Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR)

Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones & Monterey Bay

National Marine Sanctuaries

National Marine Sanctuary Program

Selection of Priority Issues

To Address in the

Joint Management Plan Review

July 8, 2002
1

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Identification and Prioritization of Issues

2.1 Scoping the Issues

2.2 SAC Prioritization Workshops

2.3 NMSP Internal Issue Prioritization

3.0 Next Steps

4.0 Priority Issue Summary Tables and Explanations

4.1 Table: Summary of Proposed Priority Issues

5.0 Cross-Cutting Priority Issues

5.1 Table: Cross-Cutting Priority Issues

5.2 Cross-Cutting Detailed Explanations

6.0 Cordell Bank Site-Specific Priority Issues

6.1 Table: Cordell Bank NMS Priority Issues

6.2 Cordell Bank NMS Detailed Explanations

7.0 Gulf of the Farallones Site-Specific Priority Issues

7.1 Table: Gulf of the Farallones NMS Priorities

7.2 Gulf of the Farallones NMS Detailed Explanations

8.0 Monterey Bay Site-Specific Priority Issues

8.1 Table: Monterey Bay NMS Priority Issues

8.2 Monterey Bay NMS Detailed Explanations

Appendix 1: JMPR Internal Prioritization Criteria

Appendix 2: NMSP Objectives for an Integrated JMPR Process

Appendix 3: JMPR Next Steps Flowchart
2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to present Sanctuary Advisory Council members and the public

with the National Marine Sanctuary Program’s (NMSP’s) proposed priority cross-cutting

(applicable to two or three sanctuaries) and site-specific resource management issue to be

addressed in the Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR). Staff developed these proposed

priority issues after thorough analysis of the recommendations from the four Sanctuary Advisory

Council Issue Prioritization Workshops and from internal review by the individual sanctuaries

and national program staff.

Although the document best reflects those priority issues the NMSP plans to address in the

JMPR, the final list of issues is subject to change. JMPR staff are in the process of determining

how these issues can be addressed given existing staff and resources. Until this analysis is

complete, the program cannot say with certainty that all the issues can be fully addressed in the

management plan review. The analysis may reveal the need to modify or defer some of these

proposed priority issues based on budgetary or staffing constraints.

The program is asking the SACs to review this document, and at the next scheduled SAC

meeting, provide additional input on refining these priority issues. Input and advice from the

SACs and public will help us determine which of these issues must be fully addressed over the

next five years, and those issues whose final resolution may be more limited or can be deferred.

This advice will help the JMPR staff to develop a draft work plan that details precisely how the

issues will be addressed.

2.0 IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF ISSUES

2.1 Scoping the Issues

Beginning on November 28, 2001, and lasting until January 17, 2002, the NMSP held 20 public

scoping meetings in communities throughout the northern-central California coast, Sacramento,

and Washington, D.C. Approximately 1,000 people participated in these forums to comment on

the three sanctuaries’ management strategies and provide input on specific issues they see as

management priorities over the next 5 to 10 years. Approximately 4,000 comments and

suggestions were obtained at these facilitated meetings. All comments were compiled and

posted on the JMPR website.

In addition to public scoping meetings, the program accepted written comments from early

November 2001 to early February 2002. Comments were sent to the NMSP in the form of Emails, letters, faxes, and petitions. The program received approximately 6,500 e-mails, 300

letters, 13 faxes, and a petition with 1,700 signatures. A Summary Scoping Document was

prepared and distributed to each of the Sanctuary Advisory Councils (SACs) on Feb. 25, 2002.

The document is posted on the JMPR website (http://www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/jointplan/).
3

2.2 SAC Prioritization Workshops

Four separate prioritization workshops were held with members of the Cordell Bank, Gulf of the

Farallones, and Monterey Bay SACs in mid- to late-April. The purpose of these workshops was

for SAC members to prioritize, as a group, the cross-cutting and site-specific marine resource

management issues and problems identified during the public scoping process. These

recommendations were given to staff for final consideration in developing the final list of issues

to address in the JMPR.

The first workshop was held on April 15th, and involved all three SACs jointly prioritizing the

cross-cutting issues raised during the scoping process. Cross-cutting issues were defined as any

issue that applied to two or more sites. Following the joint workshop, individual SACs met on

the following dates to prioritize site-specific issues raised during scoping: Cordell Bank on April

22nd, Gulf of the Farallones on April 25th, and Monterey Bay on April 29th. The results from

these workshops were distributed to SAC members on May 13th in a document entitled “Report

on Sanctuary Advisory Council Prioritization Workshops.” The document is posted on the

JMPR website (http://www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/jointplan/).

2.3 NMSP Internal Issue Prioritization

At the onset of the JMPR over a year ago, staff from each Sanctuary initiated an internal review

of their individual management plans, regulations, policies, programs, and resource management

issues. The “State of the Sanctuary” reports summarize some of the results of this internal

review. Although some aspects of the internal review are still underway, the information

resulting from this process, as well as the public scoping comments and recommendations from

the SACs on priority issues, were used by JMPR staff to help develop the proposed list of issues

to address in the JMPR. The following summary outlines the general steps taken by the

sanctuaries to determine priority issues for each site and how the proposed NMSP priority list

was derived.

• Internal Program Review: Staff evaluated how well each individual program satisfied the

vision and mission of the sanctuary as laid out in the original management plan, particularly

as it related to resource protection, research, education, and outreach. As part of this

analysis, staff reviewed the current regulations, focusing on how the regulations were

implemented, where they need adjustments, and whether any additional regulations are

needed to protect sanctuary resources.

• Participation in Scoping: Nearly all on-site Sanctuary staff participated in one or more of the

20 public scoping meetings. These meetings defined the range of issues and concerns

important to the various constituents.

• Compare Issues Raised in Scoping with Existing Programs: Following the completion of the

Summary Scoping document, each Sanctuary compared how their existing programs,

regulations, policies, and partnerships addressed the 30 main resource management issues

raised during scoping.
4

• SAC Prioritization Exercise: Sanctuary staff and management observed and/or participated in

the four SAC prioritization workshops. These workshops helped staff focus the site’s own

priority issues.

• Staff Issue Prioritization Exercise: Each of the three sanctuaries’ participated in an issue

prioritization exercise similar to the SAC workshops. Staff was allowed to add issues or

concerns that were not represented in the Scoping Summary document.

• Comparison of Staff and SAC Priorities: Results from the staff and SAC issue prioritization

exercises were compared and used by staff to develop a proposed list of final issues to

address in the JMPR.

• Finalize Proposed List of Priority Issues: On May 15, core JMPR staff (from all three

sanctuaries and headquarters) met in Santa Cruz, CA to determine, as a program, the final list

of priority cross-cutting and site-specific marine resource management issues and problems

to address in the JMPR. This group developed the final proposed list of priority cross-cutting

and site-specific marine resource management issues and problems to address in the JMPR.

The results are summarized in sections 5.0 – 8.0 of this document.

3.0 NEXT STEPS

This document containing the NMSP’s proposed list of cross-cutting and site-specific issues will

be distributed to each SAC for comment. The SACs will discuss the proposed list of priority

issues at the following SAC meetings:

• CBNMS September 10 (location TBD)

• GFNMS September 12 (location TBD)

• MBNMS August 1 7:00 – 9:00 p.m. Cambria, CA – Public Comment on Issues

August 2 9:00 – 4 p.m. Cambria, CA - Comment, Discussion,

 Advice from SAC

Once finalized, the document will provide the basis for the development of a draft work plan.

This draft plan will outline how the program will use staff, SAC members, and subject experts to

characterize and develop strategies to address priority issues in the joint management plan

review. It is envisioned that working groups will be created to address some site-specific and

cross-cutting issues. SAC members and other subject experts will be invited to participate in the

working groups after the work plan is finalized. SAC members will also have an opportunity to

comment on the draft work plan before it is made final. The next steps are summarized in

Appendix 3: JMPR Next Steps.

4.0 PROPOSED PRIORITY ISSUE SUMMARY TABLES AND EXPLANATIONS

The following tables and corresponding text summaries depict the cross-cutting and site-specific

issues the National Marine Sanctuary Program plans to address in the JMPR. Table 4.1 provides

an overall summary of the proposed priority issues. More detailed explanations can found in

each of the issue areas: Cross-cutting, Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay.
5

Each section contains a table that depicts the original SAC recommended list of priority issues

and a color code that proposes how the NMSP intends to address the issue in the JMPR. Issues

will be addressed either as a cross-cutting issue (green), as a site-specific issue (blue), as a “tool”

(black), or they will not be addressed in this JMPR (red). Accompanying each table is a brief

description of the issues and a detailed explanation as to why it was selected to be addressed in

the JMPR. This section closely follows the order of issues listed in the priority issues summary

table.

To clarify what is meant by “tool”, for practical purposes the NMSP sorted out the actual marine

resource "issues" (e.g., wildlife disturbance) from the "tools" that might be used to address these

issues (e.g., education). In consideration of the next step, which is to build a work plan for the

new management plan, it will be easier to build a consistent structure if the strategies are built

around the "issues" and the "tools" are used to achieve the goals and objectives for each strategy.

It should be understood that even though a distinction has been made between issues and tools,

both may be incorporated into the new management plan in some capacity. This will be flushed

out in the work plan over the next several months.

Some issues that were recommended by one or more of the SACs as cross-cutting have been

determined to be best handled as site-specific and vice-versa. Some recommended issues have

been combined with other issues. Thus, we have also prepared a brief description of the issues to

accompany each table, and reasoning as to why it was (or was not) selected to be addressed in

the JMPR.
Table 4.1 - SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PRIORITY ISSUES

Cross-Cutting CBNMS GFNMS 

Coordinated Management• Improve management

consistency and efficiency

• Develop mechanism to address

current and emerging issues

• Coordinate research, education

and enforcement

• Evaluate need to modify

MBNMS/GFNMS boundary

Biodiversity Protection• Fully characterize ecosystem

dynamics

• Develop species inventory• Evaluate need for boundary

changes (explore significance ofBodega Canyon to productivityof CBNMS)

Biodiversity Protection• Characterize sanctuary habitats• Support wildlife restoration

projects

• Evaluate need for boundary

changes (evaluate ecologicallinkages between GFNMS andareas to the north and west)

PartnershipCoastal Eco• Multi–a• CalTran• Educati• Oil spil

Fishing Activities• Clarify sanctuaries’ role in

fishery issues

• Consider impacts to ecosystem

from krill harvesting

• Determine impacts to benthic

habitats from fishing gear

• Evaluate role of marine reserves

in sanctuaries

• Address fishing in research and

education plans

Water Quality• Establish baseline water quality

parameters

• Develop water quality monitoring

program

Vessel Traffic• Evaluate existing TSS lanes• Address vessel discharge issues

through education and outreach(including ballast water exchangeand introduction of invasivespecies)

• Evaluate acoustic impacts on

living marine resources

Water Qua• Implem

Quality 

• Review • Addres• Addres

Closure

• Protect 

Emergency Response• Clarify and coordinate

sanctuaries’ roles

• Evaluate response capabilities in

entire region

• Improve interagency

coordination

Administration• Build independent staffing

structure

• Evaluate office/visitor center

needs

• Coordinated mgmt. with sites

Water Quality• Establish baseline water quality

parameters

• Develop water quality monitoring

programs in coordination withother agencies

BiodiversitEcosystem • Evaluat

change

• Develo

emergin

Cultural Resources• Identify, characterize and

inventory cultural resources

• Identify potential threats to living

resources from sunken vessels

Research• Develop research focus and plan

for site (including monitoring)

• Disseminate results to public

Wildlife Disturbance• Address impacts from human

interactions with wildlife

• Expand volunteer programs to

minimize human disturbance.

Motorized • Review • Evaluat• Determ
Table 4.1 - SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PRIORITY ISSUES (con’t)

Cross-Cutting CBNMS GFNMS 

Ecosystem Monitoring• Evaluate and coordinate existing

monitoring programs

• Focus monitoring efforts on

resource management issues

Radioactive Waste• Determine status and potential

impacts to resources

• Develop and distribute public

outreach materials

Coastal De• Assess • Review • Addres

Community Outreach• Improve coordination and

cooperation between sites

• Implement regional strategies• Increase marketing, media and

public awareness campaigns

Aquaculture (Mariculture)• Assess impacts from discharges

and introductions of exoticspecies

• Educate user groups on best

management practices

• Streamline permit process

Wildlife Di• Explore 

addition

• Addres

interactmamma

Exotic/Invasive Species• Identify pathways of introduction• Monitor introduced species• Develop response and removal

strategies

• Develop coordinated effort to

prevent future introductions

Administration• Expand staffing infrastructure• Explore need to open additional

satellite offices and visitorcenters

Multicultur

• Implem

outreac

Interpretiv• Explore • Addres

kiosks
6

5.0 Cross-Cutting Priority Issues

Core JMPR staff (from all three sanctuaries and headquarters) met to determine a proposed final

list of priority cross-cutting and site-specific marine resource management issues and problems

to address in the JMPR. In making the final decisions on the list of issues, the core group

considered the original scoping comments, recommendations from the SACs on site-specific and

cross-cutting issues, the results from internal site priority exercises, evaluation criteria (see

Appendix 1: JMPR Internal Prioritization Criteria), and national program goals (see Appendix 2:

National JMPR Goals). The results from this workshop are summarized in the following section.

