Scoping Meeting Summary
San Rafael  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.

• MBNMS should not keep divers out of the Sanctuary.  If you keep them out, it reduces those who use it and see it and therefore will want to protect it.  This should be applicable to all Sanctuaries. 
• Outreach and education is important and I would like to see it continued, specifically with local schools.
• The Sanctuary and FMSA should continue to do education and outreach, there should be funds to support these programs.
• Concerned about fisheries management by the Sanctuary.  The roles of the agencies that regulate state and federal fisheries should be clarified.
• Wants to see the Sanctuary have a fishery observation program for monitoring high-impact gear (ie bottom set long-lines, gill nets, trawlers). 
• The regulations with respect to modifying behavior of sharks (such as shark cage diving and chumming) at the Farallones need to be clarified.  The burden of proof should be on the industry to demonstrate that these types of activities will not impact or cause harm to the sharks.  These activates should be watched and/or monitored.
• Concerned about allowing divers and sportsmen into the Sanctuary with out regulating them.  Would like to see a program that monitors what tools they use, is the operator competent, and monitoring of what is taken.  Maybe this could re-enforce additional educational efforts specific to diver uses on what is good behavior.  Perhaps develop a certification program. 
• All three sanctuaries have worked well with collaborating agencies and researchers, they should continue to do this. 
• Education through the Sanctuary Associations misses some groups such as schools.  Education and outreach should be increased and money should be focused on these programs at all 3 sanctuaries.
• All of the sanctuaries that are located further offshore or that are inaccessible to the general pubic should be made more accessible using technology to bring the sanctuary to them ie underwater cameras. 
• Should increase awareness about the sanctuaries and educate the public about what a sanctuary means.  Increase the amount of funds to sanctuary associations for these purposes. 
• More funds should go to the sanctuaries for research to allow more collaboration with researcher institutions that are doing research in the sanctuary. 
• Funds should go to support graduate research in the Sanctuary to gain a better understanding of the ecology of the sanctuary.
• Concerned about noise pollution in Cordell Bank NMS.  Would like to see research and monitoring on this with regards to impacts on whales.  This should be done at all sanctuaries.
• Is reef building or other aggregate devices that are used to attract fish a good way of increasing habitat?  Would like to see the sanctuary do research on this and if it is deemed viable, they should implement it.
• Researchers that work with white sharks and take film footage of them should not be allowed to profit from the sale of the film.  A royalty should be paid or the money should go back to the Sanctuary for research. 
• Would like to see no-take MPAs within the Sanctuary boundaries.
• Keep the old oil rigs and existing structures for fish habitat, but there should be no new oil drilling in the Sanctuaries.
• Large scale commercial fishing should be monitored and should be above sustainable limits for all species, whether or not the Sanctuary or another agency does the regulation. 
• Need to look at unbiased methods of research to include a broader spectrum of species, research should be less anthropocentric and take more of an ecosystem approach.
• Money should be spent on appropriate signage to identify sanctuary boundaries, zones, and appropriate uses. 
• Are ferry use, commercial and personal watercraft regulated?  If not, they should be regulated based upon horsepower, types of engines, noise pollution and daily limits of use. 
• Would like to see MBNMS focus more on the extremities of the Sanctuary.  Maybe GFNMS should manage the Northern portion of MBNMS and additional measures be put in place to address the Southern portion. 
• Make sure wildlife in the sanctuary is protected. 
• Extend the Northern boundary of GFNMS to at least include Jenner and the Russian River, possibly at Salt Point.
• GFNMS should extend down to Ano Nuevo.
• GFNMS volunteer program is superb for both the environment and public education. 
• The Sanctuary should look as far as the Columbia River watershed for possible impacts on the sanctuary.  If we don’t look at the headwaters for species like salmon, we aren’t addressing the whole problem. 
• Need to better integrate land-uses with NMS/offshore uses. Of particular concern is non-point source pollutants.
• Concerned about increased underwater noise criteria on the increase in the ocean, exploration, reconnaissance, seismic testing, military uses, sea net.  NMS need to establish a noise criteria.
• Gillnetting:  need more education about gillnetting.
• Revise the boundaries of GF and MB.  MBNMS shouldn’t extend into SF.  Change boundary to Ano Nuevo for better consistency and coordination. 
• Boundary change should be based on resource-based reasons.
