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
Bodega 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.  A synthesis of comments will be available soon.

  • Concerned about a lack of education with respect to commercial fisheries in the sanctuaries.
  • Concerned about the impacts of commercial raising of non-native oysters in Tomales Bay.
  • Against boundary expansion of MBNMS to connect with CINMS.
  • Wants a draft report of comments to be available to the public before it is sent to DC.
  • SAC members should be voted in by their constituents rather than appointed. 
  • SACs and the Sanctuaries should not advocate MPAs or zones because that is regulating fishing.
  • SAC members should be voted by constituents and not appointed.
  • Would like follow-up after tonight.
  • Concerned about water quality and habitat in Estero de San Antonio.
  • Would like to see land around Estero remain agriculture.
  • Not clear about the language used to describe the boundaries and jurisdiction and activity in Esteros. 
  • How can you preserve the ecosystem when commercial fishing is allowed in the Sanctuary?
  • Concerned about the impact from the implementation of MPAs on commercial fishermen. 
  • If the Sanctuary looks at MPAs they should be aware and take account of the MPLA process. 
  • How would the Sanctuaries improve habitat and resources without regulating fisheries?
  • GFNMS should be expanded to incorporate the Gulf of the Farallones, include the finger of MBNMS or go down to the county line if convenient.
  • Sanctuaries should not be managing fisheries, other agencies have this responsibility, protecting fisheries is part of their (NMS) mission.
  • Concerned about NMS involvement in managing fisheries, they shouldn’t be doing this.
  • GFNMS should incorporate the Gulf of the Farallones.  It does not make sense to co-manage the northern part of MBNMS, GFNMS should manage it. 
  • Sanctuaries should not by fiat manage fisheries.
  • Concerned about the Northern Sanctuary boundary of MBNMS.  The boundary should be at the county line (Ano Nuevo), as endorsed by the boards of Supervisors of both counties. 
  • Concerned about the removal of kelp to feed aquaculture abalone and other negative impacts from aquaculture.
  • Marine sanctuaries should not act as fisheries managers. 
  • There should be equal representation of all user groups and their sub-groups, in the designation of Sanctuaries, no one group should be left out.
  • There may be redundancy within agencies on who regulates these waters (USCG, state parks, DOI, Fish & Game, County sheriffs, NMFS, coastal commission).
  • Would be nice to streamline the permitting process with all of these agencies e.g. harbor dredging permits.
  • Would like to see the designation document retained in relation to fishing. As in Federal Register pp.43314.
  • Concerned that boundaries make scientific vs. political sense.   Take an ecosystem approach and do study to yield info.
  • Wants to define protected areas.  Fisheries must create no fishing zones or show the reason to permit continues fishing in impacted  areas. Reality is key.
  • Address continuing threat for offshore drilling.  Expand boundaries to protect potential oil exploration areas, esp. Somoma and into Mendocino.
  • What do sanctuaries do?  (Research, education, resource protection). Balance human use. Clarify what makes sanctuaries unique.
  • Extend boundaries (to prevent offshore drilling.)  Study effects of no-fishing zones, and incorporate effect of no fishing zones in policy.
  • Concerned about extinction of species and loss of biodiversity on planet.  Must balance human effects and expand protection of resources.  Must have vigilant protections.  Study and assess populations, then protect them.
  • Damaged resources must be restored.  Indigenous peoples/ 3rd world countries are suffering from stock depletion. Marine protected areas are under consideration. Fishermen believe in protecting resources. Sanctuaries should not add layer of bureaucracy.  NMS work better with existing agencies. Fish Farms are detrimental.
  • Ban offshore drilling, prevent further depletion of resources/ habitats.
  • Wants more outreach and education, esp. regarding activities that occur in Sanctuaries (e.g. tidepooling impacts).
  • Wants ecological restoration/ habitat rehabilitation.  Need longterm approach via education, etc. on preserving ecosystems on planetary scale.  Immediate action needed. Restoration should be # 1 priority.
  • Network of Marine Protected areas, not patchwork, coordinate within overlapping agency jurisdictions.  No-take zones needed to regenerate.