5.1 Table: Cross-Cutting Priority Issues: a table depicting the original SAC recommended

list of cross-cutting priority issues and a color code that depicts how the NMSP decided

to address the issue in the JMPR.

5.2 Cross-Cutting Explanations: a description of each issue that will (or won’t) be

addressed as a cross-cutting issue.

The issues recommended by the SACs are presented in the “bins” reflecting highest, to lowest,

priority to the SACs. So, bin1 issues received the highest ranking by the SACs, bin 5 the lowest.
7

Table 5.1 Cross Cutting Priority Issues

NMSP Proposal

Priority

Joint SAC

Recommendations

Cross-CuttingTool (Strategy)*Site-SpecificNot Addressing

Summary Explanation

9A Cultural Resources  GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this as a crosscutting issue. See Cross-Cutting: Cultural Resources.

10A Education (targeted)



CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to address this

“tool” by including it as an integral component of

individual action plans.

19A Motorized Personal

Watercraft 

MBNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue.

The issue does not affect CBNMS and has been

addressed by GFNMS. See MBNMS: Motorized

Personal Watercraft.

26A Emergency Response and

Contingency Planning 

CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue. See Cross-Cutting: Emergency

Response and Contingency Planning.

BIN 1

30A Wildlife Disturbance



GFNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue and

work with MBNMS and CBNMS on implementation

strategies for their site-specific education and outreach

programs. See GFNMS: Wildlife Disturbance.

4B Biodiversity Protection

(regional declines in resources

& habitat)



CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS each plan to develop

site-specific action plans. See Site-Specific: Biodiversity

Protection and Ecosystem Conservation.

5A Boundary Modifications



GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this as a crosscutting “tool” under a renamed category and develop

site-specific action plans. See Cross Cutting:

Coordinated Management. Site-specific boundary

considerations will be address for each site under SiteSpecific: Biodiversity Protection and Ecosystem

Conservation.

6A Coastal Armoring



Due to the increasing rate of shoreline armoring within

its boundaries, MBNMS plans to address this as a sitespecific issue. This is not a priority issue for CBNMS or

GFNMS. See MBNMS: Biodiversity Protection and

Ecosystem Conservation.

7A Coastal Development



Due an increasing human population in the region,

MBNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue.

This is not a priority issue for CBNMS or GFNMS. See

MBNMS: Biodiversity Protection and Ecosystem

Conservation.

8B Community Outreach

(comm. plan, PR, coord.) 

CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting “tool” and develop site-specific actions. See

Cross-Cutting: Community Outreach.

BIN 2

11A Enforcement



CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this

“tool” by including it as an integral component of

individual issue action plans.
8

13A Fishing/Kelp Harvesting

(fishing impacts) 

CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue (kelp harvesting has been eliminated

from this issue). See Cross-Cutting: Fishery Resources.

14A Habitat Alteration

(trawling impacts) 

CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue under Cross-Cutting: Fishery

Resources.

18A Monitoring



CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting “tool” and develop site-specific actions.

CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this by

including it as an integral component of individual issue

action plans. See Cross-Cutting: Ecosystem

Monitoring.

20A Oil and Gas

Exploration/Development



CBNMS, GFNMS, MBNMS do not believe this is a

priority issue at this time since all three sanctuaries

already prohibit oil and gas development. Potential

impacts from oil and gas development will be addressed

under GFNMS & MBNMS: Boundary Modifications

and oil spill clean-up will be addressed under CrossCutting: Emergency Response and Contingency

Planning.

21A Partnerships with Agencies

(strengthen, coord.)



CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS will continue their

focus on partnerships with agencies, however no new

action plan will be developed. CBNMS, GFNMS and

MBNMS plan to address this issue by including it as an

integral component of individual issue action plans.

22A Partnerships with

Community Groups



MBNMS and GFNMS plan to continue to focus on

partnerships with community groups and include

partnerships as integral components of issue-specific

action plans. However, neither site will develop a new

action plan. CBNMS plans to address this as a sitespecific issue. See CBNMS: Partnerships With

Community Groups.

24A Research



CBNMS, GFNMS, MBNMS plan to address this “tool”

by including it as an integral component of individual

issue action plans.

29A Water Quality



CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this as

separate site-specific issues due to distinct water quality

issues and conditions in each sanctuary. See SiteSpecific: Water Quality.

1A Acoustic Impacts



MBNMS plan to address this as a site-specific issue as

part of its ecosystem monitoring program, but will not

develop a specific action plan. At this time, it is not a

priority issue for CBNMS or GFNNMS. See CrossCutting: Ecosystem Monitoring.

2A Administration



CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this as a

renamed cross-cutting issue. See Cross-Cutting:

Coordinated Management.

4A Biodiversity Protection

(biodiversity poorly

documented, but threatened)



CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this as

a cross-cutting issue. See Cross Cutting: Fishery

Resources and Ecosystem Monitoring.

BIN 3

8A Community Outreach



CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this

“tool” by including it as an integral component of

individual issue action plans. See Cross-Cutting:

Community Outreach.
9

10C Education (multicultural)



CBNMS, GFNMS, MBNMS plan to address this “tool”

as integral component of individual action plans.

Multicultural outreach will also be addressed by

MBNMS as a site-specific issue. See MBNMS:

Multicultural Outreach.

12A Exotic Species



CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue. See Cross-Cutting:

Exotic/Invasive Species.

21B Partnerships with Agencies

(formal process for

coordination) 

CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS do not plan on

addressing this “tool” as separate cross-cutting action

plans. However, strategies for coordination with other

agencies will be incorporated into individual action plans

for each issue.

21C Partnerships with Agencies

(harbors)



CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS do not plan on

addressing this issue as separate cross-cutting action

plan. However, MBNMS plans to incorporate strategies

for coordination with harbors in an action plan. See

MBNMS: Coastal Development.

3A Aquaculture



GFNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue.

This is not a priority issue for CBNMS or MBNMS. See

GFNMS: Aquaculture

10D Education (lack of coord.

between 3 sites)  CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this“tool” as integral component of individual action plans.

17A Military Activities



CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS do not plan on

addressing this issue at this time. Strategies to monitor

acoustic impacts associated with military activities may

be incorporated into the Cross Cutting: Ecosystem

Monitoring action plan.

25B Sanctuary Advisory

Council (low public profile)



CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS do not plan on

addressing this issue at this time. This issue is not

considered to be a high priority warranting specific

strategies. Greater outreach and marketing of the

Sanctuaries will be addressed as part of an action plan.

See Cross-Cutting: Community Outreach.

27A User Conflicts



CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS do not plan on

addressing this issue at this time. Certain activities

related to user conflicts may be addressed by GFNMS as

part of a Wildlife Disturbance action plan or by

MBNMS as part of Biodiversity Protection.

BIN 4

28A Vessel Traffic



MBNMS has recently addressed this issue. GFNMS

plans to address this as a site-specific issue. See

GFNMS: Vessel Traffic. CBNMS is primarily

concerned with oil spill contingency planning. See

Cross-Cutting: Emergency Response and

Contingency Planning.

4C Biodiversity Protection



CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS each plan to address

this as site-specific issues. See Site-Specific:

Biodiversity Protection and Ecosystem Conservation.
10

10B Education (sharing research

results with public)



CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS do not plan on

addressing this as a cross-cutting issue. However, greater

outreach and marketing of research conducted in the

Sanctuaries will be generally addressed as part of an

action plan. See Cross-Cutting: Community

Outreach. Education of targeted groups will be

incorporated into action plans for other issues.

25A Sanctuary Advisory

Council (need for more

autonomy) 

CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS do not plan on

addressing this as a cross-cutting issue. This issue was

not considered to be a high priority during the SAC

prioritization workshops. Advisory Councils may

consider modifications to their respective Charters if

each Council determines it is needed.

BIN 613B Kelp Harvesting



Kelp harvesting is not considered to be an issue for

CBNMS and GFNMS. Last year, MBNMS provided

recommendations to Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game on a

5-year Kelp Management plan.

Totals

37 7 14 10 6

Totals: Of the SAC’s 37 Cross-Cutting priority issues,

23 will be addressed as cross-cutting (issues or

strategies), 10 as site-specific, and 6 will not be

addressed.

* This matrix represents a broad range of priority issues evaluated by the all three Sanctuary Advisory Councils. All

of the categories indicated below have issues associated with them, however we sorted the marine resource "issues"

(e.g. wildlife disturbance) from the "tools" or “strategies” used to address these issues (e.g. education). In

consideration of the next step, which is to build a work plan for the new management plan, it will be easier to build a

consistent structure if the strategies are built around the "issues" and the "tools" are used to achieve the goals and

objectives for each strategy. While issues and tools may be distinct, both will be incorporated into the new

management plan in some capacity. How tools will be incorporated into the action plans will be identified in the

work plan after SAC discussion of this list of issues.

5.2 CROSS-CUTTING EXPLANATIONS

This section provides explanations of cross-cutting issues that were selected (and not selected)

by the NMSP to be addressed in the JMPR. These explanations supplement the summaries from

Table 5.1.

The ordering and naming of issues in this section closely follow the order within the Joint SAC

Recommendation column in Table 5.1, and are further sub-organized as to how they will be

addressed:

• Issues addressed as Cross-cutting

• Issues addressed as Tools (strategies)

• Issues addressed as Site-specific

• Issues that will not be addressed in the JMPR
11

Each explanation lists the issue title, summarizes the program recommendation, and states the

rationale. When possible, the issue explanations use the same issue nomenclature used in the

SAC prioritization workshops (i.e., 9A Cultural Resources). However, there were instances

when similar issues were combined and given a new name.

Issues Addressed as Cross-Cutting

9A Cultural Resources

Proposal: Develop a Cross-Cutting Action Plan.

Submerged cultural resources are an important part of our nation’s maritime heritage and their

protection is a mandate of the NMSA. However, to date little has been done to fully characterize

these resources other than assemble a database of known shipwrecks throughout the region. The

NMSP needs to develop strategies to identify, fully characterize, and protect all of the cultural

resources within its boundaries – from shipwrecks to archeological sites and artifacts. A priority

component of the submerged cultural resources program will be to address potential resource

threats from aging sunken vessels (e.g. recent oil releases from the Luckenbach, or potential

releases from the Montebello).

26A Emergency Response and Contingency Planning

Proposal: Develop a Cross-Cutting Action Plan.

Emergency response within the sanctuaries range from small events associated with fuel and oil

discharges; debris and habitat damage from vessel groundings and sinkings and plane crashes; to

larger spills from offshore shipping traffic. The NMSP needs to fully define sanctuary roles

during large-scale emergency response, address lack of response capabilities for key stretches of

coast, and improve the system of interagency coordination and response for smaller vessel

groundings. Although each sanctuary has an emergency response plan in place, there is a lack of

consistency and coordination between sites. Planning for an emergency within the three

Sanctuaries should be integrated into a cohesive and fully understood Emergency Response Plan.

The cross-cutting plan will describe oil spill and emergency response activities for all three

sanctuaries, including shared resources and assigned roles for each site.

13A Fishing (and Kelp Harvesting), 14A Habitat Alteration, and 4A Biodiversity Protection

Proposal: Remove kelp harvesting, combine all three issues, change name to Fishery Resources,

and develop a Cross-Cutting Action Plan.

During the public scoping process, sanctuary staff received many comments concerning the

impacts of fishing activities on sanctuary resources and habitats, and the role of the sanctuaries in

fishery management. During the joint SAC prioritization workshop on April 15th, SAC

members selected issue 13A Fishing and Kelp Harvesting, which was defined as “Fishing

activities impact marine ecosystems in a variety of ways, directly (reduced fish biomass) and

indirectly (secondary impacts on species interactions, habitat alteration, marine biodiversity)” as

a priority. It was determined that this issue warranted further clarification, given the large

amount of public interest.
12

Currently, the management of fisheries is the responsibility of the Pacific Fishery Management

Council (PFMC), and the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The NMSP

responsibilities lie in the protection of the entire ecosystem, which includes habitats and species.

