Scoping Meeting Summary
Rohnert
Park 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.
- Fishermen fear
NMSP will impose new regulations. Message is not clear about intent
of management plan review process.
- Ranchers and
other new residents are contributing to deteriorating water quality.
NMSP should educate public about how actions can impact coastal water
quality.
- Set up mechanism
for sanctuary to coordinate with local/regional planning/development
agencies to address ways to lessen impact on sanctuaries.
- Concerns about
radioactivity in GFNMS and better education.
- Concerned about
oil spills and other pollutions in sanctuaries -protect the wildlife.
- Interested in
the welfare of marine life.
- Should not allow
jetskis in sanctuaries or allow landing on beaches. Should be
banned from CBNMS/ Bodega Bay. (Ban all noisy, polluting recreational
personal motorized water craft.)
- Concerned about
watershed practices- need to better educate public on how pollutants
affect health of sanctuaries- need to know what specific pollutants
have impacts on sanctuaries. Work with those who are polluting
so they can use better practices.
- Propose the sanctuary
go farther north than Bodega Bay to incorporate biological significant
portions of entire ecosystem.
- Better education
of public and better enforcement about PWC regulations and regulations
in general.
- No large-scale
factory fishing vessels in all sanctuary waters, including at least
10 miles from Cordell Bank.
- Greater use of
MPAs including no-take zones to rebuild fisheries and protect biodiversity
based on scientific knowledge.
- Should have scientific
inventory of biological resources and associated habitats.
- Work with public
schools to educate. Encourage ocean oriented classes to
be taught. Start from bottom up.
- Work with public
TV to have programs on sanctuaries/oceans.
- Work with agencies
that regulate fisheries to better monitor/study/ and protect fish populations.
- Need more information/
exhibits at many locations frequented by the public and schools.
Create localized marine education facilities.
- Have interpretive
kiosks and signs on-site to educate public at the source of resources
(e.g. tidepools).
- Concerned about
mining-things should stay as they are.
- Prefer no kelp
harvesting in sanctuaries.
- Give Marin county
portion of MBNMS to GFNMS.
- Need to place
boundary markers in sanctuaries.
- Need some type
of informational center in Bodega Bay using renewable energy sources
(e.g. wind and solar).
- Need more enforcement
for all regulations- no one is minding the store.
- GF/CBNMS should
mirror agricultural programs of MBNMS (build on successes to reduce
agricultural run-off).
- Increase funding.
- Get all regulatory
agencies together to have better inter-agency cooperation.
- Prohibit and
fine cruise ships for all unlawful discharges (e.g. shotgun casings
from skeet shooting).
- Wants fishing
in Tomales Bay protected from watershed pollution- keep a balanced approach.
- Ranching community
is an element in watershed pollution- but is also an economic contribution
to the area.
- Increase monitoring
in gulf, especially of radioactive barrels, mercury, and other pollutants.
Whatever happened with RAD study?
- Mercury has negative
impact on fisheries.
- Intensive agricultural
development carries increasing adverse impacts.
- Need stricter
regs for big agricultural businesses than for family style farms.
Should protect Estero Americano from airborn emissions as well as fluid
discharge. (e.g. ammonia) (Petaluma mushroom farm is immediate
example).
- Can sanctuary
provide incentives to farmers, etc. to comply with sanctuary regulations
to enhance water quality? Are small farm subsidies possible?
- Wants Estero
water quality increased so water supply won’t be contaminated when flooding
occurs. Manage of the bars keeps the water levels low. Give
same consideration to farmers as we do to wildlife. Too much grazing
land is lost to flooding.
- Agribusiness
lobbyists erode environmental protections.
- Certain agricultural
industries, e.g. grape vineyards, have more serious impacts than others,
e.g. dairy farms.
- Because of new
agricultural business methods- watercourses and drainages impact ground
water and the sanctuaries water.
- Gravel
mining undermined roadway and Russian River.
- Other agencies
standards are not as strict as sanctuary standards.
- Need better interagency
cooperation to raise protection levels.