  • Need to know results of research on how sanctuaries protect ecosystems and fisheries.  Current logging and some fishing practices are dinosaurs.  What does the data say?
  • Identify viable vs. endangered resources. 
  • Too much delay in using information available.
  • Improve oil spill prevention and response.  Look at more stringent measures to prevent spills.  Better interagency response needed, and better communications and readiness of equipment to rescue wildlife.   More citizen vigilance needed too.  Plan ahead for the inevitable.  Sanctuaries must advocate for resources.
  • Must quantify inter-relationships of elements of food web.  Sanctuaries must study ecosystem dynamics and assess relationship of biological resources with physical processes.  Comprehensive species studies needed of sanctuaries’ biological resources.
  • ST world  (and Sanctuaries) should help 3rd world to protect resources.  Sanct’s should take leadership role/ funding and expertise).  Big industries=big impacts.  Globalize resource protection, lend weight to 3rd world countries.  Need steely resolve and also fight eco-ignorance.  Extractive  mentality harms the future.  Youth education imperative.  Fisheries must be regulated (on large scale operations and some small fisheries as well)
  • More protection of the tide pools. Through education.
  • Do not add another layer of regulations.
  • Do not want excessive regulations on sport fisherman.
  • Have process address issues that are of interest to both fisherman and environment in a positive manner.
  • Encourage people to work together on sport fishing issues.
  • Sanctuary sounds like closure, concerned with future restrictions.
  • Concerned with risks from offshore oil tankers.
  • Concerned with overfishing of geoducks and Horse neck clams.
  • Mercury concentration  in Tomales Bay.
  • Look into moving tanker traffic offshore.
  • Concerned with UW sound testing military operations.
  • Set up website on SAC membership selection and meeting agendas.
  • Increase sanctuary boundaries to protect against oil drilling and publicize link between sanctuary status and prohibition against drilling.
  • Outlaw draggers and long lines.
  • Move boundary up to Russian river to address water quality issues.
  • Check status of red abalone in Bodega Bay (continue monitoring).
  • Sanctuary should stay out of marine reserves and defer to state process.
  • Oil drilling- no transport of oil or oil drilling, (except for double-hulled vessels) and no exploration for oil.
  • Concerned for peoples livelihoods fishing and management decisions that are made based on junk-science.
  • Concerned about state MPA and closures.  It is confusing and it will be very hard to know if you are inside protected areas; lots of funds for buoys so people know where we are; need balance between fish productivity and takes; need enforcement of the MPA’s.
  • Concerned about loss of sage anchorage. 
  • Continue to not regulate fisheries.
  • Concerned NMSs are veering off of intended purpose (no oil drilling; water quality), need to stay out of fisheries management.
  • Concerned about invasive species and their impacts.
  • Investigate the increase of shellfish, ecto commensals and parasites.
  • Concerned about the increased regulations review process with state MPA and state fisheries management plan coming so close together with sanctuary’s management. Plan process- can not keep up with all the meetings.
  • Concerned about increased enforcement by NMS- no sanctuary cops.
  • Concerned about overlapping regulations and jurisdictions.
  • Start watershed councils on all watersheds that flow into the ocean. 
  • No offshore oildrilling.
  • Concerned about watershed quality protection.
  • Concerned about green crabs at Bodega Head- look into the eradication of this invasive species.
  • Concerned about the Petaluma Mushroom Farm moving to Bloomfield and dumping into Americano creek (herbicides, insecticides, manure). This is and example of how the CEQA law is not enforced.
  • Concerned about proposed expansion of MBNMS, don’t go into Moro Bay.
  • Concerned about prohibitions from dredging and offshore dumping from Moro Bay.
  • MBNMS political boundary should be north.  Santa Cruz, CA boundary to southern Monterey County boundary.
  • Concerned about sanctuarys interferences with historical dredging practices.
  • Sanctuary management  needs to be more accountable to the local constituents.  Should justify to community when manager does not follow the SAC recommendations.