The sanctuaries’ will work together to define their role in advising the fisheries management

agencies on fishing activities which impact sanctuary resources and habitats.

Areas of concern that would be evaluated in this action plan include: 1) clarify the sanctuaries’

role in relationship to fisheries management agencies, including commenting on state and federal

fishery management plans, 2) consider methods to ensure long-term protection of krill as a

critical prey to many trophic layers, 3) determine impacts to benthic habitats from trawling and

consider means to minimize resource damage, 4) evaluate and provide recommendations on the

role of marine reserves in the Sanctuaries, and 5) the sanctuaries' role in research and education

programs related to fishing.

2A Administration

Proposal: Combine this issue with the following “tools”: 5A Boundary Modification, 10A,C&D

Education, 24A Research, 11A Enforcement, change name to Coordinated Management and

develop a Cross-Cutting Action Plan.

Sanctuary resources do not recognize political or administrative boundaries. Likewise, threats

and impacts to these resources may be more effectively addressed on a regional level. It is a

high priority for the NMSP to develop strategies for improved, consistent and efficient

management across all three sites. There is also a clear need to develop an overarching

mechanism to address current and emerging cross-cutting issues within the program.

Within the scope of “Administration”, the program has determined to also coordinate the

development and use of tools (strategies) to address specific issues. These include: boundary

modifications (shared boundaries), research, education, and enforcement. Although these are all

tools and strategies to address resource management protection efforts, the three sanctuaries will

make a concerted effort to insure coordination and collaboration in the use of these tools to

maximize their effectiveness.

12A Exotic/Invasive Species

Proposal: Develop a Cross-Cutting Action Plan

The individual and cumulative impacts of invasive species on native species and habitats are not

well understood. Impacts may include: decreasing abundance and even local extinction of native

species; alteration of habitat structure; and extensive economic costs due to biofouling.

Eradication of introduced species is proven to be difficult, thus management practices focus

largely on the prevention. To address recent introductions of certain exotic algae, individual

sanctuaries have engaged in education and eradication measures. However, this occurs on a

piecemeal basis, after the introduction and impacts have occurred. The three sanctuaries will

develop a cross-cutting plan to evaluate: pathways of exotic species introduction, identify and

monitor current levels of invasive species, develop response and removal strategies, and develop

a coordinated effort to prevent future introductions.
13

Issues Addressed as Tools (Strategies)

10A,B,C&D Education (lack of coordination, targeted education, lack of multi-cultural education

& sharing research results)

Proposal: Include these aspects of education as integral components of individual action plans.

However, no new specific action plan focusing on education will be developed. Education will

also be looked at as part of an Administrative Cross-Cutting action plan, renamed as

Coordinated Management.

Education is one of the primary mandates of the National Marine Sanctuary Program. It is also

an essential tool (strategy) to achieve many of the programs’ management objectives. Currently

all of the three sanctuaries have education programs aimed at developing community stewardship

and resource protection. However, not all of the sites have targeted education program geared to

specific user groups or a multi-cultural audience. Under the "Coordinated Management" section

of the cross-cutting management plan, the program will look at addressing targeted education

across all three sanctuaries, looking for ways that maximize resource protection and

administrative efficiency across all three sites.

5A Boundary Modifications

Proposal: This will also be looked at as part of an Administrative Cross-Cutting action plan,

renamed as Coordinated Management.

Throughout the public scoping process and the SAC prioritization workshops, comments were

received that made it clear that the NMSP needs to resolve the ongoing northern

MBNMS/southern GFNMS boundary issue in the JMPR. The program will resolve this issue in

the JMPR, but views this particular boundary issue as an administrative tool or strategy to

address specific resource management or community outreach issues. Under the "Coordinated

Management" section of the cross-cutting management plan, the program will look at addressing

this particular MBNMS/GFNMS boundary issue, looking for ways that maximize resource

protection and administrative efficiency across all three sites.

8A&B Community Outreach (lack of awareness, including communication and PR plan)

Proposal: Combine 8A&B and develop a Cross-Cutting Action Plan

Creating an informed local, regional and national constituency and developing stewards of the

sanctuaries is high program priority. Outreach efforts are directed at improving public awareness

and understanding of the significance of the sanctuaries and the need to protect their cultural and

natural resources. Outreach efforts are primarily carried out through visitor centers, through

existing resource protection, education and research programs, or by Sanctuary Advisory

Council members. Currently, the three Sanctuaries do not have a coordinated outreach program

that effectively highlights the national system or individual program activities across all three

sites. Addressing this issue will involve all three sites in working towards better coordination

and cooperation, implementing regional outreach strategies, increasing marketing, media

exposure, public awareness and stewardship, while focusing on site-specific needs and targeted

audiences. Although Community Outreach may be used as a resource management tool, all three
14

sites would like to develop a cross-cutting action plan specifically for outreach as is supports one

of the broader goals of the NMSP in developing public awareness.

Enforcement 11A

Proposal: Include as an integral component of individual action plans, however, no new specific

action plan focusing on enforcement will be developed. This will also be looked at as part of an

Administrative Cross-Cutting action plan, renamed as Coordinated Management.

Resource protection is one of the primary mandates of the National Marine Sanctuary Program.

Educating users about sanctuary regulations and the actual enforcement of regulations are tools

that mangers use to protect sanctuary resources. Each of the three sanctuaries rely upon a

number of partnerships and cooperative mechanisms to conduct surveillance and enforcement

activities. Some of the other agencies involved include: U.S. Coast Guard, National Marine

Fisheries Service, National Park Service, Dept. of Interior, State Lands Commission, State Parks

Dept. and Dept. of Fish and Game. Sanctuary staff also work directly with user groups to

encourage compliance and best management practices. The three sanctuaries will work together

under the "Coordinated Management" section of the cross-cutting management plan to look for

ways that maximize resource protection and administrative efficiency across all three sites.

Where appropriate there will be specific enforcement recommendations in individual action

plans.

18A Monitoring

Proposal: change name to Ecosystem Monitoring and develop a Cross-Cutting Action Plan

Data derived from monitoring provides an important tool for effective resource management.

Currently, GFNMS is involved in several marine mammal monitoring programs, shoreline

monitoring, intertidal monitoring, coastal ecology relationships monitoring and restoration

monitoring. As an offshore site with no land features, CBNMS has its own unique monitoring

requirements, including monitoring programs to assess changes and impacts as they occur. With

the support of many partners, MBNMS has recently initiated a Sanctuary Integrated Monitoring

Network (SIMoN) to address the critical need for the continuous long-term evaluation of the

region and resources, and commit to a stable network of ecosystem and issue-based monitoring

programs. The monitoring programs at all three sites will be evaluated and coordinated. In

addition to the biological, physical and chemical monitoring currently underway, ecosystem

monitoring efforts will be focused on addressing resource management issues such as water

quality, invasive species, and acoustic impacts while making use of institutional partnerships and

volunteer support. Although Ecosystem Monitoring is a resource management tool, monitoring

will also be developed as a cross-cutting action plan as it provides valuable information for

resource managers involved in decision making.
15

21A,B&C Partnerships with Agencies (strengthen, formal process for coordination, harbors)

Proposal: Include as an integral component of individual action plans, however, no new specific

action plan focusing on partnerships with agencies will be developed.

Establishing partnerships with agencies is a tool or strategy that agencies use to address specific

issues. Overlapping jurisdictions, different agency mandates and limited resources necessitate the

development of a relationship that brings together multiple agencies for the common purpose of

ecosystem management. Currently, all three Sanctuaries have many strong partnerships with

other Federal, State and local agencies. These partnerships are critical to effectively addressing

resource management issues. Many of these partnerships are defined through Memorandum of

Understandings or by other regulatory, consultation and permit review procedures. All three

sanctuaries will continue to expand upon existing efforts to partner with agencies to address

resource management needs and issues and look for ways to streamline existing regulatory and

permit processes, particularly as it relates to the sanctuary requirements across the three

sanctuaries. However, no new action plan focusing specifically on partnerships with agencies or

developing one standard process for coordination is needed since these partnerships tend to be

very issue specific. As such, each sanctuary will address this by considering and including

partnerships with agencies as integral tools and strategies of individual action plans. In relations

to harbors, the MBNMS will seek to incorporate strategies for coordination with harbors in an

action plan. Only one harbor lies adjacent to the GFNMS and this issue is not considered to be a

priority. CBNMS is offshore and therefore not applicable. See MBNMS: Coastal

Development.

22A Partnerships with Community Groups

Proposal: Include as an integral component of individual action plans for all sites. CBNMS will

address this as a site-specific issue.

Developing and maintaining a partnership with community groups is a tool or strategy that

agencies use to help involve local residents in managing and protecting sanctuary resources.

MBNMS and GFNMS will continue to focus on partnerships with community groups and

include them, when appropriate, as integral components of individual issue-specific action plans.

However, no new action plan focusing on partnerships with community groups will be developed

at this time. CBNMS does not have the network of community groups like the other two sites

and will develop a specific action. See CBNMS: Partnerships With Community Groups.

24A Research

Proposal: Recommendation: Include as an integral component of individual action plans,

however, no new specific action plan focusing on research will be developed. This will also be

looked at as part of an Administrative Cross-Cutting action plan, renamed as Coordinated

Management.

The diversity of habitats and species throughout the three-sanctuary region offers an outstanding

opportunity for scientific research on marine ecosystems. Research is used as a tool at all three

sites to better understand the status of sanctuary resources and any natural and human induced

changes that may be occurring. Most of the research is not conducted by sanctuary staff, but

through a variety of cooperative partnerships with other Federal and State agencies, universities
16

and other organizations. The NMSP will continue its efforts to coordinate and fund research

programs to address specific management problems and to enhance resource protection. The

three sanctuaries will work together under the "Coordinated Management" section of the crosscutting management plan to look for ways that maximize resource protection and administrative

efficiency across all three sites. Where appropriate there will be specific enforcement

recommendations in individual action plans.

Issues Addressed as Site-Specific

19A Motorized Personal Watercraft

Proposal: Develop MBNMS Action Plan. The issue does not affect CBNMS and has been

addressed by GFNMS.

Motorized personal watercraft operate in a manner unique among recreational vehicles creating

potentially significant impacts on wildlife, water quality and personal safety. In addition to

impacting marine resources, there have been conflicts between MPWC users and other

recreational ocean users as a result of the noise and operation of MPWCs. Currently, MBNMS

has a partial ban on MPWC. This issue will be treated as a site-specific issue for MBNMS to

further investigate and characterize impacts on marine resources and issues related to user

conflicts. MBNMS originally restricted MPWCs to certain zones in order to protect sanctuary

resources, in particular marine mammals and seabirds. The review of MPWC regulations will be

necessary as many personal watercraft operate outside the MBNMS’ 1992 definition of such

craft. See MBNMS: Motorized Personal Watercraft.

30A Wildlife Disturbance

Proposal: Develop GFNMS Site-Specific Plan. GFNMS and MBNMS will address this as a sitespecific issue and work with CBNMS on implementation strategies for site-specific education

and outreach programs.

With the multitude of opportunities for observing and interacting with nature comes the potential

for wildlife disturbance which may result in: flushing birds from their nesting sites, trampling

tide pools, pinnipeds abandoning pups or potential harassment. This is a priority issue for

GFNMS and will be further characterized to determine the best regulatory or non-regulatory

tools necessary to address this issue. MBNMS has adopted prohibitions for white shark

attraction. Due to a lack of focused strategy on these issues and effective enforcement and

education, disturbances to marine mammals, seabirds, and tidepool habitats, continue to be a

major issue within the MBNMS and GFNMS, which sanctuary staff believe should be addressed

in this Management Plan Review. See GFNMS & MBNMS: Wildlife Disturbance.

4B Biodiversity Protection (regional declines in resources and habitats)

Proposal: Combine 4B&C: CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS will each develop site-specific

action plans.

The goals and objectives set forth by the National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA) direct each of

the sanctuaries to take an ecosystem-based approach to managing the marine ecosystems. The

ecosystems include habitat structure, species assemblages and ecological processes, as well as
17

humans and their uses that are compatible with resource protection. All three sites will actively

pursue protection of the ecosystem and enhance biodiversity through management strategies for

program areas such as education, community outreach, monitoring, and research; and addressing

human uses activities through regulatory and non-regulatory strategies. See CBNMS, GFNMS

and MBNMS: Biodiversity Protection.

6A Coastal Armoring

Proposal: Due to the increasing rate of coastal development and subsequent shoreline armoring

within its boundaries, MBNMS will combine this issue with 7A Coastal Development and

develop a site-specific Action Plan.

