Plan Review (JMPR)
Scoping Meeting & Dates
of Scoping Meeting Comments
Priority Issues New!
Sanctuary Advisory Council Meetings
Current Sanctuary Management Plans &
State of the Sanctuary Reports
Press Releases & Notices
Links to Sanctuary Websites
Bank, Gulf of the Farallones & Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuaries
Scoping Meeting Summary
Monterey 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.
- Sanctuary needs much more funding to achieve adequate
- The Sanctuary should be part of the Department of the
Interior rather than Department of Commerce. The
Sanctuary could learn from the Department of the
- The existing water quality action plans should be
incorporated directly into the revised management plan.
Don't start over with the next management plan.
- Keep up the good work.
- Sanctuary messages need to be short simple and
- The Sanctuary needs to find the right balance between
use and protection.
- More protection is needed in general for the
ecosystem and biodiversity.
- Resource protection should be the main priority.
- The Sanctuary should not regulate fisheries
- Fisheries are currently being micro managed, and
regulation has increased, while practices have remained
- The current language in the Federal Register with
relation to fisheries regulation in the Sanctuary should
- The knowledge of members of the fishing industry
should be utilized for data collection and research
purposes, as well as for environmental monitoring.
- The Sanctuary should focus efforts on other
activities, which impact fisheries (farming runoff and
oil), leaving fisheries regulation to the California
Department of Fish & Game and the National Marine
- The fishing community supports programs such as the
Salmon Stamp Program.
- The Gulf of the Farallones NMS was a good model for
working with fishermen.
- There would be a loss of credibility (the Leon
Panetta promise) if the Sanctuary gets involved in
- The Sanctuary should explore fisheries regulation
only in offshore federal waters, not State waters.
Existing agencies do a better job, and more regulation is
- The Sanctuary should realize that commercial and
recreational fishing interests are two separate entities,
and are not in agreement on all issues.
- The Sanctuary research program should provide
fisheries data to California Department of Fish and
- Sanctuary should assist CDFG with enforcement, but
should not create new regulations.
- The Sanctuary should seriously consider the
contribution of sport fishing to the area's economy.
- The Sanctuary should adopt marine reserves.
- The Sanctuary should restrict trawling.
- Investigate the possibility of a consumer "fish tax".
- Clarify language about fishing.
- Use money from fishing industry to fund monitoring
and replenishment projects.
- Any fishing regulations that are developed should
support the fishing community.
- The Sanctuary should be used as a model for
researching new fishing techniques.
- More education and outreach in general.
- The Sanctuary needs to be clear in informing the
public, on management plan review activities, so they can
get involved and influence any major decisions.
- Focus on ongoing education of user groups about the
- More multicultural education programs.
- The Sanctuary needs to educate people about kelp life
cycles and natural processes.
- More education (kiosks) must occur surrounding
tidepool issues, and the impacts that occur from
extraction of organisms.
- Utilize a Sanctuary-wide network of volunteers for
- The Sanctuary needs more education staff and an
increase in the budget.
- More support for existing non-profit educational
programs such as clean boating.
- Extend education and outreach to inland areas, east
of the coast.
- More outreach and education about what people can do
- More education about sustainability and the balance
- More education on the environmental impacts related
to population growth.
- Utilize volunteers to educate dog owners and
encourage leash use.
- Improve educational material on website regarding
regulated and prohibited activities.
- Increase public support for the Sanctuary through
- Increase education of schoolchildren.
- More K-12 educational materials, for classroom
curricula, including audio/visual, and Internet.
- Utilize all available outlets for education,
including public access cable.
- More education of politicians and elected
- Conduct more outreach through restaurants, industry
posters, airports and public libraries.
- The Sanctuary should continue to conduct research on
resource management issues.
- The Sanctuary should promote balance between
different species by supporting research into coastal
streams and fish stocks interaction with marine
- The Sanctuary should promote research to assess
natural versus: human caused changes in rocky intertidal
and near-shore ecosystems.
- Fully fund SIMoN and integrate it into the Management
- Investigate sea otter disturbances by kayakers and
other recreational users.
- More rigorous monitoring of water quality.
- Use holistic management practices that focus on
- The Sanctuary should be involved in enhancing
nearshore ecosystems through research and staff
involvement in other agency processes.
- Concerned about invasive and introduced species
&endash; the Sanctuary should educate the public about
how to dispose of seaweed used to pack bait and species
in bilge water.
- Need to investigate impacts to marine life and
seabirds, from dogs that are not kept on a leash.
- Concerned about impacts to the seafloor from dredging
and disposal and continued bottom trawling.
- Address the impact of storm drains on water
- Sanctuary should be active in preventing the impacts
of population growth.
- Should investigate the impacts of development and
coastal access on water quality of Elkhorn Slough.
- Concerned about the impacts of dredging on natural
- Do not allow fiberoptic cables in Sanctuary.
