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
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 ecosystem protection.
  • 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 Interior's experience.
  • 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 positive.
  • 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 same.
  • The current language in the Federal Register with relation to fisheries regulation in the Sanctuary should remain.
  • 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 Fishery Service.
  • 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 fishery regulation.
  • The Sanctuary should explore fisheries regulation only in offshore federal waters, not State waters. Existing agencies do a better job, and more regulation is not necessary.
  • 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 Game.
  • 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 Sanctuary.
  • 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 public education.
  • 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 to help.
  • More education about sustainability and the balance of ecosystems.
  • 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 more education.
  • 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 officials.
  • 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 mammals.
  • 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 Plan.
  • Investigate sea otter disturbances by kayakers and other recreational users.
  • More rigorous monitoring of water quality.
  • Use holistic management practices that focus on entire watersheds.
  • 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 quality.
  • 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 resources.
  • Do not allow fiberoptic cables in Sanctuary.
  • Concerned about agricultural runoff and its impacts upon fisheries.
  • 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 Sanctuary.
  • 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 runoff.
  • 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 process.
  • MBNMS should work with Coastal Commission and other agencies to strengthen regulations against coastal armoring.
  • 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 watershed protection.
  • Sanctuary should work more closely with harbors on dredging issues.
  • 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 regulations.
  • 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 projects.
  • Continue working in collaboration with the agriculture industry, utilizing a non-regulatory approach.
  • 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 self-regulation.
  • 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 quality.
  • Expand the "Team Ocean" program.
  • Sanctuary should be more proactive and creative in enforcement.
  • 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 agencies.
  • Stronger regulations against coastal armoring.
  • Do not change existing kelp harvesting regulations.
  • Sanctuary should further restrict kelp harvesting.
  • More resource protection regulations including no-take reserves.
  • Strengthen motorized personal watercraft regulations.
  • Modify motorized personal watercraft regulations to include 3-4 person craft.
  • The current Personal watercraft zones should remain the same.
  • Never restrict surfing.
  • The Sanctuary should prohibit mechanized kelp harvesting.
  • The Sanctuary should keep the existing regulations on jade collection.
  • Do not restrict access to the Sanctuary.
  • Consider cross deputization with other agencies, for enforcement.
  • Utilize the polluter pays principle.
  • Regulate emissions from boat engines.
  • Increase public involvement.
  • Hold workshops that bring people together to discuss common objectives.
  • 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 group".
  • Sac should remain an advisory body.
  • SAC members should be selected by their constituents.
  • SAC protocols regarding congressional relations must be reevaluated.
  • 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 bay.
  • The Davidson Sea Mount should be included as part of the Sanctuary.
  • Do not include the Davidson Sea Mount as part of the MBNMS.
  • 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 Monte.
  • 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 literature.
  • 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 •

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 |