Scoping Meeting Summary
Pacifica  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.

• Want to make sure education reaches the public.
• Coastal habitat restoration is extremely important.  Would like to see sanctuary increase effort and programs if it is under jurisdiction of sanctuaries.
• Would like to see boundary between GFNMS and MBNMS moved to Point Ano Neuvo to resolve management disputes.  Ano Neuvo makes biological and political sense.
• Problems exist between shark researchers and recreationalists- conflict should be resolved by stricter regulations.
• Extend MB regulations regarding shark management north to GFNMS.
• Beach erosion: would like to see sand moved back to beach to cover the cobblestones (especially on Lindamar State Beach).
• Concerned about very polluted creeks running off into sanctuary and harming marine life and humans.  Would like to see Pacifica included in NMS.
• Would like NMS to work with other regulatory agencies to reduce stream pollution.
• Would like to see more outreach to bring general public (people not already interested in environmental/ marine issues) into scoping process.  Possibly public surveys or focus groups (randomly selected members of public).
• Would like to see city of Pacifica included in boundaries of sanctuaries.  New sewage treatment plant has addressed reasons it was not included originally (water quality problems).  Fill in donut.
• Public views coastlines for consumptive and recreational use and not for natural appreciation.  Educate understanding of natural values.
• Important for sanctuary to consider biological data when considering the establishment of MPAs-be scientifically based.
• Concerned about MBNMS program with agriculture and water quality (Agriculture and Rural lands-WQPP).  Water quality testing secretive and no independent entity involved.  Voluntary water quality testing not effective enough.  More attention and participation by other agencies (Regional water quality boards, CA F & G, F&W, NMFS).  San Mateo co. specifically.
• Suggests additional parameters such as limited entry and specific approach behavior (speed and proximity of approach) when watching sharks- similar to marine mammal regulations.
• Would like to see boundary between GFNMS and MBNMS at Pigeon point.  At that point line of sight divides the sanctuaries- can see MB from southern side.  Include Pacifica, too (fill in hole).
• Include Pacifica in NMS.   Open a can of worms.
• After storms- beaches are covered with plastic pieces which harm marine life.  Where does this trash come from and what can the sanctuaries do about it?  Can sanctuaries prohibit debris both in and out of sanctuary?
• Define what role NMS can play and do play in the oil spill rehabilitation and prevention.  Sanctuary could perhaps focus at ecosystem level.  i.e. Longer range impact and overall effect.
• Support total ban on all PWC in NMS system (nationwide).  Except for public agency life rescue.
• Increase funding for enforcement.
• Largest estuary in Bay area not included in NMS.  Would like to see sanctuary participate in overseeing Bay.
• MBNMS, CBNMS, GFNMS boundaries should be changed.  Currently they share some regulations and differ on other regulations.  Should be one large sanctuary under one management.
• Most important- no take large reserves to all sanctuaries-no fishing, no collecting-research allowed for further study.
• Size sanctuaries as is or larger- not smaller for all 3 sanctuaries.
• Include no take marine reserves- protect biodiversity, conduct research, establish reserves from interest stakeholders (fishermen, scientist).
• Objects  to  format of the scoping hearings.  We need to hear broad spectrum of opinions, a form of education.
• Increased protection, including animals, enforcement of established laws, and protection for land and habitat, merge boundaries.
• Opposed to personal watercraft usage.  They cause air/water/noise/kinetic  energy pollution and conflict with other recreational opportunists. Emergency use okay. Concerned with misuse of PW: tow-in surfing threatens shallow water habitat and impacts of PWC on all boaters outside established safe zones.  Enforcement of regulations is necessary and loopholes need to be addressed or eliminated.
• Boundary expansion to oil development area created  a permanent oil/gas exploration ban.  Want strict penalties for at sea discharge and enforcement system of tracking spill sources.
• Worried about environmental impact of ocean dumping and dredging within the sanctuaries.  Address cleaning up existing areas and prevent further incidents.
• Davidson seamount in sanctuary should be established as a marine reserve.
• Local fisheries should be higher priority for commercial fishing rather than larger fisheries. 
• Mammal protection should be regulated and enforced- larger penalties implemented. 
• PWC grandfathered in for rescues only due to safety issues concerns. 
• Fisheries management- avoid redundancies in current jurisdiction. 
• Allow PWC use for rescues, access to emergency situations.  Continue more education on the impacts and what could been done. 
• Sanctuaries do not regulate fishing management.
• More education and outreach about current policies to community- more kiosks on ocean entry areas.
