Joint Management Plan Review


Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR)

Getting Involved

Scoping Meeting & Dates

Summary of Scoping Meeting Comments

Priority Issues New!

Sanctuary Advisory Council Meetings
& Workshops

JMPR Process & Schedule



Current Sanctuary Management Plans & Regulations

State of the Sanctuary Reports

CA Biogeographic Assessment

Press Releases & Notices

Your Comments

Links to Sanctuary Websites

 Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones & Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuaries


Scoping Meeting Summary
Half Moon Bay 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. Duplicate comments were not repeted. A synthesis of comments will be available soon.

  • There should not be a general ban on motorized personal watercraft (MPW) in Monterey Bay, Cordell Bank, or Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries; however offensive activities relating to MPW operation should be identified and banned where appropriate, and banned activities should be sufficiently enforced.
  • MPWs are a valuable tool for certain activities such as search and rescue, enforcement, and research, and their use for these activities in the sanctuaries should not be restricted.
  • Sedimentation occurs naturally during storm events at Pillar Point Harbor. Sanctuary should allow harbor to dredge, and dispose of dredge spoils on the other side of the breakwater, where the beach area is eroding.
  • Sanctuaries should adopt buffer zones for all harbors. MBNMS is currently restricting natural human activities in harbors. Buffer zones should be 2 miles (rough estimate).
  • MBNMS was formed with the express promise of not being another layer of fisheries management.
  • Sanctuaries should not be involved in fisheries management.
  • The Southern boundary of GFNMS should be extended to include Pillar Point harbor, because it makes sense geographically.
  • Mankind should be considered in the decision-making. Consider our natural affect on ocean, we are part of the environment.
  • Sanctuaries should consider economic impacts on local communities as part of the Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR). Should provide mitigation for impacts on users/communities.
  • The Southern boundary of GFNMS should be moved to Año Nuevo, for political, geographical, and ecological reasons. Also because GFNMS already has a presence there in the form of education programs, oil incidents response, and about 30 volunteers in San Mateo County.
  • Sanctuaries should increase resources for developing programs in schools, to educate about ecosystems, and interconnectedness between human and biological communities.
  • Concerned because use of MPWs in the surf zone of Half Moon Bay is not safe. Enforcement of this activity must be improved.
  • Concerned about over harvesting of fish. There is a need for sustainable fisheries management. This issue must be addressed now before it becomes a bigger problem.
  • Oil and gas development should be permanently banned within GFNMS, MBNMS and CBNMS.
  • Concerned about the impacts of bottom trawling on benthic habitats. More research about this activity must occur.
  • Fiber Optic cables running north and south should be located on land not in ocean.
  • Sanctuaries should be more active in the prevention of the proliferation of non-native invasive species.
  • Sanctuaries should develop better educational programs in schools to equip children with the knowledge to address issues.
  • More funding should be made available for education in schools (elementary school to college).
  • The southern boundary of GFNMS should be extended to Pigeon Point, because it is an easily identifiable point for fisheries and research.
  • Vessel traffic lanes are examples of too many agencies involved, yet not coordinating with others (fishers). By expanding traffic lane, increased possibility of accidents. Too much politics, not practical enough.
  • The regulations for all National Marine Sanctuaries should be the same. They should all be standardized. (e.g. "discharge from outside that enters NMS + injures resource")
  • Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) members should be appointed by the constituency they represent.
  • MBNMS SAC should include more than one fishing representative, due to the variety of fishing methods utilized in the Sanctuary.
  • NMS should not get into telling people what they can and can't do (e.g. MPWs) (MPW industry should be given credit for improvements.)
  • Marine reserves in temperate environments are not effective. The sanctuaries should focus their efforts on partnering with other users to educate about impacts, and not on managing fisheries.
  • Concerned because socioeconomic studies don't reflect sociological impacts on communities.
  • Sanctuaries should not restrict access for fishing and diving.
  • Research should be made for a larger geographic area, beyond where a particular activity is taking place. Should be more concrete. Economic effects should be less of a concern.
  • Sanctuary should assist CDFG with the MLPA process in banning fishing in Fitzgerald Marine Reserve. A 2-mile closure is too much, however a 1/2-mile closure would be better.
  • Management as it relates to location…who do I call…who is close by…
  • Sanctuaries should increase education that relates specifically to consequences of actions, and what people can do to help.