Commercial and residential development adjacent is concentrated around the Monterey Bay

including the Monterey Peninsula, Marina, Watsonville, Santa Cruz, Half Moon Bay and north

to San Francisco. As shorelines naturally erode, adjacent homeowners and businesses are

increasingly turning toward shoreline armoring to protect their private property. Coastal

armoring can result in the loss of nearshore habitats and displace other human users such as

surfing. It may also exacerbate erosion at sites adjacent to the armoring. Certain Coastal

armoring projects (below mean high tide) may require review and approval by the MBNMS and

thus warrant the development and implementation of comprehensive resource protection

strategies. The MBNMS regulations already prohibit any alteration of the seabed with few

exceptions. However, the MBNMS may also consider a review of its permitting program to

ensure maximum efficiency while maintaining protection of the resources. This issue does not

apply to CBNMS. Most of the shoreline along the GFNMS boundary is already protected as part

of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area or Pt. Reyes National Seashore and it is not a

priority issue. See MBNMS: Coastal Development.

7A Coastal Development

Proposal: Due to the increasing human population adjacent to its boundaries, MBNMS will

combine this issue with 6A Coastal Armoring and develop a site-specific Action Plan.

Commercial and residential development adjacent is concentrated around the Monterey Bay

including the Monterey Peninsula, Marina, Watsonville, Santa Cruz, Half Moon Bay and north

to San Francisco. Issues related to increased point and non-point source pollution, loss of

nearshore habitat and increased human presence along the shoreline are some of the coastal

development concerns the sanctuary will address. Certain coastal development issues may

require review and approval by the MBNMS. Specifically certain seabed disturbance activities

such as landslide disposal and fiber optic cables warrant development and implementation of

comprehensive resource protection strategies. The MBNMS regulations already prohibit any

alteration of the seabed with few exceptions. However, the MBNMS may also consider a review

of its permitting program to ensure maximum efficiency while maintaining protection of the

resources.

In addition, while the MBNMS does not directly regulate dredging itself (i.e. the removal of

sediment from the harbors and their channels) it does have a regulatory role in the disposal of

dredged materials. The sanctuary works jointly with other State and Federal agencies, such as the

California Coastal Commission, the US Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, the Regional Water
18

Quality Control Board, National Marine Fisheries Service, and US Fish and Wildlife Service to

review and permit dredge disposal within the MBNMS. These reviews minimize impacts to

sanctuary resources while allowing the continued operation of our critical local harbors. The

MBNMS will initiate a review of processes to consider dredge disposal to ensure value-added,

proper resource protection, improved coordination with other agencies and efficient allocation of

time and resources. See MBNMS: Coastal Development. This issue does not apply to

CBNMS. Most of the shoreline along the GFNMS boundary is already protected as part of the

Golden Gate National Recreation Area or Pt. Reyes National Seashore and it is not a priority

issue.

29A Water Quality

Proposal: Develop site-specific action plans for CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS due to distinct

water quality issues and conditions in each sanctuary. 

There is agreement between the SAC s and staff that water quality is a high priority issue at all

three sites. It is also recognized that the three sites are at different places in terms of addressing

water quality issues. The MBNMS already has a Water Quality Protection Program and is

starting to implement four detailed action plans addressing urban runoff, marinas and boating

activities, regional monitoring and data sharing, and agriculture and rural lands. Both GFNMS

and CBNMS have collected some baseline water quality data, but to date have not developed

water quality protection plans. It was determined that each site will continue efforts to develop

and/or implement site-specific water quality plans to address local and regional needs. The sites

will look at opportunities to increase coordination and collaboration across the three sites.

1A Acoustic Impacts

Proposal: An issue specific action plan will not be developed at this time. MBNMS will address

this as a site-specific issue as part of its ecosystem monitoring program (which is listed as,

Cross-Cutting: Ecosystem Monitoring). At this time, it is not a priority issue for CBNMS or

GFNMS.

Anthropogenic noise and pressure waves may be impacting living marine resources in the

sanctuaries. Anthropogenic sources of noise include: large commercial shipping traffic such as

container ships, freighters, barges and tankers, recreational and commercial boats; military low

frequency testing; research activities; and aerial overflights. MBNMS has been involved in

evaluating and requesting limits or alterations to specific proposals to use acoustic devices in the

region, such as the Navy’s recent Low-Frequency Array proposal, but has not addressed the

overall issue of cumulative noise impacts. Acoustic impacts will be addressed by the MBNMS

through their ecosystem monitoring program.

3A Aquaculture

Proposal: Develop GFNMS Site Specific Plan.

Sanctuary staff recommends aquaculture as a priority issue to be addressed in the GFNMS sitespecific management plan. Currently, aquaculture activities in the GFNMS are limited to oysters

grown on tracts of tidelands in Tomales Bay, leased from State Lands Commission, and

regulated by the Dept. of Fish and Game. GFNMS would like to develop a framework to look at
19

impacts from current and potential future aquaculture activities. The GFNMS is concerned about

potential threats from aquaculture activities including: the introduction of exotic/invasive

species, disturbances to the seabed, water quality impacts and the introduction of genetically

modified species. MBNMS already has a permit process in place to review discharges from

aquaculture activities and its current management plan allows the MBNMS to develop

regulations for aquaculture, should problems arise in the future. Specific aquaculture issues that

involve exotic/invasive species introduction and water quality will also be addressed through

other action plans. There are currently no aquaculture facilities in the CBNMS.

28A Vessel Traffic

Proposal: Develop GFNMS Site-Specific Plan. MBNMS has recently addressed this issue.

CBNMS is primarily concerned with oil spill contingency planning, which will be addressed.

See Cross-Cutting: Emergency Response and Contingency Planning.

Vessel traffic within the GFNMS was a major issue of concern during the designation process in

1981 and remains so today. Historically, the total number of spills from transiting vessels is

rather small in number, but the potential impacts may be enormous given the number and volume

of vessels, and the hazardous cargo lane's proximity to the Farallon Islands and the major seabird

and marine mammal congregations. 6,000 vessels entered and exited the San Francisco Bay in

1998. A Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) for the West Coast of the United States separates

opposing flows of vessel traffic, into lanes, including a zone between the lanes where traffic is

recommended not to be. The separation scheme is voluntary and not all ships comply with the

recommendations. Other issues related to vessel traffic include: discharges (including exotic

species introductions), vessel strikes, acoustic impacts on living resources and pollution from

emissions. GFNMS will continue to explore options to further protect the natural resources from

potential impacts from vessel traffic. See GFNMS: Vessel Traffic.

4C Biodiversity Protection (focus on resource protection)

Proposal: Combine 4B&C: CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS will each develop site-specific

action plans.

The goals and objectives set forth by the National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA) direct each of

the sanctuaries to take an ecosystem-based approach to managing the marine areas. The

ecosystems include habitat structure, species assemblages and ecological processes, as well as

humans and their uses that are compatible with resource protection. All three sites will actively

pursue protection of the ecosystem and enhance biodiversity through management strategies for

program areas such as education, community outreach, monitoring, and research; and addressing

human uses activities through regulatory and non-regulatory strategies. See CBNMS, GFNMS

and MBNMS: Biodiversity Protection.
20

Issues That Will Not be Addressed in the Joint Management Plan Review

20A Oil and Gas Exploration

Proposal: This is not a priority issue to address in this management plan, but the issue will be

considered along with "boundary modification"

All three sanctuaries have regulations that prohibit oil and gas development within their existing

boundaries. In addition, there are currently no active State or Federal leases in or adjacent to any

of the three sanctuaries. Although the sanctuaries foresee no major threat at this time from oil

and gas development, there remains a concern about impacts on marine resources from oil spills.

The potential threats from oil and gas development will be addressed in conjunction within the

individual sites’ Boundary Modifications issue. The threat of oil spills will be addressed in the

Cross-Cutting: Emergency Response and Contingency Planning” issue.

17A Military Activities

Proposal: No specific action plan will be developed during this management plan review.

There are many human activities that may have impacts on sanctuary resources. Current military

activities are either exempt from Sanctuary regulations in certain zones or are addressed through

existing consultations on a case-by-case basis. Addressing these issues was not determined to be

a priority at this time. All three sanctuaries will continue to review and comment on specific

military projects and proposals as they arise, and consult with the military on appropriate

mitigation measures. Strategies to monitor acoustic impacts associated with military activities

may be incorporated into the Cross-Cutting: Ecosystem Monitoring action plan.

25A&B Sanctuary Advisory Council (low public profile & need for more authority)

Proposal: No specific action plan will be developed during this management plan review.

These issues did not rank as high priority issues during the SAC prioritization process. Greater

community outreach about the Sanctuaries, including the purpose and membership of Advisory

Councils, will be addressed as part of an action plan for Community Outreach. Individual

Advisory Councils may consider modifications to their charter, if the entire council determines it

is necessary.

27A User Conflicts

Proposal: No specific action plan will be developed during this management plan review.

CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS will not address this particular issue at this time. The original

problem statement voted on by SAC members specifically related to wildlife disturbance issues.

As such, elements may be addressed by GFNMS as part of a Wildlife Disturbance action plan

or by MBNMS as part of Biodiversity Protection.

13B Kelp Harvesting

Proposal: No specific action plan will be developed during this management plan review.
21

MBNMS, GFNMS and CBNMS will not address this as a cross-cutting issue. Kelp harvesting is

not considered to be a resource management issue for CBNMS and GFNMS. In 2001, based on

advice and input from the SAC and the community, the MBNMS presented recommendations to

the Department of Fish and Game for consideration in the 5-year kelp management plan. Most

of the recommendations were adopted by the state. The MBNMS will provide additional input

when the plan is next reviewed in 2006.
22

6.0 Cordell Bank Site-Specific Priority Issues

Core JMPR staff (from all three sanctuaries and headquarters) met to determine a proposed final

list of priority cross-cutting and site-specific marine resource management issues and problems

to address in the JMPR. In making the final decisions on the list of issues, the core group

considered the original scoping comments, recommendations from the SACs on site-specific and

cross-cutting issues, the results from internal site priority exercises, evaluation criteria (see

Appendix 2: JMPR Internal Prioritization Criteria), and national program goals (see Appendix 3:

National JMPR Goals). The results from this workshop are summarized in the following section.

6.1 Table: Cordell Bank NMS Priority Issues: a table depicting the original SAC

recommended list of Cordell Bank NMS priority issues and a color code that depicts how

the NMSP decided to address the issue in the JMPR.

6.2 Cordell Bank NMS Explanations: a description of each issue that will (or won’t) be

addressed as a cross-cutting issue.

The issues recommended by the SACs are presented in the “bins” reflecting highest, to lowest,

priority to the SACs. So, bin 1 issues received the highest ranking by the SACs, bin 5 the lowest.
23

Table 6.1 CBNMS Priority Issues

Program Proposal

Priority

Cordell Bank SAC

Recommendations

Cross-Cutting Issues

Tool (Strategy)*Site-Specific

Not Addressing

Summary Explanation

4.0 Biodiversity Protection 

CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to develop sitespecific actions. See Site Specific: Biodiversity

Protection and Ecosystem Conservation.

8.0 Community Outreach

 CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to use this as a “tool”

to address cross cutting and site-specific issues. CBNMS

plans to also develop a site-specific action plan. See Cross

Cutting: Community Outreach.

10.0 Education

 CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to use this as a “tool”

to address other cross cutting and site-specific issues. See

Cross Cutting: Education.

13.0 Fishing

 CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue with Habitat Alteration under the

renamed category Fishery Resources (kelp harvesting has

been eliminated from this issue). See Cross Cutting:

Fishery Resources.

14.0 Habitat Alteration  MBNMS, CBNMS, and GFNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue. Cross Cutting: Fishery Resources.

21.0 Partnerships With

Agencies 

MBNMS plan to address this as a separate site-specific

issue. GFNMS and CBNMS plan to continue to use this

tool to address other issues, however no new action plan

will be developed. See Cross Cutting: Partnerships with

Agencies.

22.0 Partnerships With

Community Groups 

MBNMS and GFNMS plan to continue with their focus on

partnerships with community groups, however no new

action plan will be developed at this time. CBNMS plans to

address this as a site-specific issue. See CBNMS:

Partnerships with Community Groups.

18.0 Monitoring 

CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to use this as a “tool”

to address other cross cutting and site-specific issues, and

develop site-specific actions. See Cross Cutting:

Ecosystem Monitoring.

26.0 Emergency Response

And Contingency Planning 

CBNMS, GFNMS, AND MBNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue. See Cross Cutting: Emergency

Response and Contingency Planning.