- Sonoma county
approving agencies must consider history of violation and past impacts
in planning decisions. Can GF/CB sanctuaries override county approvals
as the ultimate impacted area?
- Sanctuary must
require notices of all potential impacting projects proposed.
- Increase levels
of staffing and funding so agencies can carry out their work.
- Make interagency
cooperation more efficient and increase monitoring efforts.
- Distribute sampling
results and survey data among all potential involved agencies.
- Increase outreach
efforts on sanctuary regulations.
- We did a good
job advertising scooping meetings!
- This was a good
forum for learning some of the issues.
- More education
needed in high schools- especially volunteer monitoring programs.
Use students as a resource.
- Against offshore
oil drilling in sanctuary.
- Glad sanctuaries
were established to prevent offshore oil drilling.
- Would like to
see boundaries of NMS in California extended northward, particularly
to include San Andreas fault line and Cascadian subduction zone.
- Opposes any contraction
of boundaries.
- Opposes offshore
oil drilling and any other polluting activities.
- Favor all measures
to protect marine life.
- Concerned about
protecting integrity of both Estero Americano and San Antonio because
protection beyond literal boundary of sanctuary does not exist. (focus
more upstream in Esteros) (Non-point source pollution)
- Worried about
pollution (noise, air, water) interrupting the tranquility of enjoying
the coast.
- Opposed to offshore
oil drilling.
- Concerned about
upstream pollution (run-off and sewage) flowing into sanctuary.
- Would like to
ensure that sanctuary concept does not disappear in this administration.
- Education of
public absolutely necessary for protection of resources.
- People have to
know what we’re saving for them.
- No offshore oil
drilling.
- No non-point
pollution.
- No light, noise
pollution (esp. jetskis)
- Sanctuary should
be aware of and involved in land-based efforts like establishment of
CCT (California Coastal Trail).
- Oppose Sea Walls.
- Concerned about
any commercial endeavors both in NMS and outside (mining, logging, fishing).
And other technologies yet to be developed which may adversely affect
the sanctuary resources.
- Our fisheries
are in crisis. Worried about effects of logging, agriculture,
dams, etc. on fisheries. Would like to see our fisheries restored,
especially the impacts to streams and anadramous fishes).
- Concerned about
adverse effects of non-point source pollution, especially from transportation-related
run-off. 80% of non-point source pollution is from roads (tires
and pipes of autos).
- Concerned about
pollution from military experiments. It dangers marine wildlife.
- Worried about
oil transportation over Cordell Bank. Potential spills threaten
the resources. Look into alternatives to minimize potential impact
to Cordell Bank resources.
- Worried about
pollutants entering food chain and causing healthy problems in both
humans as well as marine life, possibly leading to extinction in the
future.
- Should be responsibility
of sanctuary program to work at an international level to spread the
use of sanctuaries to educate people about marine resource protection.
- California Coastal
Trail is a perfect educational tool for NMS.
- Worried about
lack of state/federal cooperation. There should be a healthy working
relationship.
- Need to locate
mean high tide line- identify actual sanctuary boundaries.
- Would like to
educate federal government on National Marine Sanctuary Program to reduce
our dependency on oil.
- Would like to
see more materials available to public in public libraries, Natural
history museums, etc for public education. Start at elementary
school and work up.
- Would like to
see research promoted, such as programs at Bodega Marine Laboratory,
which are available free to the public.
- GFNMS should
be concerned with water-borne pollutants (non-pt. source pollutants)
coming from the watersheds into SF bay and then into the GFNMS, along
with their concerns for watershed issues into Bodega Bay and Esteros.
- Maintain traditional
fisheries to be sustainable. Commercial fishing needs to be preserved
and sustainable. Do not ban fishing.
- Do not view the
three NMS as separate with separate goals and staffing. Combine
all 3 NMS with one supervisor. View as a combined region but keep
as 3 separate sanctuaries. Consolidate management at the top.
- Increase staffing
to clean the beaches.
- Sanctuaries are
not large enough. Need sanctuaries along all of Sonoma and Mendocino
Coast to Stewarts Pt. at least, because it’s all interconnected.
