plovers at ocean beach.  There is no enforcement of activities to protect these birds (i.e. dogs running wild).  There are signs to protect the birds but no enforcement.
• We need more research on seal and fish populations and the impacts to them from pollution.
• Sanctuaries have been good stewards with their monitoring programs.  Would like to see more long term monitoring and research on the effects of fishing and not-take areas.
• Should have similar data sets between GFNMS and MBNMS and other management agencies.  
• Would like to see more research on the effects of pollution on the food chain in GFNMS.
• Have GFNMS boundary extend into the SF Bay and up to Sacramento.
• The Sanctuary should make more information available on oil spills and vessel traffic, specifically on their web-page.  It is hard to get solid information from the web-site as it exists now.
• The web-site is a great source of information and a tool, you need to further develop this.
• Point and non point sources of pollution need to be addressed by the Sanctuary.  They need to identify what the pollutants are, where they are coming from, and develop a solution.  
• The information on the Sanctuary’s web-site needs to be more organized and user friendly.
• Concerned about erosion on Ocean Beach and other beachfront areas.  What can the Sanctuary do to help with this?  Maybe put up signs to discourage destroying the dune vegetation or additional education.  
• Surfrider is interested in working at Ocean Beach with the Sanctuary.  Would like to see the Sanctuary help prevent shoreline hardening, erosion, and disruption of longshore transport of sand.  Would like to see the Sanctuary do what they can to restore the indigenous flora and fauna to naturalize the coastline as much as possible, in conjunction with other groups that are already doing this.  
• Wants no new dredge spoil disposal areas in the Sanctuary.  
• The Sanctuary should do more outreach to younger people (high school and college students) and get them involved in the Sanctuary volunteer programs.  Should get on the Marin Academy’s community service list.
• Expand outreach to people who don’t live right on the coast, but do have and impact on it “upstream.”
• Should do outreach to schools that don’t have a good science or oceanography program.
• Support the prevention of oil drilling/expansion within Sanctuaries and other types of mineral extraction.  
• Would like to see sanctuaries become 100 percent protected, no extraction of species and no fishing.  If you do this it will protect diversity of fish stocks and other marine life.  It will allow the species that mature slowly to reproduce and allow other scientific benefits.
• Would like to see the sanctuary should did up information of examples of areas where no protection of fisheries existed, the stock declined, and economies have failed ­ as and example ­ a way to demonstrate a need for MPAs.  
• Concerned about abalone poaching.  Would like to see more enforcement of this and see the market for abalone become illegal.  
• Would like to see a restoration approach taken to areas that have been damaged and sound ecological research to discover the natural ecosystem of the area ­ the baseline.  
• The sanctuary should work with the Steinhart Aquarium and have an exhibit there.  This should happen with all of the aquariums located along the coast near Sanctuaries.  
• Would like to see the Sanctuary find other groups with similar goals to work with them together and to share resources, outreach, and efforts.  
• The sanctuary should set-up research and examine the impacts of bottom-trawling. Protect areas of high diversity and high habitat relief from them.  
• The sanctuary should examine the possibility of charging user fees for ships passing through the sanctuary as well as other uses.  
• Would like to see the possibility of rerouting oil tankers through the areas that are least sensitive to oil spills, taking into consideration wind and currents to mitigating any potential effects.  
• Would like to see motorized personal watercraft banned in all three sanctuaries and maybe the rest of them.
• Make sure the sanctuaries are doing what they can to eliminate oil and pollution discharges within the sanctuary waters (more enforcement, education, regulations).  
• Would like to see the sanctuary prohibit the attraction of great white sharks.  
• Should require double hull tankers in the sanctuary.

 

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Sean Morton, Management Plan Coordinator
299 Foam Street
Monterey, CA 93940
(831) 647-4217 ï 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 ï Anne.Walton@noaa.gov