• Personal Watercraft should be banned in sanctuary.  GFNMS language should be used in MBNMS ban.
• Run off problems at beaches through storm drains. Worried about acid accumulating in food chain from pesticides.  Increased testing/monitoring/awareness/education.  How it affects the oceans and planet overall.
• Water quality monitoring/evaluation/ education has beenbeneficial. 
• Personal watercraft use conflicts with recreational users- surfers abase usage of PWC.
• Allow personal watercraft use to tow into water up and down coast- not just mavericks.
• Close up donut hole and include Pacifica area.
• Marine mammal population abundant. Protect balance in populations.  Food web overall a concern.
• Concerned that coast of Pacifica is not part of a sanctuary-wants it to become part.
• Wants marine reserves incorporated into sanctuary to promote biodiversity protection.
• Wants waters off SF to be part of a sanctuary.
• Wants boundary of GFNMS extended to Ano Neuvo because of geographic, political, and other reasons, including proximity to San Francisco population.
• Radiation dumpsite in Gulf should be monitored.  Inadequate job of doing so to date.  Surveys of location needed and means put in place to prevent disturbing barrels.
• Need plan to address use of white shark attractant by tour operators.  Need regulations to protect white sharks while allowing non-invasive viewing.
• All three sanctuaries should encourage public use of sanctuaries.  Put this public right into the management plans.
• Wants all three sanctuaries regulations to prevent and eradicate invasive species.
• Fisheries: sanctuaries should protect fish habitat.  Enhance sanctuary with artificial habitat or replace what has been taken out.  Bottom trawling too destructive to habitat.
• Ocean noise should be minimized through controlling number of boats, e.g. during whale watching (all three sanctuaries).
• Wants more education in schools (K-12) and to general public about sanctuaries, various concerns and issues.  Outreach elsewhere is needed.
• Desalination in MBNMS- what is the policy related to it regarding sanctuary regulations?
• Sanctuaries need to increase water quality (in all 3 sanctuaries), if litigation is needed, so be it. Include point, non-point and agricultural runoff.
• Whale watching regulation and/or better enforcement are needed within sanctuaries.
• Ensure that petroleum exploration and development, including slant-drilling, continue to be banned in (all 3) sanctuaries.  Close loophole on slant-drilling.
• Strict regulation on disposal of garbage by cruise ships must be enforced.
• How do all agencies interface (countries, state, feds, etc.)? If there are conflicts between them, how are they managed?  Need public info!
• Do all three sanctuaries have S.A.C.?  They should.
• MPA’s:  Want sanctuaries to develop MPAs in Federal waters to complement state MPAs.  Involve both nearshore and offshore areas.  Should be public process.
• SAC membership process should ensure that members truly represent the various chairs and interests of that chair. 
• Wants boundary of a sanctuary to include Davidson Seamount and be fully protected MPA.
• Drag boats have destroyed fishing in some areas.  Drag boats should be banned or restricted to protect hook and line and other fisheries.
• Need more signage along coastal and populated areas to increase public awareness of impacts on wildlife.
• Close donut hole. Wants assistance to include Pacifica in the sanctuary.  Watershed issues are concern. 
• Concerned about adverse economic impacts of sanctuary regulations.
•  Sanctuary should be aware of Pacifica’s new water quality system.
• Erosion at San Francisco sewage treatment plant is an issue.  Will water standards continue to be maintained?  Involve sanctuary in advisory capacity, if not exactly its jurisdiction.
• Wants all three sanctuaries to develop more cooperative research programs include fishermen, divers, and others with local knowledge and expertise.
• Feds must be more responsive to citizens needs. Sanctuaries should not further complicate fisheries issues.
• More garbage and recycle containers needed at coastal sites.
• Wants better enforcement and warden funding all three sanctuaries.
• Utilize local residents in issues concerning sanctuaries.
• Limit involvement of sanctuaries in fishery management.
• Ban bottom trawlers (or 10-year moratorium to assess recovery potential).
• Concerned about GFNMS regulations interaction of divers and white sharks- disruption of their habitat and activity- destructive activities in interactions with white sharks.
• Would like the sanctuaries to stay out of fisheries management- maintain status quo.
• Concerned about water quality and pollution in San Mateo Co.- incorporating the un-incorporated portions of San Francisco and San Mateo within the sanctuary’s boundaries would help solve this problem, Fill in the MBNMS donut hole.
• Protection of habitat and natural resources should be increased- particularly in intertidal areas- would like the sanctuary to balance users needs with habitat protection.