- No oil drilling
or exploration for oil off coast of California anywhere.
- Look at effect
of global warming on the marine ecosystem.
- Look at effect
of air pollution from China on the California marine ecosystem.
- Prevent shipping
channels from going through the sanctuaries. Minimize potential
impacts to NMS and adjust shipping lanes to reduce impacts as much as
possible.
- NMS should be
more active in working with Dept of Justice with water quality violation,
watershed and offshore areas.
- Seek funding
to fill-in gaps of water quality monitoring in areas where RWQCB are
not effective.
- Sanctuaries should
be involved with minimizing shoreline development and work more cooperatively
more frequently with coastal commission as well as other agencies with
shoreline jurisdictions.
- Reexamine the
boundaries to be a more realistic representation to oceanographic conditions.
- Extend sanctuary
north so CalTrans will be stopped from dumping asphalt black-top into
the ocean (especially at Salmon Creek and Marshall Gulch Beach/ Area
Rock Beach).
- Support the research
and include volunteers in monitoring the ecosystem.
- Expand sanctuary
education into the public schools (and private schools).
- Examine the shark
attractant by eco-tourism and determine if having impacts on the sharks
or pinnipeds.
- No oil drilling.
- Must stage adequate
oil spill response supplies in Bodega Bay, not just San Francisco Bay.
- Need more education
on camping at the beach to develop an increased sense of dangers and
beauty of the ocean tides, and respect of the ocean. Work with
state, county, and NPS to do this.
- Do not increase
recreational facilities along the coast, it will increase the population
along the coast. This is bad.
- Consider changing
the boundary to inland areas and watershed areas.
- Concerned with
health and protection of the intertidal. Also work with private
and public agencies.
- Increase boundaries
and strengthen resource protection regulations within sanctuaries.
- Need more education
and outreach with more structure. Address K-12 as well as even
geographic distribution of that outreach, make it available to more
people.
- Education is
missing in general, concerning sanctuary program and its resources.
- Concerned
about protection and preservation of sanctuaries as well as sanctuary
bio-diversity.
- Would like permanent
ban of drilling in sanctuary waters.
- Would like sanctuary
curriculum K-12 linked to local schools and their curriculum.
- Concerned that
pharmaceutical companies would like to explore vegetation.
Ban bio-processing in the sanctuary.
- Also concerned
about leaking nuclear drums off islands.
- Concerned about
aerial disturbance i.e. noise pollution of flight path private and government
in Bolinas and Point Reyes area.
- Concerned about
kayaks disturbing seals, birds, etc. As well as an inordinate
number of surfers in Bolinas area.
- Concerned about
recreational impacts of too many recreators.
- Would like to
see a map of terrestrial watersheds that flow into sanctuary, how the
land influences sanctuary. Education which connects action on
land that effects sanctuary waters. Work with community groups
on this topic. Simple presentation.
- Concerned that
more effort needs to be made to educate coastal residents on their connection
with sanctuary and the consequences of their actions. Specifically
school children.
- Same as above
but include anyone in the sanctuary’s watershed.
- Does not understand
why Monterey Bay comes all the way up to Marin Headlands. More
logical for GFNMS to cover the area that is logical to non-educated
observers.
- Spread sanctuaries
north to Russian River to Oregon if possible. Revisit the donut.
Fill in holes.
- Education needs
to be understandable and accessible. Local understandable education.
- People need to
be educated about farmed versus native fish and their choice/ consequence.
- Concerned about
funding limitations.
- Support advocacy
in community. Train the teacher as well as watershed group and
non-NGO consitiuents.
- Worried about
voices being heard. Thinks NMS under commerce is a dangerous affiliation.
- Educate about
importance of genetic diversity as far as wild caught versus hatchery.
- Tap small fishermen
who are a resource and a wealth of knowledge.
- Do not over regulate
small fishermen.
- Push for no ocean
dumping, in all waters both in and out of sanctuary.
- Education of
dumping and consequences.
- Small fishermen
are an asset too. Keep connection for community.
- Managing ocean
should consist of restricting negative influences.
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 |