  • Need to have good public outreach.  Need improvement of differences between state MPA and Sanctuary management, etc.
  • Concerned about economic impacts that occur as a result of management plans.
  • Increase size of Sanctuaries.
  • Major part of plans should be economic impacts/analysis- local/counties/types of resources protected.
  • Economic analysis should be comparable to biotic analysis regarding funding, etc.
  • Specific economic analysis regarding fisheries should be completed.  Financial mitigations- possible alternative economic ways of living.
  • Minimize human impact.
  • Educate community about sanctuaries.
  • Get community involved in sanctuaries.
  • Fisheries management: sanctuary should continue contact with CDFG and PFMC and they should participate in process.
  • Sanctuaries should not take a direct role in fisheries management.
  • Sustainable fisheries for sport fisheries.
  • Get ahead of the problems before they occur- especially in fisheries.
  • Education of public regarding fisheries should represent both sides and make clear what is going on.
  • No dumping from ocean going vessels (all trash).
  • No oil drilling of coast of CA- develop alternatives.
  • Clarify definitions- Sanctuary vs. Marine Reserves.
  • Educate public.
  • Education- need more exposure regarding sanctuaries to public- make clear.
  • Explain what is happening.
  • Visitor center- community outreach- 
    • - Sonoma county
    •  -Monterey Bay Aquarium
    •  -Pt. Reyes National Seashore
  • Joint Sonoma Coast/ Sanctuary visitor center in Bodega Bay.
  • Get feedback on education programs before you plan.
  • Enforcement regarding pollution should be increased.
  • Citizen enforcement- possibly reward for turning people in.
  • Interjurisdictional cooperation and coordination within community to protect sanctuary and enforce rules. Ex- boaters, kayakers, birders, divers, docents, retired people, etc.  Hotline to call to report.
  • Urban watch could happen in Esteros.
  • Agriculture plan/ outreach extended to Sonoma county.
  • Management concern mid and lower level management levels of state agencies (e.g., California Department of Forestry and Department of Fish and Game) are more supportive of industry.  Example:  Demise of rockfish (also abalone) ? due to lack of monitoring
  • Gulf of the Farallones there is no environmental impact report on the potential impact of import of non-native shellfish species (specifically oysters).  Report should be done and include related impacts, such as the plastic bags associated with Asian oyster growing.
  • Rancher perspective would like recognition of stewardship of the land importance of private land ownership for nursery aspects and value of protecting Estero [not devastating the land]
  • Need to ensure that uses by others (hikers, kayakers) do not impact wildlife on ranches
  • Education there is fragmentation and lack of awareness of sanctuaries, including a disconnect between related land uses, managing agencies, programs, regulations, etc.
  • Confusing/lack of clarity on different regulations and messages- conveys a picture that people developing and implementing regulations don’t have a clear basis or understanding for what they are doing.
  • Sanctuaries should not enjoin other management regimes (e.g., fisheries management).instead, they should focus on resource management
  • Sanctuaries should not get involved in telling people what is healthy recreation (e.g., jet skis)  should promote regulations that take care of the offenders (10% of everyone)
  • There are problems with the databases and boundaries of the sanctuaries, making interpretation difficult.  Move the boundary of Monterey Bay south to Point 
  • Ano Nuevo and move the boundary of Gulf of the Farallones south to match.
  • Resource seems to be defined by segmenting down to specific species of fish (resource-based management)
  • Communication is key - there should be posted regulations at marinas (e.g. for sport fishing) to make clear what the rules are.
  • Education and communication -more of it so more people are aware.
  • Communication clarifying roles of different agencies, etc.
  • Consider using a database or other vehicle as a tool to get a view of the big picture- fisheries management, pollution, etc.  Would help in clarifying the basis for management actions.
  • Monterey boundary should be moved south to Point Ano Nuevo
  • Fishermen as stewards - it gets scary when sanctuaries start stepping in and managing fish through MPAs, etc. leave the scheme as is with existing state and Federal fisheries management.