29.0 Water Quality 

CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this as a

separate site-specific issue due to distinct water quality

issues and conditions in each sanctuary. See CBNMS,

GFNMS, and MBNMS Water Quality.
24

5.0 Boundary Modification 

CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to use Boundary

Modification as a “tool” to address other issues under

Cooperative Management and develop site-specific actions.

See Cross Cutting: Cooperative Management. Site

Specific boundary considerations will be addressed for each

site under Site-Specific: Biodiversity Protection and

Ecosystem Conservation.

19.0 Motorized Personal

Watercraft 

MBNMS plan to address this as a site-specific issue. See

MBNMS: Motorized Personal Watercraft. This issue is

not a high priority for CBNMS and has been resolved by

GFNMS.

28.0 Vessel Traffic 

GFNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue. See

GFNMS: Vessel Traffic. MBNMS has recently addressed

this issue.

No recommendations

2.0 Administration 

CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to use this as a “tool”

to address site specific and cross cutting issues under the

renamed category Coordinated Management. See CBNMS:

Coordinated Management.

24.0 Research 

CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to use this as a crosscutting “tool” and develop site-specific actions. See

CBNMS: Coordinated Management.

Totals

15 3543

Totals: Of the fifteen priority issues recommended by the

CBNMS SAC and staff, we plan to address eight as crosscutting (issues and tools), four as site-specific, and three

will not be addressed at this time.

• This matrix represents a broad range of priority issues evaluated by the all three Sanctuary Advisory

Councils. All of the categories indicated below have issues associated with them, however we sorted the

marine resource "issues" (e.g. wildlife disturbance) from the "tools" or “strategies” used to address these

issues (e.g. education). In consideration of the next step, which is to build a work plan for the new

management plan, it will be easier to build a consistent structure if the strategies are built around the

"issues" and the "tools" are used to achieve the goals and objectives for each strategy. While issues and

tools may be distinct, both will be incorporated into the new management plan in some capacity. How tools

will be incorporated into the action plans will be identified in the work plan after SAC discussion of this list

of issues.

6.2 CORDELL BANK NMS EXPLANATIONS

This section provides explanations of Cordell Bank NMS site-specific issues that were selected

(and not selected) by the NMSP to be addressed in the JMPR. These explanations supplement the

summaries from Table 6.1.
25

The ordering and naming of issues in this section closely follow the order within the CBNMS

SAC Recommendation column in Table 6.1, and are further categorized as to how they will be

addressed:

• Issues addressed as CBNMS Site-Specific

• CBNMS Staff Issues addressed as Site-Specific Issues

• CBNMS Site-Specific Issues addressed as Cross-Cutting Issues

• CBNMS Issues addressed as Cross-Cutting “Tools”

• CBNMS Site-Specific Issues that will be addressed by another Sanctuary

Each explanation lists the issue title, summarizes the program recommendation, and states the

rationale. When possible, the issue explanations use the same issue nomenclature used in the

SAC prioritization workshops (i.e., 4B Biodiversity Protection). However, there were instances

when similar issues were combined and given a new name.

Issues Addressed as CBNMS Site-Specific

4.0 Biodiversity Protection

Proposal: Develop CBNMS Site-Specific Plan.

The combination of ocean currents and undersea topography support a rich and diverse marine

community on and around Cordell Bank. The highest priority for CBNMS is to protect these

resources for current and future generations. Public scoping comments were directed to the

sanctuaries to actively pursue protection of the ecosystem and enhance biodiversity through

management strategies that address the impacts from fishing, anchoring, and exotic species.

Cordell will focus on long-term sustainability of the sanctuary resources and biodiversity

protection by addressing current and emerging issues through research, education, monitoring

and regulatory development to prohibit activities not compatible with the sanctuary's primary

goal of resource protection. CBNMS will work towards characterizing the ecosystem,

developing a species inventory, and evaluating the significance of Bodega Canyon and its

contribution to the productivity of CBNMS.

29.0 Water Quality

Proposal: Develop CBNMS Site-Specific Plan.

One of the most significant features of Cordell Bank is water clarity resulting in high

photopenetration. In addition, the system is largely undisturbed resulting in good water quality

contributing to seasonal primary productivity. Long -term monitoring would provide useful data

on possible seasonal events, fluxuations from natural perturbations and human impacts. CBNMS

will work towards establishing a water quality baseline and long-term monitoring.

CBNMS Staff Issues Addressed as Site-Specific Issues

2.0 Coordinated Management

Proposal: Develop CBNMS Site-Specific Plan (also Cross-Cutting).
26

CBNMS will develop a solid and independent infrastructure while coordinating with the other 2

sanctuaries on improved operational and management effectiveness and efficiency. CBNMS has

dedicated its financial and staff resources to the development of a strong research and monitoring

program. CBNMS is managed by the GFNMS manager and an on-site assistant manager. The

first full time staff person was hired in 1995, but was funded by the GFNMS. In 2000, two

additional staff were hired. Although this was not a priority issue for the CBNMS SAC,

development of an independent infrastructure is a high priority for the staff.

24.0 Research

Proposal: Develop CBNMS Site-Specific Plan (also Cross-Cutting under Coordinated

Management).

Research activities have been the cornerstone of CBNMS. Research will continue to be a high

site priority and a cross-cutting priority. CBNMS' research efforts will be directed at improving

an understanding of the sanctuary environment, providing data for management, coordinating

efforts between research institutions and disseminating research information to the public.

Research is considered a resource management tool, and will be used as such in addressing

specific resource management issues in the management plan.

CBNMS Site-Specific Issues Addressed as Cross-Cutting Issues

13.0 Fishing and 14.0 Habitat Alteration

Proposal: Combine these issues, change name to Fishery Resources, and develop Cross-Cutting

Plan.

With approximately 200 species of fish and invertebrates harvested in the three sanctuaries,

impacts from recreational and commercial fishing to living resources and habitats need to be

evaluated and addressed. The sanctuaries will work to define their role in advising and

advocating for fishing practices and regulations that are necessary for ecosystem protection. The

current areas of concern include: 1) impacts to biomass, primary productivity and trophic

disruptions from krill harvesting, 2) impacts to benthic habitat from fishing gear, 3) the

sanctuaries' role in evaluating the need for resource protection zones in Federal waters, and 4) the

sanctuaries' role in developing research and education programs related to fishing. Habitat

alteration has been folded into the "fishery resources" section, as fishing gear impacts on

sensitive habitats was the major area of concern.

26.0 Emergency Response and Contingency Planning

Proposal: Develop a Cross-Cutting Plan.

Although emergency response is a concern to CBNMS staff, it has been deferred to the crosscutting management plan as an issue that should be addressed by all 3 sanctuaries. Due to the

location and prevailing sea conditions at Cordell Bank, oil spill response, in particular, is not

logistically practical, except for the use of dispersants and burning.

12.0 Exotic/Invasive Species

Proposal: Develop Cross-Cutting Plan.
27

It is highly unlikely that exotic species would colonize Cordell Bank, however, CBNMS will

work jointly with the other sites to evaluate the pathways of exotic species introduction, identify

and monitor current levels of invasives, and coordinate efforts to prevent introductions.

CBNMS Issues Addressed as Cross-Cutting “Tools”

8.0 Community Outreach

Proposal: Develop CBNMS Site-Specific Plan (also Cross-Cutting).

CBNMS is unique amongst the three sanctuaries in that it is an offshore site. Building public

stewardship is more difficult for a site that is not adjacent to land and require tools and strategies

directed at local communities.

10.0 Education

Proposal: Develop CBNMS Site-Specific Plan (also Cross-Cutting under Coordinated

Management).

Education is essential in achieving many of the sanctuary's management goals. As a strong

research-based sanctuary, CBNMS would benefit from using education as a tool to promote and

communicate results of CBNMS' research and monitoring programs. The development of a

strong education program is a priority for CBNMS. Education is considered a resource

management tool, and will be used as such in addressing specific resource management issues in

the management plan.

21.0 Partnerships with Agencies

Proposal: Is not a priority action for this management plan, defer to sanctuary staff to continue to

strengthen partnerships and include as part of strategy for individual action plans.

As an offshore site with no land features and no State waters, CBNMS' shared authority is

limited to a few agencies such as California Dept. of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries

Service, Department of Defense and US Coast Guard. Although there is always room for

improvement, these working partnerships serve each of the agencies well. Agency partnerships

are essential to the success of the sanctuary, and CBNMS will work to strengthen these

relationships, but this is not a high priority for the management plan.

22.0 Partnerships with Community Groups

Proposal: Develop CBNMS Site-Specific Plan.

The sanctuaries could not function in the many roles they undertake without the support of

community partnerships. All three sanctuaries work together with Sanctuary Advisory Councils,

community groups and agencies. Once CBNMS has its own manager, then an association would

be useful in assisting the sanctuary in achieving its goals. Collaborative efforts will be made to

develop and implement various education, interpretation, outreach and research programs.

18.0 Monitoring
28

Proposal: Change name to Ecosystem Monitoring and develop CBNMS Site-Specific Plan (also

Cross-Cutting).

Data derived from monitoring provides an important tool for effective resource management.

With this in mind, CBNMS has initiated several monitoring programs to assess changes as they

occur. In addition to the biological, physical and chemical monitoring currently underway,

ecosystem monitoring efforts may be focused on addressing resource management issues such as

water quality and invasive species.

5.0 Boundary Modifications

Proposal: Develop CBNMS Site-Specific Plan (also see Cross-Cutting: Coordinated

Management).

In addition to efforts to look at "boundary modifications" as a cross-cutting issue, CBNMS will

develop a framework to evaluate other areas. Although significant research has been carried out

in these areas, and anecdotal information identifies adjacent areas that are rich and productive,

CBNMS will analyze the data and determine any added value by including it as part of CBNMS.

CBNMS Site-Specific Issues that will be Addressed by Another Sanctuary

19.0 Motorized Personal Watercraft

Proposal: Develop MBNMS Site-Specific Plan.

Due to the remote location and prevailing sea conditions, MPWC was not considered a priority

issue for CBNMS. Anecdotal information from SAC members indicated that this activity has not

been sited in the sanctuary, nor perceived as a future threat. Since GFNMS has a complete

prohibition on the use of MPWC in sanctuary waters, making it no longer an issue for GFNMS,

this issue was directed to MBNMS to address.

28.0 Vessel Traffic:

Proposal: Not a priority for CBNMS, but will be addressed in GFNMS Site-Specific Plan.

Historically, the total number of spills from transiting vessels is relatively small in number, but

the potential impacts may be enormous given the number and volume of vessels, the northbound

vessel traffic lane's proximity to the sanctuary, and the potential size of a spill. The southeast

corner of CBNMS is located approximately 5 nm from the terminus of the northern shipping

lanes designated by the U.S. Coast Guard. Vessel traffic entering or leaving San Francisco Bay

via the northern route passes through the sanctuary. Given the CBNMS’s inability to affect

change at this time (there are no real options for geographically relocating this lane) CBNMS

will defer to GFNMS on this issue.
29

7.0 Gulf of the Farallones Site-Specific Priority Issues

Core JMPR staff (from all three sanctuaries and headquarters) met to determine a proposed final

list of priority cross-cutting and site-specific marine resource management issues and problems

to address in the JMPR. In making the final decisions on the list of issues, the core group

considered the original scoping comments, recommendations from the SACs on site-specific and

cross-cutting issues, the results from internal site priority exercises, evaluation criteria (see

Appendix 1: JMPR Internal Prioritization Criteria), and national program goals (see Appendix 2:

National JMPR Goals). The results from this workshop are summarized in the following section.

7.1 Table: Gulf of the Farallones NMS Priority Issues: a table depicting the original SAC

recommended list of Gulf of the Farallones NMS priority issues and a color code that

depicts how the NMSP decided to address the issue in the JMPR.

7.2 Gulf of the Farallones NMS Explanations: a description of each issue that will (or

won’t) be addressed as a cross-cutting issue.

The issues recommended by the SACs are presented in the “bins” reflecting highest, to lowest,

priority to the SACs. So, bin 1 issues received the highest ranking by the SACs, bin 5 the lowest.
30

Table 7.1 GFNMS Priority Issues

Program Proposal

Priority

Gulf of Farallones SAC

Recommendations

Cross-Cutting IssueTool (strategy)*Site-Specific IssuesNot Addressing

Summary Explanation

4.0 Biodiversity Protection 

CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to develop site-specific

action plans. See CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS

Biodiversity Protection and Ecosystem Conservation.

5.0 Boundary Modification 

GFNMS and MBNMS plan to use Boundary Modification as

a “tool” to address other issues under Coordinated

Management. See Cross Cutting: Coordinated

Management. Site-specific boundary considerations will be

addressed for each site under Site Specific: Biodiversity

Protection and Ecosystem Conservation.