  • Need stronger education specifically relating to action consequence and what they can do.
  • Sanctuaries should use more on-site educational tools like visitor centers and signage.
  • Sanctuaries should be more involved in coastal development issues such as golf courses and sea walls.
  • Sanctuary should increase its attention of the San Mateo Coast. This is currently lacking.
  • Offshore research and general focus on San Mateo Coast is currently lacking.
  • Sanctuaries should increase general awareness of their programs, as well as education about issues such as water quality. Up-stream enforcement should be a priority.
  • Sanctuaries should increase cooperation with other agencies, especially regarding estuaries.
  • Sanctuaries should examine the overlapping regulatory structure and investigate ways to streamline the process.
  • Sanctuaries should examine their effectiveness in addressing issues related to population increase pressures.
  • Sanctuaries must be consistent in their response to oil spills.
  • Consistent response to oil spill. Would like GFNMS boundary changed to manage down to Ano Nuevo, to improve public access to Sanctuary staff, improve public stewardship.
  • Sanctuaries should continue to provide consistent habitat protection.
  • 2 million gallons went into the Sanctuary. Bring Sanctuary boundary to coast and who is responsible make it happen.
  • Bring Sanctuaries closer to urban environment.
  • Joint management of Sanctuary is confusing.
  • Increase in overall enforcement of sanctuary regulations.
  • MBNMS should consider including Mavericks in the MPW use zone.
  • Increase staffing of sanctuaries to meet goals.
  • Build focus on collaboration with other resource groups, specifically "the lost coast" ie. San Mateo.
  • Shark chumming should be banned in GFNMS. All shark-related activities should be permitted through the manager.
  • Sanctuaries should become mandatory members of the Coastal Commission.
  • Sanctuaries should ensure comprehensive coverage with overlapping jurisdiction, to improve resource protection.
  • MPW regulations for MBNMS should be the same as those for GFNMS.
  • Sanctuaries should be more aggressive about monitoring of watershed pollution and other resources.
  • Concerned about water quality with respect to agricultural runoff , sewer, pollution studies. Fleishacker Facility has had a noticeable impact on crabs, etc. Fisheries to contribute to identifying problems and coming up with solutions. Involve tourism, ports and community in process. Fishers have long history in env conservation
  • Sanctuaries should establish more marine reserves with the involvement of all stakeholders.
  • Sanctuaries should protect biodiversity.
  • Sanctuaries should investigate the root causes of water quality degradation. More resources should be made available for infrastructure of sewage treatment facilities.
  • Concerned about sewage spills at San Carlos beach, which cause monthly closures.
  • Support Ed Ricketts Marine Reserve, and beach access in that area.
  • Water Quality-sewage spills at San Carlos cause monthly closures, including summer.
  • Reserves &endash; support Ed Ricketts Marine Reserve and beach access in that area.
  • Oppose hotel construction and desal plant on Monterey Bay.
  • Sanctuaries should not control or overrule SACs, nor should they choose SAC members, or "censor" SAC issues/positions.
  • Sanctuaries should "grow" marine reserves over the years.
  • Sanctuaries should improve communications to clarify issues with fishers and other user groups, and regulatory agencies.
  • Communication must be improved to clarify issues between fishers and other user groups, and regulatory agencies. Avoid polarizing positions needlessly because communication was hampered.
  • Concerned about urban runoff and other non-point pollution. Sanctuaries should improve monitoring of urban and agricultural runoff.
  • Achieve balance of fishing abundance by addressing needs of all Sanct. Users. Pollution runoff from asphalt and other non-point source polluters. Urban and agri runoff monitoring needed.
  • Sanctuaries should use both breakout sessions (like this JMPR scoping meeting), and an open forum format at the end of the meeting, where comments are limited to 2-3 minutes.
  • Communication: Use both open forum and breakout sessions to free up info exchange. (Open forum at end of meeting, limit comments to 2-3 minutes).
  • Concerned that rip-rap being used on the golf course at the Ritz-Carlton is causing erosion of adjacent land.
  • Not sure how MBNMS can effectively monitor 300 miles of coast. Sanctuary should investigate the use of volunteer surveys for monitoring.
  • Not sure who investigates and enforces Sanctuary violations.
  • Sanctuaries should require low impact gear for bottom trawling.
  • Fishers should be compensated for marine reserve areas that have been taken out of access.
  • Sanctuaries should give financial support to research on marine reserves. Creation of reserves should be based on "good science".
  • Bottom trawling &endash; require low impact gear. Reserves: compensate fishers for areas taken out of access. (This is a fisheries issue-vs. Sanctuary). But Sanctuaries to support.
  • Fund more research on MPAs , yield "good science" as basis for reserve creation.
  • Concerned about mineral extraction.
  • Need public education regarding gas use and drilling connection.