• Strong consideration should be given to the creation of marine reserves- look but do not touch areas.
• How organizations are working together doesn’t seem very efficient- is community and information sharing working?  Too many agencies- coordinate the work of the overlapping jurisdiction to avoid duplication of efforts (DFG, DOI, NOAA, F &W, PFMC).
• The sanctuaries should develop a sustainable fisheries criteria, involving no-take MPAs- scientifically based and publicly supported.
• Enforcement and compliance- if new regulations are developed, would like to see a set plan for implementing enforcement of those new and current regulations.  Would like to see the establishment of a water quality plan for GFNMS and CBNMS with standards and monitoring.
• Concerned with oil in the Bay, don’t want cruiseships dumping oily bilge in the bay- concerned about impacts on otters. Would like to see strong laws and strong penalties against the discharge of oily bilge water.  Stop all cruise ships from coming into MB.
• Would like to see specific look and no take areas so animals can reproduce and repopulate in the sanctuary- these reserves seem to be more plentiful than unprotected areas.
• Concerned that there is no specific regulation against white shark interference- should adopt regulations for white sharks in MBNMS and CBNMS at GFNMS- a consistent regulation at all 3 sanctuaries.
• Close up the MBNMS donut hole and make it a part of the sanctuary.
• Education about the sanctuary needs to be increased, especially to children.
• Would like the Davidson Seamount become part of the sanctuary, in an island form. 
• Would like to see increased education and outreach.
• The sanctuary should work together with the state on the MPLA process.
• In Australia the Federal government delegated power to the state to manage- with a cooperative agreement.  This should be done here in CA.  The Federal government also funded the state to implement.
• Why is San Mateo County not required to comply with the run-off requirements?  The  sanctuary should be concerned with this because the contaminated water runs into the sanctuary.
• Would like to see benchmark and time goals for all new programs in Management Plan review to measure performance.  Look to NW Straits initiative as an example of this.
• Would like to see educational kiosks in the field, not just visitors centers or the schools- in high traffic areas.
• Would like the sanctuary only allow fishing gear that does not prevent productivity capability e.g. gillnets and dragging.
• Would like to see stringent regulations in boat harbors with respect to what’s being dumped from the boats- would like to see proper enforcement.
• Would like to see drag fishing within the sanctuary eliminated.
• There should be a limited entry permit for those that want to work with great white sharks- maybe a 300 m distance limit as an example.
• Would like to see the National Marine Sanctuary Program consider new potential areas for designation and protection along the CA coast and on a national level.
• Ban motorized personal watercraft in all of the sanctuaries.
• Would like to see an absolute no-take area from Big-Sur to Monterey, to 1/2 mile offshore- including kelp harvesting.
• Would like to see absolute no-take from breakwater to Lovers point.  1/2 mile out.
• No bottom trawling in the sanctuary.
• No new dredging or disposal sites in the sanctuary.
• Do not ban PWC in sanctuaries for lifesaving purposes.
• Keep current regulations in place in MBNMS for personal watercraft.
• Do not ban personal watercraft in sanctuaries for safety regulations should be fine.
• Regulations in GFNMS regarding white shark viewing activities need to be changed to match MBNMS and CBNMS. 
• Instead of allowing personal watercraft all over, sanctuaries look at areas that can use them safely and also look at areas that we don’t want them for wildlife reasons.  (Reconsider zones for PWC use)
• For new management plan in MBNMS, keep current regulations regarding PWC.
• Make sure fish populations are at sustainable levels.
• More education for PWC operators and appropriate use. (for example licensing procedure that educates the operator) (PWC operating permit in HI that’s already in place is good example.)  Educate about existing rules in all sanctuaries, as well as other rules imposed by other agencies (ex.  Marine Mammal Protection Act).
• Some type of human population control needed at intertidal areas.  Ex. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve all the way to Pillar Point is overused.
• Licensing and permitting procedure for PWC tour operators is a good thing.
• Would like to see Pacifica added to NMS Program.
• White Shark recreational activities (commercial operators) should not replicate scientific research techniques to attract white sharks or interfere with their natural behaviors.
• Keep ban on chumming white sharks in sanctuaries.
• Make sure bottom trawling that is allowed is not having a detrimental effect on bottom habitats.
• Do a study on the safety record of PWC at Mavericks.  Share with local agencies to find benefits for use.  Also do study on environmental impact of PWC and share that info as well.  Work has already been done on PWC research reports to get answers and conclusions.
• Continue, expand current education programs in NMS as well as research projects in all three sanctuaries.
• Close the donut hole in boundaries.