  • Refreshing to hear of the interest in rock cod the take size should be more customized vs. a simple quota for number of fish caught
  • Should be more of a balance vs. regulations focused on single species
  • The Sanctuary should be more involved in research about the impact of regulations and varies fisheries management schemes.
  • The public needs to know more (and understand a broad band of perspectives)
  • Preservation is important
  • Want to maintain the simple pleasures, able to breath fresh air on the Sonoma coast and eat fresh seafood.
  • Unintended impact of where the Gulf of the Farallones boundary stops - Sonoma coast beaches are not protected from jetskis (just to the north of Mussel Point).  Should consider where with boundary ends, with a possible extension north of the boundary and/or at least keeping jetskis offshore.
  • Gathering data on the resource -need to separate interests (e.g., data collection by the resource manager) from the purpose (understanding).  Fox in the henhouse.
  • Do whatever you can forever to prevent offshore oil drilling
  • Education, education, education and research to support education (and exposure of the public to education)
  • Farallones SAC -there is a problem with those administering the sanctuary selecting SAC members.  Selection of SAC members should come from constituents.
  • Should consider efforts by industry to improve jetskis (cleaner, quieter) in determining how to manage these types of activities (remember the search and rescue value of jetskis)
  • Dredge spoil disposal -there should be less red tape for disposal of clean spoil and maintenance dredging. (Pillar Point)
  • Beware of too much formal data -include others in the interpretation of data and include anectdotal data.
  • State of the Sanctuary Reports paint a dark picture of fisheries management. There are good examples of sustainable fisheries that should be included.
  • Sanctuaries should understand that MAN is part of the sanctuary (there is a place for all).
  • Education, appreciation and preservation (low impact uses are OK).
  • Protection of sanctuaries is essential, continue policies as they are.
  • Outstanding work so far for NMS.
  • All ships should come in through west bound lanes instead of north and south so they just go straight out offshore (Sanctuary should help make that happen).
  • Move GFNMS southern boundary to San Mateo County line.
  • Sanctuary should continue to defer to NMFS and CA Fish and Game agencies for fishing regulations as stated in designation document.
  • Sanctuary should recognize all fishing people and practices as not bad people or practices.
  • Sanctuary continue to defer to NMFS to CA Fish and Game agencies for fishing regulations as stated in designation document.
  • No-take zones are unacceptable.
  • Sanctuary education about fishing practices.
  • Within the Sanctuary boundaries are very rich culture and communities. Sanctuary program should work on enhancing those cultures to preserve their traditional activities that are now within sanctuary boundaries.
  • More interaction between sanctuary to facilitate activities to educate about how fishing is done. Ex: Adopt a boat program (work w/ a commercial fishing vessel), kind of like a working museum.
  • Protecting traditional fishing grounds.
  • Develop better and cooperative program between fishing communities, science communities, and public to better protect and manage these resources.
  • GFNMS doing a great job at that already, other Sanctuaries should be responsive about local needs.
  • Protect against change to one large sanctuary.
  • Change southern GFNMS boundary to extend south to Ano Nuevo (straight line west to divide GFNMS and MBNMS to better reflect political, biological, geographic realities.
  • Develop sea watch program for fishing community and researchers to combine resources. Sanctuaries should be working with science institutions and fishing community together to better the resources.
  • More outreach with Watershed councils to enhance habitat.
  • Get more interest and understanding of the fishing community.
  • More volunteers would come out of it.
  • Fishing culture and communities need to be supported and protected through positive outreach.
  • More interaction and outreach between fishing communities and public (more than just the Fishermans Festival).
  • Promote different forms of interaction between fishing community and public.
  • Get public on boats to learn more.
  • Sanctuary stay out of fishing management as stated in original creation of Sanctuary.
  • Facilitate communication between fishing agencies, sanctuary, and science community.
  • Outreach to get to know what fishing is all about.
  • Anything to facilitate communication.
  • Give fishing industry platform to outreach to communities.
  • Flyer/brochure about fishing and watersheds and communities and how they interact with sanctuary, how they participate, to better understand.
  • Better cooperation between water quality agencies and Sanctuary about water quality issues within Sanctuary, especially sewage outfalls, cattle runoff, dairy waste management.