• Need more education about oil spills.
• Concerned about having scientific-based establish marine protected areas.  Concerned about who will be conducting the research.
• Need to coordinate with NMFS in the recovery plan for coho salmon.  Need to lend the NMS to the recovery of salmon.
• Policies of sub-fiber optic cables; policies need to be developed through the NMS program.
• Concerned about aquaculture and invasive species.  Need better coordination between agencies and various jurisdictions.
• Encourage the continuation of the NMS program.
• Encourage increased effective coordination between various agencies and jurisdictions.
• Management goals result in sustainable resources.
• Increase the amount of education to the coastal communities.  Look at ways to bring message to inland communities.  Marine education and education about the NMSs needs to be statewide.  NMS needs to be a conduit for state education.
• Need more signage and other effective media so people know they are in a sanctuary.  Need to better coordinate education of the public with other agencies.  Where ever there is always an agency educating the public the NMS should have something there.  Eg. Visitor centers.
• Strengthen the resources of the NMS. Don’t dilute them.
• Need to address the increased siltation of Tomales Bay.  Deal with watershed problems.  Get the money behind this.
• Increase direct output to general public and conservation groups and environmental organizations (NGOs).
• Increase funding for output to general public.
• Need to involve the community more frequently.  Eg. Increased funding for programs like Beachwatch.
• Open office (Visitor Center) in Marin, San Rafael Civic Center.
• Need to follow up discussions with coastal commission and MBNMS and shoreline armory.
• Two stroke marine engines should be banned.
• No offshore oil drilling.
• Concerned that regulations are not enforced.  There should be enforcement if not in place already.
• Gull presentation on the more sensitive species on the islands.  Take action if results prove useful.
• Concerned about commercial fishing effects on sanctuary either complete control within boundaries or not at all.  Get in or get out.
• Concerned about human impacts on marine mammals and other species with sanctuary and minimize impacts.
• Concerned about polluting vessels.  Look into all possible vessel pollution, that the sanctuary should be concerned and manage for this. 
• The sanctuary should be concerned about invasive species, try to limit.
• Concerned about navy testing within Sanctuary specifically sonar detection of submarines, educate public on this topic.
• All agencies, specifically navy, inform sanctuary when in use by other agency.  Specifically sound pollution.
• Beach watch is a great program, should continue.  Outreach to extend schools to help with volunteer programs.
• Procedures for handling oiled animals should be reviewed- specifically live: almost dead: dead animals.
• Work with other agencies to limit tankers entering the bay as well as monitor the number of tankers.  Educate public on general vessel pollution.  How this affects fish health and then human health.
• Would like sanctuary to be able to enforce ecological, system wide protection.
• Concerned about overfishing such as abalone.  Would like to ban fishing if necessary with sanctuary.
• Also concerned about bilge discharge with sanctuary and would like sanctuary to take action on both.  Protect what we have.
• Sanctuary should increase education about commercial fishing, other uses with sanctuary boundary.
• Publicize good and bad news about sanctuary.
• Small visitor/ education facility north of GG Bridge such as Marin Co.
• Concerned about run off from streets would like to educate public as well enforcement of NPSP.
• Would like gas/oil/mineral exploration to continue to be banned.
• Thinks that scooping process is very important, critical, as well as SOS reports, that we publish it as a great education tool.
• Difficult to enforce small area reserves, therefore easy for fishing to violate.  Therefore it is harder to enforce.  Therefore MPAs should be larger.
• Concerned about too many agencies.  Fewer agencies, or better coordination and definement of responsibility.
• Would like boundaries extended in both directions, to protect more of the rest ecosystem.
• Protect diversity and habitat with sanctuary.
• Concerned about agency funding to implement programs.
• Involve fishers in MPR process.  They’re environmentalists, too.  Avoid EXCESSIVE regulation on fisheries.
• As above, plus- sanctuaries promised at their inception not to become fisheries regulators.  Re: management or designation of MPAs- Sanctuaries should not get involved (Boccaccio, canary, goldeneye, cow and lingcod are examples).
• Aquaculture (shellfish) operations in Tomales bay introduce disease and alien species.  Encourage white shark research e.g. and other biosystems study.
• Magnusson Act to protect fish (EFH) habitat has not been enforced.  Prohibit trawling.  Increase no-take zones.