- Concerned about agricultural runoff and its impacts
- Dedicate more effort to investigating and preventing
point and non-point source pollution.
- Concerned about coastal armoring.
- Concern about the use of personal watercraft &endash;
no increase in use.
- Need to investigate impacts from research, diving,
kayaking, and spear-fishing.
- Concerned about marine debris and trash in
- Monitor Cal Trans activities and prevent disposal of
landslide material into Sanctuary.
- Improve desalination technologies, investigate use of
transportable desalination barges.
- Restrict private desalination plants, allow
desalination only for public benefit.
- Sanctuary should mitigate urban and agricultural
- More protection of riparian ecosystems.
- Investigate the issue of marine noise.
- There should be language put in the management plan
that reflects the positive benefits of harbors.
- The Sanctuary should be involved in Ricketts
underwater park and the State Marine Life Protection Act
- MBNMS should work with Coastal Commission and other
agencies to strengthen regulations against coastal
- More partnerships with businesses that use or cause
impacts to the Sanctuary.
- Better coordination must occur between the Sanctuary
and Asilomar State Park, especially in addressing impacts
to rocky intertidal habitat.
- Sanctuary should give input to the City of Salinas on
the update of its general plan.
- Work more with other agencies to achieve a goal of
- Sanctuary should work more closely with harbors on
- Regulatory jurisdiction needs to be
streamlined&endash; making for better collaboration and
less confusion about overlapping regulations.
- Involve the Coast Guard in enforcement of Sanctuary
- Should work collaboratively with the City of Salinas,
and environmental groups regarding water quality in
creeks that flow into the Sanctuary.
- Sanctuary should help cities and municipalities
obtain funding for infrastructure and urban runoff and
water quality improvement efforts.
- Work with local jurisdictions to remove impediments
in streams and preserve habitats.
- Work with local communities on habitat restoration
- Continue working in collaboration with the
agriculture industry, utilizing a non-regulatory
- Do not increase enforcement.
- Assist with enforcement cases in getting them to the
level of adjudication and prosecution.
- Increase funding for enforcement.
- Increase enforcement staff.
- Focus on voluntary guidelines and
- The Sanctuary needs to clarify its regulations,
especially with regard to fishing practices.
- Dogs should not be allowed off their leash in Spanish
Bay and Pebble Beach, due to potential impacts to water
- Expand the "Team Ocean" program.
- Sanctuary should be more proactive and creative in
- Never allow oil drilling.
- There should be an appeal process for MBNMS permits,
and other public concerns/issues.
- Increase enforcement of kayakers.
- More regulation of recreational users.
- Streamline the permitting process for dredging.
- Sanctuary should not regulate dredging beyond other
- Stronger regulations against coastal armoring.
- Do not change existing kelp harvesting
- Sanctuary should further restrict kelp
- More resource protection regulations including
- Strengthen motorized personal watercraft
- Modify motorized personal watercraft regulations to
include 3-4 person craft.
- The current Personal watercraft zones should remain
- Never restrict surfing.
- The Sanctuary should prohibit mechanized kelp
- The Sanctuary should keep the existing regulations on
- Do not restrict access to the Sanctuary.
- Consider cross deputization with other agencies, for
- Utilize the polluter pays principle.
- Regulate emissions from boat engines.
- Increase public involvement.
- Hold workshops that bring people together to discuss
- Sanctuary should work more with volunteers.
- The Sanctuary should concentrate on more monitoring
of human activities.
- More rigorous monitoring of water quality.
- Business and Tourism Advisory Panel should become
active in education.
- Sanctuary should reconsider the appointment process
for its Advisory Council.
- Sanctuary should reconsider the role of the SAC.
- Recreational fishing should be represented on the
Sanctuary Advisory Council.
- There should be a separate "fishing working
- Sac should remain an advisory body.
- SAC members should be selected by their
- SAC protocols regarding congressional relations must
- The name of the Sanctuary should be changed to
"Offshore Central California NMS" or something similar.
The current name is misleading, since the Monterey Bay is
just a small proportion of the total area of the
- The Davidson Sea Mount should be included as part of
- Do not include the Davidson Sea Mount as part of the
- Moss Landing Harbor should be included in the
Sanctuary boundaries, to protect Elkhorn Slough.
- Do not combine the Cordell Bank, Gulf of the
Farallones, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries,
into one large sanctuary.
- Do not include any buffer or exclusion zones.
- Do not change boundaries.
- Expand boundaries to include seamounts and more of
the continental shelf.
- The Sanctuary should explore the potential of
artificial reefs to enhance winter harvest of kelp in Del
- The Sanctuary needs to respond to public requests in
a more timely fashion.
- Consider use of Individual Transferable Quotas.
- Need to clarify the use of "network" in Sanctuary
- Sanctuary should do a socioeconomic study to assess
the value of the Sanctuary in terms of natural ecosystem
value versus extractive value.
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