• Continue ban of offshore oil drilling.
• More severe penalties for ships that do oil spill in the sanctuary.
• Expand boundaries of sanctuaries to cover potential oil drilling spots.
• Sanctuary should take pro-active role to look at the sewage plants that accidentally spill raw sewage into the ocean.
• Work with coastal CA Commission to address coastal population growth and impact could have on coastal resources.
• Sanctuary should work with fishing community in particular areas.
• Education- more classroom and public education in San Pedro Bay as well as other spots in Pacifica.
• Work with other city agencies to address pollution problem
• More involvement of H.S. students in NMS programs.
• Salmon and steelhead are environmental indicators.
• Creeks like Scotts and Wadell should be protected especially since fish are still running.
• Regulate future and current houses upstream to protect the creek waters (re: septic systems and from runoff and street runoff and damming).
• Sharks are important part of ecosystem, protect them in sanctuaries.
• Proposed visitors centers should be built.
• Regulate kelp harvesting.
• SEALS programs should continue in GFNMS.
• Regulations for kayakers in sanctuaries 
• Would like to see sanctuary sponsor water quality monitoring with kids/ schools around donut hole area at mouth of SF Bay and throughout all sanctuaries.
• More educational outreach and media to make sanctuary more accessible at different school levels and why sanctuary are here, photos, videos, including monitoring info, species within  sanctuary.
• Emphasis of water quality monitoring on bacterial levels, along with current monitoring by local government to pin point areas and coordinate with counties and to solve problem areas, especially along Ocean coast.
• More and larger marine protected areas, reserves, and no-take areas.
• More postings of water quality levels at coast.  Establish clearing house/ liaison to bring data together of what is getting dumped into sanctuary.
• Would like to see Pacifica area (Daly City, SF) included in the Sanctuary (MBNMS or GFNMS).
• Would like to see Donut hole in sanctuary.
• Pacifica Beach- high levels of pollution- unhappy- would like cleaned-up.
•  Concerned with what sanctuaries are doing about vessel traffic/ ballast water/ introduced species.  Would like issue addressed in plan.
• Fitzgerald Reserve- concerned of posted signs of Cancer causing materials in sanctuary.  If reserve- should be protected and public knowledge of what (chemicals) is causing cancer.
• All sanctuaries should have management plan for all extractive uses (e.g. fisheries causing habitat damage).  Whole ecosystem protection.
• Reserves should have more coordination among agencies: Economic, management, policy, enforcement. Use different talents among agencies to meet this.
• Water quality efforts are currently focused on the Bay (S.F) not ocean, which needs attention.
• L.T. study on Seawalls effects on erosion, currents, sand formation, and disposition of sand.  Emergency measures not looking at L.T. effects.
• Water  quality- do more research/studies, find out where bad water coming from including pollution and bacteria.
• What research being done on commercial fishing effects (e.g. trawling) long-lining.
• Water quality in Pacifica: Since early December signs posted to not enter water- serious concern for wildlife, humans also, which does filter into sanctuary resources.
• Water quality- research needed to identify how much pollution coming from SF Bay (especially industries).
• All three sanctuaries need to support ban of oil drilling and gas.
• Stronger penalties for at sea discharge in/near/at sanctuary boundaries.
• Sanctuaries should take responsibilities of fisheries bycatch, make #’s/species public knowledge (e.g. 1 Salmon=4 other).
• Make known what research being done within sanctuary, where grants come from.  E.g. a list of researchers and their projects on a website.
• What benefits are sanctuaries providing, geographic representation.
• Sanctuaries should be strong voice for alternative of development along coast. (Cautious/conservative in regards to development).
• Concerned of impact of munitions/contaminated dump/radioactive waste at Farallones, research needed.
• Education: 1) get public support of sanctuary by education public, info kiosks at key beaches (e.g. Lindemar) 2)More programs with public like these scoping meetings, to get info out.  Lectures/ talks on research.
• Manage all resources within sanctuaries, including fish, MPAs (include reserves and no-take areas within sanctuaries).
• Education/outreach- what it can and does for sanctuary.  Include usage (fishing vessels, whale watching boats) reasons, itinerary-type (list message) kiosks, local papers, newsletter, newspaper seasonal items included.
• Jetskis (PWC) should be banned in MBNMS and CBNMS, follow the lead of GFNMS.
• Jetskis (PWCs) at Mavericks (or other safety) should not be banned.
• GFNMS boundaries reflect the Gulf of Farallones.  Therefore southern GF boundary should be at Pillar point.

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