  • Create education program about fishing practices, regulations, seasons, fish, sport and commercial practices.
  • Sanctuary should be responsible and in adequate position to address pollution issues.
  • Should be involved with watersheds, estuaries, and be more involved with lifecycles of fish that live in Sanctuary waters.
  • Water quality upstream is important to water quality of ocean.
  • There are ample regulatory agencies out there.
  • Sanctuary can be catalyst to making things happen, as watch-dog to habitat integrity (health).
  • Bring fisheries sciences and watershed sciences together.
  • Sanctuary should bring these groups together.
  • Work with constituents to monitor and keep track of resources in area.
  • Sanctuary should raise issues, work with other agencies about issues to solve problems.
  • Work as catalyst/steward to work with public, NGOs, agencies, everyone involved, and watershed groups.
  • GFNMS has been a model at doing that; other sanctuaries should follow their lead.
  • Keep Washington DC out.
  • Huge disparity about how sanctuaries are funded between them.
  • Washington is taking huge cut and doing nothing but getting in the way.
  • Sanctuary should provide scientific background for grant application as well as pro-active information.
  • Actively put out information (ex. List serve) to share info. Actively work with watershed groups.
  • Safety should be considered in westbound land for ships, fishing vessels, and all watercraft.
  • Prohibit discharge of ballast waters in Sanctuary.
  • Boundaries should be adjusted to match the fisheries that they are managing.
  • Would like to see an economic impact report for regulating fishing. 
  • Redefine Cordell and GFNMS boundaries so that they are specific to fishing. CBNMS should include Bodega Bay and the Gulf remain in the GFNMS.
  • SAC issues should be discussed in the specific areas where they are subject.
  • Concerned with restricted access of specific fisheries to sanctuary. Various licenses have restricted access versus open access and some have none.  Make sure fisheries are available to all.
  • What regulations can be developed by sanctuary; specific to commercial and sport fishing?
  • If regulatory decisions are made, where is the data, and where would it come from? Data needs to be mandatory for any regulatory decisions.  Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission has data.
  • National and state in same place.  Why do they overlap?  Specifically NMS and CA Marine Protected Areas.
  • Humans should be factored into the management plan.
  • Please help public differentiate between CA MPAs and NMS management plan review.
  • Sanctuaries do not need to be involved in sustainable fisheries.
  • Worried about pollution in the sanctuary.  Sanctuaries should deal with polluters past and future.  Both coming into it from rivers and dumped.  Enforcement.
  • NMS should worry about Marine Biology.  Let NMFS (Federal) and state worry about fisheries management .
  • What guarantee  is there that comments will be heard and reviewed? 
  • These proceedings should be available in the Library’s public records.
  • Commercial fishing exemption in the sanctuary.
  • Worried that commercial, sport, and recreational fishing will be banned in the sanctuary.
  • Would like environmental impact report and livelihoods affected.
  • Does not want sanctuary involved in fisheries management process. 
  • Request commercial fisherman representation on the SAC and issue prioritizing.
  • Sports and recreation representation on SAC.
  • Fishing over regulated. Does not want another agency manageing fisheries.
  • Scientific basis of data, how old is it, it is current/local/specific?  Is this data provided by fishermen log books and sportfishermen?
  • Is the Pacific Fisheries Management Council only agency looking into essential fish habitat and where is the PFMC with their findings?  Specific to Cordell.
  • Process unclear, who is involved/ how does public know/get involved in the process?
  • Economic impact of port-side business, fishermen and whole community of any decisions brought about by this process.
  • Ecotourism, specifically non-taking, should be addressed in the management review.
  • Data collection being altered or skewed due to lack of oversight. Would like addressed, specifically on fish.
  • Other sanctuaries have gone through this process.  Has fishing been allowed after process?  Look at precedent cases from east coast or other sanctuaries.
  • Who polices regulations/enforces.
  • What is Monterey doing trying to come north?  The gulf is the gulf and needs to stay that way.  Same with Cordell.
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 July 31, 2017 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 |