8.0 Community Outreach 

CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to use community

outreach as a “tool” to address cross-cutting issues. There

will also be a site-specific action plan. See Cross Cutting:

Community Outreach.

11.0 Enforcement 

CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to use enforcement as a

“tool” to address other resource management issues. Each site

will develop site-specific action plans under the category

Coordinated Management. See Cross Cutting: Coordinated

Management.

12.0 Exotic Species 

MBNMS, CBNMS, and GFNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue. See Cross Cutting: Exotic/Invasive

Species.

13.0 Fishing 

MBNMS, CBNMS, and GFNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue with Habitat Alteration under the renamed

category Fishery Resources (kelp harvesting has been

eliminated from this issue). See Cross Cutting: Fishery

Resources.

18.0 Monitoring 

CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to use monitoring as a

cross cutting “tool” to address other issues, and develop sitespecific actions. See Cross Cutting: Ecosystem Monitoring.

20.0 Oil And Gas

Development 

CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS do not believe this is a

priority issue at this time since all three sanctuaries already

prohibit oil and gas development. Potential impacts from oil

and gas development will be addressed under GFNMS,

MBNMS: Boundary Modification and oil spill clean-up will

be addressed under Cross-Cutting: Emergency Response

and Contingency Planning.

21.0 Partnerships With

Agencies 

GFNMS and CBNMS plan to continue their focus on

partnerships with agencies; however, no new action plan will

be developed at this time. See GFNMS: Partnerships with

Agencies.
31

26.0 Emergency Response

And Contingency Planning 

GFNMS plans to develop a site-specific action plan. See

GFNMS: Emergency Response and Contingency

Planning. CBNMS, GFNMS, MBNMS will address this as a

cross-cutting issue. See Cross Cutting Emergency

Response and Contingency Planning.

28.0 Vessel Traffic 

GFNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue. See

GFNMS: Vessel Traffic. MBNMS has addressed this issue

in the past. CBNMS is mainly concerned with oil spill

contingency planning. See Cross Cutting: Emergency

Response and Contingency Planning.

29.0 Water Quality 

CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS plan to address this as

separate site-specific issues, due to distinct water quality

issues and conditions in each sanctuary. See CBNMS,

GFNMS, and MBNMS Water Quality.

30.0 Wildlife Disturbance 

GFNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue and work

with MBNMS and CBNMS on implementation strategies for

their site-specific education programs. See GFNMS:

Wildlife Disturbance.

BIN 2 24.0 Research 

CBNMS, GFNMS and MBNMS will use this as a crosscutting “tool” and develop site-specific actions. See Cross

Cutting: Coordinated Management.

No Recommendations

23.0 Radioactive Waste 

GFNMS will address this as a site-specific issue. See

GFNMS: Radioactive Waste.

No Recommendations

2.0 Administration 

CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS will use administration as a

“tool” to address site specific and cross cutting issues under

the renamed category Coordinated Management. See

GFNMS: Coordinated Management.

3.0 Aquaculture 

GFNMS will address this as a site-specific issue. See

GFNMS: Aquaculture.

9.0 Cultural Resources 

CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS will address this as a crosscutting issue and develop site-specific actions. See GFNMS:

Cultural Resources.

10.0 Education 

CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS will use this as a crosscutting “tool” and develop site-specific actions. See

GFNMS: Education.
32

19 3 772

Totals: Of the nineteen priority issues recommended by the

GFNMS SAC and staff, we plan to address seven as crosscutting, seven as site-specific, and one will not be addressed at

this time.

• This matrix represents a broad range of priority issues evaluated by the all three Sanctuary Advisory

Councils. All of the categories indicated below have issues associated with them, however we sorted the

marine resource "issues" (e.g. wildlife disturbance) from the "tools" or “strategies” used to address these

issues (e.g. education). In consideration of the next step, which is to build a work plan for the new

management plan, it will be easier to build a consistent structure if the strategies are built around the

"issues" and the "tools" are used to achieve the goals and objectives for each strategy. While issues and

tools may be distinct, both will be incorporated into the new management plan in some capacity. How tools

will be incorporated into the action plans will be identified in the work plan after SAC discussion of this list

of issues.

7.2 GULF OF THE FARALLONES NMS EXPLANATIONS

This section provides explanations of the Gulf of the Farallones NMS site-specific issues that

were selected (and not selected) by the NMSP to be addressed in the JMPR. These explanations

supplement the summaries from Table 7.1.

The ordering and naming of issues in this section closely follow the order within the GFNMS

SAC Recommendation column in Table 7.1, and are further categorized as to how they will be

addressed:

• Issues addressed as GFNMS Site-Specific

• GFNMS Staff Issues Addressed as Site-Specific Issues

• GFNMS Site-Specific Issues Addressed as Cross-Cutting Issues

• GFNMS Issues Addressed as Cross-Cutting “Tools”

• Issues that will not be addressed in the JMPR

Each explanation lists the issue title, summarizes the program recommendation, and states the

rationale. When possible, the issue explanations use the same issue nomenclature used in the

SAC prioritization workshops (i.e., 4B Biodiversity Protection). However, there were instances

when similar issues were combined and given a new name.

Issues Addressed as GFNMS Site-Specific

4.0 Biodiversity Protection

Proposal: Develop GFNMS Site Specific Plan.

GFNMS encompasses a variety of highly productive marine habitats and supports an abundance

of species. The sanctuary contains nursery and spawning grounds for commercially valuable fish

and shellfish; is a feeding and/or breeding ground for 36 species of resident and transient marine

mammals including the endangered blue and humpback whales, a breeding area for one-fifth of

California's harbor seals; is home to the largest congregation of breeding seabirds in the

contiguous United States; and home to twenty-five threatened or endangered species. Protection
33

of the biodiversity of living marine resources is the highest priority for GFNMS, as well as the

other two sanctuaries. Gulf of the Farallones will focus on protection of sanctuary resources by

addressing current and emerging issues through research, monitoring, education and regulatory

development to prohibit activities not compatible with the sanctuary's primary goal of resource

protection. GFNMS will also evaluate the ecological linkages between the sanctuary and areas

to the north and west.

28.0 Vessel Traffic

Proposal: Develop GFNMS Site-Specific Plan.

Vessel traffic within the GFNMS was a major issue of concern during the designation process in

1981 and remains so today. Historically, the total number of spills from transiting vessels is

rather small in number, but the potential impacts may be enormous given the number and volume

of vessels, and the hazardous cargo lane's proximity to the Farallon Islands and the major seabird

and marine mammal congregations. 6,000 vessels entered and exited the San Francisco Bay in

1998. A Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) for the West Coast of the United States separates

opposing flows of vessel traffic into lanes, including a zone between the lanes where traffic is

recommended not to be. The separation scheme is voluntary and not all ships comply with the

recommendations. Other issues related to vessel traffic include: discharges (including exotic

species introductions), vessel strikes, acoustic impacts on living resources and pollution from

emissions. GFNMS will continue to explore options to further protection for the natural

resources from potential impacts from vessel traffic.

29.0 Water Quality

Proposal: Develop GFNMS Site-Specific Plan.

In addition to oil spills, GFNMS is vulnerable to offshore and land-based pollutants from

grazing, agricultural effluent, dumping and mercury from abandoned mines. Of special concern

are the estuarine habitats of Bolinas Lagoon, Tomales Bay, Estero Americano, and Estero de San

Antonio. Existing data indicate that all of the State’s surveyed tidal wetlands, 91% of surveyed

estuaries, 81% of surveyed rivers and streams, and 71% of surveyed bays and harbors are

impaired or threatened by water pollution. The majority of California’s waterways and small

estuarine systems are not monitored by the State on a regular basis, and about 50% of the coastal

shoreline has never been monitored by the State. Although water quality is a high priority for

each of the three sanctuaries, the site-specific applications require the development of individual

site strategies and actions. GFNMS will coordinate with other agencies in establishing baseline

water quality parameters for long-term monitoring efforts.

30.0 Wildlife Disturbance

Proposal: Develop GFNMS Site-Specific Plan.

With the multitude of opportunities for observing and interacting with nature comes the potential

for wildlife disturbance that may result in: flushing birds, trampling creatures in tide pools and

pinnipeds abandoning pups. This is a priority issue for GFNMS and will be further characterized

to determine the best regulatory or non-regulatory actions necessary to address these issues.
34

GFNMS will evaluate the use of regulatory and non-regulatory actions to address wildlife

disturbance including expanding volunteer programs.

23.0 Radioactive Waste

Proposal: Develop GFNMS Site-Specific Plan.

From 1946 to 1970, a variety of U.S. government agencies and private research institutions

legally dumped more than 50,000 55-gallon drums containing radioactive waste. The radioactive

waste dumpsite was suppose to cover approximately 650 sq km, however, many containers were

not dumped on target and the actual area of the dump site is around 1,400 sq km. GFNMS will

work with other agencies to determine the status of the barrels containing radioactive waste and

assess potential impacts of contamination. GFNMS plans to develop public outreach materials

and disseminate them to the public on this issue.

GFNMS Staff Issues Addressed as Site-Specific Issues

2.0 Aquaculture:

Proposal: Rename issue as Mariculture and develop GFNMS Site Specific Plan.

Sanctuary staff recommends aquaculture as a priority issue to be addressed in the GFNMS sitespecific management plan. Currently, aquaculture activities in the GFNMS are limited to oysters,

scallops and mussels grown on tracts of tidelands in Tomales Bay, leased from State Lands

Commission, and regulated by the California Dept. of Fish and Game. GFNMS will work with

California Dept. of Fish and Game to develop a framework to look at impacts from current and

potential aquaculture. The sanctuary is concerned about potential threats, which may be

associated with aquaculture. These threats may include exotic species, disturbances to the

seabed, water quality impacts and the introduction of genetically modified species.

2.0 Coordinated Management

Proposal: Develop GFNMS Site-Specific Plan (and Cross-Cutting).

Sanctuary staff suggested administration as a high priority and will address it as both a sitespecific and cross-cutting issue. The three sanctuaries will work together to develop increased

operational efficiency and program consistency. A cross-cutting plan will be developed for

addressing resource management issues through programs such as research, education and

enforcement, while developing site-specific actions for these plans. GFNMS will develop a

stable infrastructure in which the operating budget and staffing requirements reflect and supports

the sanctuary's annual operating plan and new programs as outlined in the management plan.

Although Coordinated Management may be considered a tool rather than an issue, it is a priority

for the GFNMS site-specific management plan to ensure the development of a solid foundation

in which to support increased resource protection.

9.0 Cultural Resources

Proposal: Develop Cross-Cutting Plan.
35

Submerged cultural resources in the GFNMS primarily consist of shipwrecks. Although there is

not a complete inventory, remnants of hundreds of ships are believed to be within sanctuary

waters. There is a fairly complete inventory of shipwrecks from: GFNMS, PRNS and GGNRA

1989 shipwreck database; Pacific Coast Shipwreck data base (Robert Schwemmer); California

State Lands Commission; and NOAA's Arc internal shipwreck data base. Even with these

inventories of shipwrecks in the sanctuary, exact locations and contents of the ships have not

necessarily been identified. This information is important to the GFNMS for two reasons: 1) the

study of shipwrecks provides a richer understanding of the region's maritime history, and 2)

knowing the contents may provide clues to present and future sources of water pollution.

10.0 Education

Proposal: Develop GFNMS Site-Specific Plan (and Cross-Cutting under Coordinated

Management).

A strong education component is essential to achieving many of the sanctuary's management

objectives. The Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association (FMSA) works collaboratively with

GFNMS to implement various education, interpretation and monitoring programs including

sponsoring student summits, lectures, teacher training, summer camp, curriculum development

for high schools and multicultural programs. Under the "Coordinated Management" section of

the cross-cutting management plan, GFNMS will work together with the other three sites in

developing a strategy for education programs in all three sanctuaries. Education is considered a

resource management tool, and will be used as such in addressing better resource management.

GFNMS Site-Specific Issues Addressed as Cross-Cutting Issues

12.0 Exotic/ Invasive Species

Proposal: Develop Cross-Cutting Plan.

Approximately 234 invasive species have been introduced to the San Francisco estuary.

International shipping probably transported more than 90% of non-native invertebrate species in

San Francisco Bay. In San Francisco Bay, over 68 million gallons of ballast water have been

released annually. This is the primary source of exotic species. All California estuaries are

considered threatened by invasive plants including Tomales Bay, Bodega Bay, Bolinas Lagoon

and Elkhorn Slough. Along with the relatively close proximity to San Francisco Bay, the most

invaded estuary in the world, introduction of exotic species is of concern to GFNMS as well as

the other two sanctuaries. Jointly, the sites will evaluate the pathways of exotic species

introduction, identify and monitor current levels of invasives, and coordinate efforts to prevent

future introductions.