  • Biodiesel fuel should be provided at all ports.
  • Concerned about management of kelp resources, and the impacts from abalone farming and other aquaculture operations.
  • Sanctuaries should actively support the State's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process, in lieu of sanctuaries' adoption of reserves.
  • The "doughnut hole" in the northern MBNMS (off Pacifica and San Francisco) should be included in the GFNMS. Boundary of GFNMS should be moved south to San Mateo/Santa Cruz County line.
  • Maintain collaboration between Farm Bureaus and MBNMS. The Sanctuary now works effectively with the coalition of farm bureaus in reducing siltation and transport of pollutants. The MBNMS had added staff to work with this coalition, and there is concern that we will lose this staff if the MBNMS boundary moves south to the county line.
  • Marine reserves established by the State, should be extended into federal waters by the National Marine Sanctuary Program,
  • More cooperation should occur between the State and Federal governments in setting up marine reserves.
  • The Davidson Seamount should be included within the boundaries of MBNMS, to protect abundant seabirds and marine life, and to preserve its current pristine state.
  • Sanctuaries should adopt marine reserves in federal waters.
  • Sanctuaries should encourage more marine biology education at the high school level. This education should include more technical programs such as shoreline monitoring.
  • Sanctuaries should support academic/science competitions e.g. "National Ocean Science Bowl".
  • GFNMS regulatory structure should be maintained; enforcement must be adequately funded and staffed.
  • Maintain GFNMS, MBNMS, and CBNMS education programs, but improve funding and staff (especially GFNMS).
  • Sanctuaries should encourage increased marine biology education opportunities to average or disadvantaged high school students, as well as more in-class guest speakers on marine related topics.
  • Sanctuaries should hold more public forums on research within the sanctuaries.
  • MBNMS should build visitor centers, and consider co-locating with other visitor centers. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve would be an ideal location.
  • Sanctuaries should develop programs to address the pollution that enters the sanctuaries from San Francisco Bay.
  • More coordination between the sanctuaries research and monitoring. EX. What would the sanctuaries like to have the FMR monitoring and coordinate sampling protocols. Ex. Protocol meetings; make suggestions to the Research Activities Panel; pick up phone and ask.
  • All sanctuaries should prohibit the attraction and harassment of white sharks.
  • Sanctuaries should investigate erosion rates along San Mateo coast.
  • Sanctuaries should require that all vessels enter the San Francisco Bay from the westbound lane.
  • Southern boundary of the MBNMS "doughnut hole" should be moved as far north as possible.
  • Do not allow fiber optic cables to be placed in GFNMS or MBNMS.
  • Extend the GFNMS boundary South to the point where it is being co-managed.
  • Greater Sanctuary involvement regarding coastal armoring.
  • More interpretive signage at kayak launch sites and dive entry points in regard to marine mammals viewing etiquette (especially otters).
  • More funding for monitoring of water quality.
  • Increase education, outreach and media exposure for the JMPR process.
  • Concerned about the long-term impacts of MPW use in near shore areas. Sanctuaries should conduct environmental impact studies on this activity.
  • MPW regulations in MBNMS should be made less specific, to prevent loopholes and other opportunities for circumvention of the regulations.
  • Sanctuaries should explore the feasibility of adopting marine zones where no human activities are allowed, with the exception of research.
  • Sanctuary should better protect low tide reef areas at Pillar Point.
  • Increased education of general public regarding what a sanctuary is and defining its regulations.
  • GFNMS is the older sanctuary but has a better regime for birds.
  • MBNMS and CBNMS regulations regarding white sharks should be adopted by GFNMS.
  • Sanctuaries should adopt a set of standards for all wildlife viewing. This should include a "controlled speed perimeter" for recreational boaters and wildlife watchers.
  • Sanctuaries should consider adopting a limited entry policy and code of conduct for commercial wildlife watching vessels.
  • Sanctuaries should strive to reach a balance between research and wildlife viewing.
  • Sanctuaries should do a better job in distributing educational materials to Fitzgerald Marine Reserve and other recreational sites.
  • Sanctuaries need to ensure that planning commissions are aware of their regulations.
  • Collaboration between the staffs of MBNMS and Fitzgerald Marine Reserve should be improved.
  • Agencies that manage resources are starting to overlap, co-manage, and integrate. (Seamless management).
  • Sanctuaries need to improve education program in regards to fisheries. Involve fishermen in this process, increase outreach to them, and create opportunities for them to get involved.
  • The San Mateo Coast does not get much overall attention from MBNMS (in terms of regulations, education etc.).
  • All three sanctuaries should be combined into a "Central California Sanctuary" which manages all these areas.
