JMPR Raw Scoping Comments: Back to Scoping

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 source pollution.
  • Need sanctuary support for seabird rescue/restoration; existing facilities and programs too far apart Need greater cooperation and a better response plan
  • Concern about pollution from San Francisco Airport entering Sanctuaries
  • 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 regulations.
  • Need to examine effectiveness of policies and regulations of pollution, discharge and dredge sites.
  • 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 population.
  • Need research on pollutant effects on sea otters (DDT).
  • Sanctuary projects/programs are very helpful including urban watch, first flush.
  • Increase Sanctuary funding & personnel to fully implement programs
  • 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 runoff.
  • The Sanctuary should spend more time investigating drainage into Sanctuary (pollutants, sewage). The Sanctuary should enter into a cooperative with San Francisco.
  • Concerned about increasing human population & fishery take; also concerned with increased recreational uses. The Sanctuary should be involved and interested.
  • 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 legislation.
  • Maintain permanent oil drilling ban. No slant drilling.
  • 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 agencies.
  • Boundary between GF & MBNMS is gray area&emdash;Ano Nuevo to Farallones needs resolution of boundary.
  • GFNMS has programs that MBNMS does not (seabirds counts on San Mateo coast). Need coordination and consistency.
  • 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 (including internet).
  • 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 nearshore.
  • 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 right now.
  • 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 longlines
  • There should be a buyout of the commercial live fish fishery
  • 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 fishing
  • 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 unmanageable sanctuary.
  • Concern about beach erosion and natural sand flow interrupted by jetty ;
  • Concerned about water pollution in harbors and lack of monitoring.
  • 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 resources
  • 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 docent groups
  • Develop signs and awareness for pleasure point and steamer lane.
  • 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 recharge
  • Concern over feed stock and anadromous fish in tributaries
  • 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 regulations.
  • 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 enforceable.
  • The Sanctuary should be locally controlled.
  • The Sanctuary Advisory Council should become management council and the Feds should have veto power.
  • 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 Nuevo
  • 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 declines )
  • 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 long.
  • 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 haphazard.
  • 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.
  • Sanctuary should actively support Santa Cruz Harbor dredging. Permitting is difficult bureaucratic process. Harbor needs to be dredged to maintain recreational and commercial viability.
  • 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 desalination facilities.
  • Restrictions against sport fishing should apply to commercial fishing
  • There needs to be better coordination among fishery regulating agencies
  • Establish a visitor center in Seacliff in order to educate public, promote stewardship of natural resources, and improve coordination among small communities and organizations.
  • Sanctuary needs to establish long term monitoring program and make that information (status & trend) widely available.
  • 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 they represent.
  • Sanctuaries should not be involved in enforcement of fishery regulations but should be involved in water quality enforcement.
  • 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 •

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 •