13.0 Fishing

Proposal: Change name to Fishery Resources, and develop Cross-Cutting Plan.

The high diversity and abundance of fish and invertebrate species within the sanctuaries are

largely due to the variety of habitats including intertidal mudflats, estuaries, rocky shorelines,

and deeper subtidal areas. With over 200 species of fish and invertebrates harvested in the three

sanctuaries, impacts from recreational and commercial fishing to living resources and habitats
36

need to be evaluated. The sanctuaries will work together to define their role in advising and

advocating for fishing practices and regulations that are necessary for ecosystem protection. The

current areas of particular concern include: 1) impacts to biomass, primary productivity and

trophic disruptions from krill harvesting, 2) impacts to benthic habitat from trawling, 3) the

sanctuaries' role in the Marine Life Protection Act process and evaluation of potential resource

protection zones in Federal waters, and 4) the sanctuaries' role in developing research and

education programs related to fishing. Habitat alteration has been folded into the "fishery

resources” section, as trawling was the primary area of concern. Also of concern to GFNMS is

the trampling that occurs in the intertidal environment during the harvesting of clams and

mussels.

26.0 Emergency Response and Contingency Planning

Proposal: Develop a Cross-Cutting Action plan (see Cross-Cutting: Emergency Response and

Contingency Planning).

Emergency response within the GFNMS includes events associated with fuel and oil discharges,

debris and habitat damage from vessel groundings, vessel sinkings and plane crashes. GFNMS

work together with MBNMS to coordinate emergency response and contingency planning. All

three sanctuaries participate in the Incident Command System and U.S. Coast Guard's Area

Contingency Plan.

GFNMS Issues Addressed as Cross-Cutting “Tools”

5.0 Boundary Modifications

Proposal: Develop GFNMS Site-Specific Plan (also see Cross-Cutting: Coordinated

Management)

In addition to efforts to look at "boundary modifications" as a cross-cutting issue the southern

boundary of the GFNMS/northern boundary of MBNMS, one of major importance. GFNMS will

develop a framework to look at other areas to the north and west to evaluate and identify

significant marine resources and/ or potential threats that might warrant sanctuary protection.

Although management plan reviews offer an opportunity to re-evaluate sanctuary boundaries,

this does not pre-suppose that a change will be proposed.

8.0 Community Outreach

Proposal: Develop a GFNMS Action plan (also see Cross-Cutting: Community Outreach).

GFNMS, in cooperation with the Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association (FMSA), sponsors

events, interpretive trips and exhibits. FMSA and GFNMS have worked together in establishing

visitor centers in Pacifica and San Francisco. The SAC has acknowledged that the existing

outreach programs are important and working well. Community outreach remains a high priority

for all three sanctuaries and will be addressed as a cross-cutting issue, with site-specific actions.

GFNMS will evaluate the SACs' recommendations to consider increasing: marketing; media

exposure; public awareness; multicultural outreach; volunteer programs; and building

partnerships with other institutions. Outreach is considered a resource management tool, and

will be used as such in addressing resource management.
37

11.0 Enforcement

Proposal: Develop a GFNMS Action Plan (also see Cross-Cutting: Coordinated Management).

GFNMS has a cooperative agreement law enforcement program and works together with the

U.S. Coast Guard, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Park Service, Dept. of Interior,

State Lands Commission, State Parks Dept. and Dept. of Fish and Game to enforce sanctuary

regulations. The GFNMS also works directly with user groups to encourage compliance and best

management practices. The three sanctuaries will work together under the "Coordinated

Management" section of the cross-cutting management plan. GFNMS will work together with

the other three sanctuaries to develop a framework for enforcement.

18.0 Monitoring

Proposal: Rename issue as Ecosystem Monitoring and develop GFNMS Site-Specific Plan (also

see Cross-Cutting: Ecosystem Monitoring).

Data derived from monitoring provides an important tool for resource management. Over the

past 20 years, GFNMS has supported several seabird and marine mammal monitoring programs.

Currently, GFNMS is involved in several marine mammal monitoring programs, shoreline

monitoring, intertidal monitoring, coastal ecology relationships monitoring and restoration

monitoring. In addition to the biological, physical and chemical monitoring currently underway,

ecosystem monitoring efforts may be focused on water quality, exotic species and resource

management.

21.0 Partnerships with Agencies

Proposal: Is not a priority action for this management plan, defer to sanctuary staff to continue to

strengthen partnerships and include as part of strategy for individual action.

The sanctuary overlaps and borders the jurisdictions of sixty other agencies. Coordination and

cooperation among the responsible agencies has been important. Some of the agency

partnerships GFNMS has include: Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Point Reyes National

Seashore, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Geological Survey, National Marine Fisheries

Service, U.S. EPA, California Dept. of Fish and Game, California Water Resources Control

Board and California Dept. of Parks and Recreation. Although there is always room for

improvement, these working relationships serve most agencies well. Agency partnerships are

critical to the success of the sanctuary, and GFNMS and will continue to develop strong

relationships.

24.0 Research

Proposal: Develop GFNMS Site-Specific Plan (also see: Cross-Cutting: Coordinated

Management).

The diversity of habitats throughout the Gulf of the Farallones offers an outstanding opportunity

for scientific research on marine ecosystems. On the mainland, numerous bays, headlands and

estuaries offer prime locations for ecological studies of coastal ecosystems. At this time, research

in the GFNMS is carried out by USGS, NMFS, U.S. Navy, Universities, CDFG, NPS or PRBO.
38

GFNMS would like to continue to direct research programs to address management problems

and to enhance resource protection. Research is considered a resource management tool, and will

be used as such in addressing specific resource management issues.

GFNMS Site-Specific Issues That will not be Addressed in the Management Plan

20.0 Oil and Gas Development

Proposal: not a priority issue for this management plan, but issue of oil and gas development will

be considered along with "boundary modification" issue.

Oil and gas development was one of the major reasons for designation of all five of the West

Coast National Marine Sanctuaries. No portion of the Offshore Continental Shelf (OCS) has a

permanent moratorium on oil and gas leasing and development except some of the waters in

National Marine Sanctuaries (by regulation and statute). Currently there are no active leases in or

adjacent to CBNMS, GFNMS or MBNMS. The potential threats from oil and gas development

will be addressed along with the "boundary modification" issue.
39

8.0 Monterey Bay Site-Specific Priority Issues

Core JMPR staff (from all three sanctuaries and headquarters) met to determine a proposed final

list of priority cross-cutting and site-specific marine resource management issues and problems

to address in the JMPR. In making the final decisions on the list of issues, the core group

considered the original scoping comments, recommendations from the SACs on site-specific and

cross-cutting issues, the results from internal site priority exercises, evaluation criteria (see

Appendix 1: JMPR Internal Prioritization Criteria), and national program goals (see Appendix 2:

National JMPR Goals). The results from this workshop are summarized in the following section.

8.1 Table: Monterey Bay NMS Priority Issues: a table depicting the original SAC

recommended list of Monterey Bay NMS priority issues and a color code that depicts

how the NMSP decided to address the issue in the JMPR.

8.2 Monterey Bay NMS Explanations: a description of each issue that will (or won’t) be

addressed as a cross-cutting issue.

The issues recommended by the SACs are presented in the “bins” reflecting highest, to lowest,

priority to the SACs. So, bin 1 issues received the highest ranking by the SACs, bin 5 the lowest.
40

Table 8.1 MBNMS Priority Issues

NMSP Proposal

Priority

MBNMS SAC

Recommendations

Cross-CuttingToolSite-SpecificNot Addressing

Summary Explanation

4B Biodiversity Protection and

Ecosystem Conservation

(protect / work with groups)

 CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue. See Cross-Cutting: Fishery

Resources.

8B Community Outreach

 (lack of)

 CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting “tool”. See Cross-Cutting: Community

Outreach.

11B Enforcement of Regulations

(coordination)

 MBNMS plans to address this “tool” by including it as an

integral component of individual action plans.

13A Fishing and Kelp Harvesting

(clarify role)

 Kelp harvesting has been removed from consideration.

CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue. See Cross-Cutting: Fishery

Resources.

13B Fishing and Kelp Harvesting

(positive programs)

 CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue. See Cross-Cutting: Fishery

Resources.

21A Partnerships with Agencies  MBNMS plans to address this ‘tool” by including it as an

integral component of individual action plans. MBNMS

will also address part of this as a site-specific issue. See

MBNMS: Big Sur Coastal Ecosystem Action Plan.

22A Partnerships with

Community Groups

 MBNMS plans to continue with its focus on partnerships

with community groups and include partnerships as an

integral component of individual action plans. However,

no new action plan will be developed at this time.

26A Oil Spill Response and

Contingency Planning

 CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue. See Cross-Cutting: Emergency

Response and Contingency Planning.

29A Water Quality

(comprehensive approach to

coliform contamination)

 MBNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue. See

MBNMS: Water Quality.

BIN 1

29C Water Quality

(update agreements)

 MBNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue. See

MBNMS: Water Quality.

4A Biodiversity Protection and

Ecosystem Conservation

(protect / consider marine

reserves)

 MBNMS, CBNMS, and GFNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue. See Cross-Cutting: Fishery

Resources.

5B Boundary Modifications

(close donut hole off San

Francisco)

 MBNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue. See

MBNMS: Biodiversity Protection and Ecosystem

Conservation.

BIN 2

10A Education

(targeted education)

 MBNMS plans to address this “tool” by including it as an

integral component of individual action plans.
41

10B Education (multicultural)  MBNMS plans to address this “tool” by including it as an

integral component of individual action plans. MBNMS

will also address this as a site-specific issue. See

MBNMS: Multicultural Outreach.

11A Enforcement

(inadequate)

 MBNMS plans to address this “tool” by including it as an

integral component of individual action plans.

12A Exotic Species  MBNMS, CBNMS, and GFNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue. See Cross-Cutting: Exotic/Invasive

Species.

14A Habitat Alteration (declining

wetland and riparian habitat)

 MBNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue. See

MBNMS: Water Quality.

16C Marine Discharge And

Debris (desalination)

 MBNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue. See

MBNMS: Water Quality.

18A Monitoring  MBNMS, CBNMS, and GFNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue and develop site-specific actions. See

Cross-Cutting: Ecosystem Monitoring.

19A Motorized Personal

Watercraft

 MBNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue. See

MBNMS: Motorized Personal Watercraft.

29B Water Quality (WQPP)  MBNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue. See

MBNMS: Water Quality.

1A Acoustics  MBNMS does not plan to address this in a separate action

plan; however, it will include acoustic monitoring as part

of its ecosystem monitoring program. See Cross-Cutting:

Ecosystem Monitoring.

3A Aquaculture  Aquaculture activities are not considered to be a high

priority resource protection issue in the MBNMS and at

this time are adequately addressed through exiting

regulations and permits.

4C Biodiversity Protection and

Ecosystem Conservation (work

with community)

 MBNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue. See

MBNMS: Biodiversity Protection and Ecosystem

Conservation.

5B Boundary Modifications

 (Santa Cruz area)

 MBNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue. See

MBNMS: Biodiversity Protection and Ecosystem

Conservation.

5D Boundary Modifications

 (harbor/ urban area permitting)



At this time, dredging of harbors, maintenance, repair,

replacement or rehabilitation of docks or piers are exempt

from permit review by the sanctuary. Certain permit

processes, including dredging issues, will be reviewed as

part of the review of all permits and permitting structure.

See MBNMS: Coastal Development. However, the

MBNMS does not plan to address this issue with a

separate action plan at this time

8A Community Outreach

(visitor center/interpretive

centers)

 MBNMS plans to address this as a site-specific “tool”. See

MBNMS: Community Outreach.

BIN 3

13C Fishing/Kelp Harvesting

(kelp harvest) 

MBNMS does not plan to address this issue at this time.

Kelp harvesting is managed by CDFG, and has been

adequately addressed in the past with the CDGF adoption

in 2001 of a 5-year kelp management plan for all state

waters, including the MBNMS.
42

14B Habitat Alteration

 (trawling)

 MBNMS, CBNMS, and GFNMS plan to address this as a

cross-cutting issue. See Cross-Cutting: Fishery

Resources.

14D Habitat Alteration

(tide pools)

 MBNMS plans to address this issue as a site-specific

issue. See MBNMS: Wildlife Disturbance

16A Marine Discharge And

Debris (dredge disposal)

 MBNMS plans to address this issue as a site-specific

issue. See MBNMS: Coastal Development.