• Increase public education re: sanctuary issues, e.g. tourism impact.  More outreach/ effort.
• As above, plus industry pollution, gear entanglement of whales. 
• Naval testing (ocean noise).
• Naval testing ignores protective regulations, whales died in GFNMS.  LFAS whale mortality being dismissed/denied.  How can sanctuaries be empowered to protect whales from ocean noise?
• Water pollution from urban use (car oil leaks, sewage, and chlorine added to treat sewage).  Jet skies pollute from fuel.
• Emphasize and increase awareness of conservation ethics and methods in school curriculum.  Mandate this by the government.
• Conservation success in Bay area over past decades should serve as example and inspiration.  Let’s keep up the good work and involve kids in the effort.  Issues of concern: increased pollution and dams.
• Salmon gillnets, small-mesh gillnets were banned.  Essential fish habitat necessary.  Eco-tourism (educational) can be good for wild life and ecosystem awareness.  Need more outreach.
• Threat of species depletion is worldwide.  Sanctuaries should be seedbeds for replenishing depleted species.
• Rockfish very depleted, sanctuaries should be involved in increasing public awareness about  endangered species.
• Need more outreach to adults as well as kids and tourists.
• Sanctuaries should protect whole food web, not just top predators (eg whales).
• All issues raised here are interconnected.  Persist in protecting existing resources, even if some others are lost.
• Reduce resource consumption.
• Make Monterey Bay reserves- no fishing, no vessel traffic.  Build on successes and move forward from here.
• Concerned about sanctuaries closing all fishing grounds, it could have a huge impact on commercial and recreational fishing activities, on people that make their living fishing on Cordell Bank and GFNMS.
• Concerned about impacts of non-native species. For example, Spartina sp. is starting to make its way into sanctuary.  Sanctuary should take role in prevention of spread of non-natives.
• Has had trouble finding info about enforcement.  Publish more info about enforcement in sanctuaries.  If enforcement is not sufficient, sanctuary should increase its role in enforcement.  Make information and education materials easier to find. 
• Concerned about human impact on whale population in sanctuaries.  Noise may disrupt their behavior.  Be able to identify where boats may be in relationship to where whales may be such as any damage boats may cause to whales.
• Water quality- agricultural runoff, metals, etc.  Increase monitoring efforts in sanctuary waters, esp. agriculture run-off and heavy metals.
• Concerned about noise impacts above and below sea surface specifically LFAS.
• NMS be able to establish noise pollution standards (be active in supporting those standards). Work cooperatively with other groups to establish these standards.  Instill ways to enforce those standards.
• Provide budget to support enforcement effort for ocean noise pollution standards.
• Improvement of water quality in sanctuaries.  Work with other agencies to eliminate non-point source pollution run-off (pollution causes by land-use activities).
• Concerned about uncontrolled population growth of sealions on the coast and their impact on fisheries.
• Better funding and research for monitoring of sea lion populations.
• Support monitoring of all marine species of concern and make info available to public through education and outreach.
• Confined emphasis on public education programs.
• Would like to see balance between certain areas reserved for time to rebuild fish populations.  And places/times for fishing communities to be able to fish those replenished stocks while being monitored in order to maintain fishing livelihood and fish populations.
• Rotating system greater communication between fishing industry and marine sanctuary to sustain work cooperatively with agencies that manage fisheries and keep public informed as to how that cooperation is going and progressing.
• Concerned about laying of fiber-optic cables in sanctuaries, especially in relationship to habitat and whales (how it effects their health).
• Make effort to get input from small scale fishers that use the area- provide increased funding to support and restoration of watersheds that feed to sanctuaries and increased funding to support research towards watershed restoration.
• Avoid another layer of government regulation of fisheries. 
• Increased education of what current regulations are for the general public and effectiveness of these regulations.
• More support and funding for research in the sanctuary in particular management techniques.  Cooperate with other agencies that also manage coastal areas.
• Need more education, more publicity, more publications, press releases, public campaign to increase public awareness of NMS.
•  Create email bulletin to spread the word about upcoming events and issues.
• Greater outreach to tourist industry of impact of recreational activities.
• Improving biodiversity in NMS and sustaining fisheries management.  Make sure information is available to public, sanctuary managers and fishing agencies.
• Provide funding to produce videos/movies of sanctuary and issues related to it. For example, documentaries and local distribution on local issues (Local channels).

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