  • Central California Sanctuary to manage all these areas.
  • Loopholes are confusing boundaries.
  • Synergistic resolution to this JMPR process.
  • Exemption zone in SF (due to combined storm drain/sewer system) less than secondary treatment.
  • How much leverage would the Sanctuary have to influence/improve the current sewers/drains. Situation south of SF
  • Sanctuaries should work with Chambers of Commerce and hotels, in educating the public.
  • Sanctuaries should expand education and outreach to reach more of the general public.
  • Sanctuaries should not allow SONAR and acoustical experimentation.
  • Opposed to SONAR and sound testing in Sanctuary waters.
  • Concerned about water quality throughout entire watersheds.
  • Water quality through entire watershed (concerns).
  • How does role of Sanctuary fit with State's proposal for marine reserves (interaction between both).
  • Need consistency between agencies.
  • Sanctuaries should serve as an advocate to facilitate funding for improved water quality (sewage systems, watersheds, toxic algae blooms).
  • Advocate for funding for water quality (sewage systems, watersheds) toxic algae blooms.
  • Advocate for law enforcement (Sanctuary) its own self financed division.
  • MBNMS should make SAC meetings more accessible to working public.
  • Año Nuevo reserve should remain part of MBNMS.
  • GFNMS boundary should be moved southward to just north of Santa Cruz.
  • MBNMS unable to manage the Northern portion of the Sanctuary (North of Santa Cruz)
  • Reasons for moving: ecosystem; species range; Bay delta feed mostly at GFNMS. Elkhorn Slough feeds to Monterey Bay, emergency response by other State/federal agencies (Coast guard etc.)
  • Volunteer programs for GFNMS already under one umbrella-National unable to understand the local process, personalities-National unable to support above.
  • Adopt no-take zones; do not sidestep scientific data and cave in to special interest groups.
  • Develop marine protection zones do not cave in to special interest groups, and do not sidestep the scientific data that supports the marine protected zones.
  • Concerned about the lack of water flowing through some creeks.
  • Water quality problems: some creeks not flowing therefore no support for natural ecosystems.
  • Sanctuaries should work in tandem with other agencies to enforce water quality regulations.
  • Sanctuaries should coordinate with other agencies to create one joint interpretive center, rather than 1 center for each agency.
  • MBNMS agriculture action plan should have a specific timeline, goals, and audits. It should be open to the public, and not be self-regulating.
  • Sanctuaries should prohibit open water aquaculture, because there is no control over what is broadcast into the ocean.
  • Sanctuaries should increase education and outreach regarding aquaculture, further north of Elkhorn Slough.
  • Sanctuaries should conduct more watershed education.
  • Concerned about the lack of cohesiveness regarding emergency response to coastal incidents (oil spills etc.)
  • Enforcement in Marine Sanctuaries: Laws passed but lack of resources for enforcement beyond just taking note of violation. No follow up resources; increase enforcement staff.
  • Shark attraction should be banned completely in GFNMS (including research).
  • Consider including harbors as part of Sanctuaries.
  • Increase funding for staffing at GFNMS.
  • GFNMS and CBNMS need better facilities to serve as meeting rooms for volunteer meetings, and education and outreach. These should include a wet lab.
  • Increase funding for the sanctuaries.
  • Concerned about the beach closures and water quality in San Mateo County. There are not enough sampling sites to adequately notify people of conditions.
  • Sanctuaries should hold accountable, operations such as golf courses and nurseries that use chemicals or other pollutants, which enter into the ocean.
  • Sanctuary should lobby at all levels for improved water quality.
  • MBNMS should develop a policy and guidelines to monitor water quality in streams, rivers, creeks, etc. emptying into the Sanctuary. These should be clean enough to swim in.
  • Water quality will affect the ecosystem as a whole, but also the microorganisms within the sanctuaries.
  • Tertiary treatment should be required for all sewer systems that empty into sanctuaries
  • Shoreline armoring should be prohibited in the sanctuaries, because it leads to the transfer of wave energy to another location and encourages development too close to the water.
  • MBNMS should better coordinate with Cal Trans in regards to disposal of sediment from landslides. Sanctuary should listen to the geologists.
  • All three Sanctuaries need more resources for exploration. There is more known about outer space than the ocean. You can't protect what is not known. Sanctuary needs more data on species and habitat and human impacts, fishing impacts
  • Sanctuary needs stronger ability to protect resources. Burden of proof should be on individuals wanting to conduct certain activities.



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 •

NOAA logo Revised December 19, 2001 by Sanctuaries Web Group
Many links leave the National Marine Sanctuary Web Site - please view our Link Disclaimer for more information
National Ocean Service | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | U.S. Department of Commerce | NOAA Library | Privacy Policy
Contact Us |