16B Marine Discharge And

Debris (discharges from cruise

ships)

 This issue was not considered to be a high priority during

the MBNMS SAC site-specific issue prioritization

workshop. MBNMS does not plan to address this issue at

this time.

30A Wildlife Disturbance  MBNMS plans to address this issue as a site-specific

issue. See MBNMS: Wildlife Disturbance

5A Boundary Modifications

 (southern expansion)

 MBNMS may consider adding this based on the SAC’s

analysis of the issue following the meeting on August 1,

dedicated to this issue. See MBNMS: Biodiversity

Protection and Ecosystem Conservation

6A Coastal Armoring  Due to the steadily increasing rate of shoreline armoring

within its boundaries, MBNMS plans to address this as a

site-specific issue. See MBNMS: Coastal Development.

14C Habitat Alterations

 (fiber optic cables)

 MBNMS plans to address this as a site-specific issue. See

MBNMS: Coastal Development.

16D Marine Discharge And

Debris (landslide disposal)

 MBNMS plans to address this as a site-specific “tool”. See

MBNMS: Big Sur Coastal Ecosystem Action Plan

BIN 4

25A Sanctuary Advisory Council  MBNMS does not plan to address this issue at this time.

However, the SAC may consider modifications to the

charter if they consider it is warranted.

5C Boundary Modifications

 (harbors)

 Based on the SACs recommendation, MBNMS does not

plan to address this issue at this time.

BIN 517A Military Activities  Based on the SACs recommendation, MBNMS does not

plan to address this issue at this time. Strategies to monitor

acoustic impacts associated with military activities may be

incorporated into the cross-cutting: Ecosystem

Monitoring action plan.

Totals

40 7 9 15 9

Totals: Of the SAC’s 40 MBNMS priority issues, 7 will

be addressed as cross-cutting, 9 will be addressed as tools,

15 as site-specific issues, 9 will not be addressed.

• This matrix represents a broad range of priority issues evaluated by the all three Sanctuary Advisory

Councils. All of the categories indicated below have issues associated with them, however we sorted the

marine resource "issues" (e.g. wildlife disturbance) from the "tools" or “strategies” used to address these

issues (e.g. education). In consideration of the next step, which is to build a work plan for the new

management plan, it will be easier to build a consistent structure if the strategies are built around the

"issues" and the "tools" are used to achieve the goals and objectives for each strategy. While issues and

tools may be distinct, both will be incorporated into the new management plan in some capacity. How tools

will be incorporated into the action plans will be identified in the work plan after SAC discussion of this list

of issues.
43

8.2 MONTEREY BAY NMS EXPLANATIONS

This section provides explanations of Monterey Bay NMS site-specific issues that were selected

(and not selected) by the NMSP to be addressed in the JMPR. These explanations supplement the

summaries from Table 8.1.

The ordering and naming of issues in this section closely follow the order within the MBNMS

SAC Recommendation column in Table 8.1, and are further categorized as to how they will be

addressed:

• Issues addressed as MBNMS Site-Specific

• MBNMS Site-Specific Issues Addressed as Cross-Cutting Issues

• MBNMS Issues Addressed as “Tools”

• Issues that will not be addressed in the JMPR

Each explanation lists the issue title, summarizes the program recommendation, and states the

rationale. When possible, the issue explanations use the same issue nomenclature used in the

SAC prioritization workshops (i.e., 4B Biodiversity Protection and Ecosystem Conservation).

However, there were instances when similar issues were combined and given a new name.

Issues Addressed as MBNMS Site-Specific

21A Partnerships with Agencies, 16D Marine Discharge and Debris

Proposal: Develop a MBNMS Big Sur Coastal Ecosystem Action Plan

Establishing partnerships with agencies is a tool or strategy that agencies use to address specific

issues. Overlapping jurisdictions, different agency mandates and limited resources necessitate the

development of a relationship that brings together multiple agencies for the common purpose of

ecosystem management. Partnerships with federal, state and local resource protection agencies

would be included and integrated into individual issue action plans. However, specifically for the

Big Sur coast region, MBNMS will work to provide a framework for a comprehensive multiagency “Big Sur Coastal Ecosystem Action Plan” integrating resource protection, education and

outreach, and research and monitoring activities. Presently, there are 5 other local, state and

federal agencies producing new or revised management plans that affect the Big Sur Coast.

These can be better coordinated and the roles and joint efforts defined and described. The issue

of Caltrans landslide disposal would be addressed in this action plan.

Thus, components of this action plan would be:

1. Multi-agency coordination

2. Caltrans landslide disposal

3. Education

4. Research and monitoring

5. Enforcement

6. Oil spill response
44

29AB&C Water Quality, 14A Habitat Alteration, and 16C Marine Discharge and Debris

Proposal: Combine into MBNMS Water Quality Action Plan.

The MBNMS Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) consists of four detailed action plans

addressing urban runoff, marinas and boating activities, regional monitoring and data sharing,

and agriculture and rural lands. The plans are being partially implemented through pooling of

existing staff from various agencies and groups, grant funding, and volunteers. MBNMS needs to

develop strategies to complete an assessment of the progress of the WQPP to date and to fully

implement all elements of existing water quality plans. MBNMS should also incorporate the

WQPP into the MBNMS Management Plan and update the original MOA between local, state,

and federal agencies.

Many of the MBNMS’s beaches are regularly closed or posted by county health departments as

showing elevated levels of contamination from coliform bacteria. This issue was raised

repeatedly during the JMPR public scoping process. Strategies need to be developed to define

the source of the contamination and implement appropriate prevention measures; these efforts

should ultimately be adopted as the next WQPP action plan. MBNMS should also address point

source discharge issues, including development and implementation of a regional desalination

policy including prohibitions on private desalination facilities.

Additionally, wetlands and riparian corridors adjacent to the sanctuary suffer from degradation

due to over development, invasive species, pollution and erosion. While this issue received

considerable public input and was highly ranked by the Advisory Council, the MBNMS lacks

resources to address the issue now. So, a framework and strategies to address this issue will be

developed in the future, and implemented as part of a comprehensive water quality program.

Thus, components of this action plan would be:

1. Fully implement existing WQPP action plans

2. Review and revise MOA with local, state and federal agencies

3. Point source discharges including desalination facilities

4. Beach closures and postings (coliform related) WQ action plan

5. Address wetlands and riparian issues (deferred until future)

4C Biodiversity Protection, and 5A&B Boundary Modifications

Proposal: Combine into MBNMS Biodiversity Protection and Ecosystem Conservation Action

Plan.

The goals and objectives set forth by the National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA) direct each of

the sanctuaries to take an ecosystem-based approach to managing the marine areas. The

ecosystems include habitat structure, species assemblages and ecological processes, as well as

humans and their uses that are compatible with resource protection. MBNMS will actively

pursue protection of the ecosystem and enhance biodiversity through its management strategies

for program areas such as education, community outreach, monitoring, and research, and

addressing human use activities through regulatory and non-regulatory strategies. MBNMS staff

also recommends developing a mechanism or process to focus on long-term sustainability and
45

look ahead to emerging resource protection issues, as crucial strategies towards the goal of

resource protection.

Many issues raised during scoping that relate to protection of the MBNMS ecosystem, warrant

consideration of sanctuary boundary modifications to provide consistent and appropriate regional

protection. The sanctuary will analyze the potential for including the Davidson Seamount as part

of the sanctuary. We received many comments during the public scoping process asking to

include the Davidson Seamount, and three other seamounts, within the MBNMS. The recent

mission sanctuary staff led to the Davidson Seamount provides data suggesting this unique

undersea volcano to the west of the southern portion of the MBNMS supports a diverse array of

undisturbed habitat and special marine species that may warrant protection as part of the

MBNMS.

In addition, this Action Plan will include examination of portions of the coastline where the

sanctuary does not extend to the mean high tide line. The existing San Francisco/Pacifica “donut

hole” was exempted by NOAA due to the anticipated discharge plume of the combined sewer

overflow component of San Francisco’s sewage treatment program, the shipping channel

providing access to the San Francisco Bay, and the Golden Gate dredge disposal site associated

with the channel. Modifications to the sewer outflow component may warrant re-analyzing this

zone for inclusion in the sanctuary to provide consistent coastal protection for the region.

Similarly, offshore of the City of Santa Cruz, MBNMS will analyze altering the boundary to

include within the sanctuary, the coastline between Point Santa Cruz and the West Small Craft

Harbor Jetty tip, which is currently exempted.

On the matter of expanding the MBNMS boundary further south, the SAC ranked that issue low

(bin 4). Many of the comments received opposed a boundary shift to the south. Because of

renewed local interest in expanding the boundary south, the SAC has scheduled a special

meeting for the evening of August 1, in Cambria. Staff will re-evaluate this issue after that

meeting, and based on any new SAC input.

Although we will consider all of the potential boundary change options, only some may result in

an action plan leading to implementation; others may be discarded after evaluation.

Thus, components of this action plan as presently defined would be:

1. Work closely with local community and related agencies to ensure biodiversity

protection and ecosystem conservation are top priorities.

2. Consider boundary changes to protect whole ecosystems:

a. SF/Pacifica exemption zone

b. Santa Cruz exemption zone

c. Davidson Seamount

3. Develop and implement a process to look ahead at emerging issues

19A Motorized Personal Watercraft

Proposal: Develop MBNMS Motorized Personal Watercraft Action Plan

Motorized personal watercraft (MPWC), operate in a manner unique among recreational vehicles

creating potentially significant impacts on wildlife, water quality and personal safety. In addition
46

to impacting marine resources, there have been conflicts between MPWC users and other

recreational ocean users as a result of the noise and operation of MPWCs. Currently, MBNMS

regulations include a partial ban on MPWC. The sanctuary originally restricted MPWCs to

certain zones in order to protect Sanctuary resources, in particular marine mammals and seabirds,

and defined MPWC specifically. Review of MPWC regulations will be necessary, as many

recent designs of personal watercraft are not covered by the Sanctuary’s 1992 definition of such

craft, which envisioned vehicles carrying only one or two passengers. Related issues include

evaluating the need for some or all zones, and the buoy system to demark zones, and the need for

effective enforcement and education on the zones to reduce conflicts. This issue will be treated

as a site-specific issue for MBNMS to further investigate and characterize impacts on marine

resources and issues related to user conflicts.

Thus, components of this action plan would be:

1. Examination and possible revision of MPWC definitions

2. Consideration of allowed uses of MPWC within the MBNMS

3. Analysis of the need for some or all of existing MPWC zones, and the buoy

demarcation system

4. The need for effective enforcement and education on the allowable (or prohibited)

MPWC uses

6A Coastal Armoring, 14C Habitat Alteration, and 16A Marine Discharge and Debris

Proposal: Combine into MBNMS Coastal Development Action Plan.

Commercial and residential development adjacent to the MBNMS is concentrated around: the

Monterey Bay, including the Monterey Peninsula, Marina, Watsonville and Santa Cruz; Half

Moon Bay and north to San Francisco; and to the least extent, Cambria in the South. Issues

related to increased point and non-point source pollution, loss of near-shore habitat and increased

human presence along the shoreline are some of the coastal development concerns MBNMS will

address. Certain coastal development issues may require review and approval by the sanctuary.

Specifically certain seabed disturbance activities such as coastal armoring (seawalls) and fiber

optic cables warrant development and implementation of comprehensive resource protection

strategies. Sanctuary regulations prohibit any alteration of the seabed with few exceptions,

however the MBNMS would also consider a review of its permitting program to ensure

maximum efficiency while maintaining protection of the resources.

In addition, while the MBNMS does not directly regulate dredging itself (i.e. the removal of

sediment from the harbors and their channels) it does have a regulatory role in the disposal of

dredged materials. The MBNMS works jointly with other state and federal agencies, such as the

California Coastal Commission, the US Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, the Regional Water

Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, and US Fish and Wildlife

Service to review and permit dredge disposal within the MBNMS. The proposed reconstruction

of a pier at Moss Landing may also require review of how the location of the pier affects an

existing, offshore dredge disposal site. These reviews minimize impacts to sanctuary resources

while allowing the continued operation of our critical local harbors. The sanctuary would initiate

a review of processes to consider dredge disposal to ensure value-added, proper resource

protection, improved coordination with other agencies and efficient allocation of time and

resources. This process will involve a review of the Moss Landing disposal site linked to

construction of a new Moss Landing pier.

Thus, components of this action plan would be:
47

1. Coastal Armoring

2. Fiber optic cables

3. Dredge disposal

30AWildlife Disturbance, and 14D Habitat Alteration (alteration of Tide-pool Habitats)

Proposal: Combine into MBNMS Wildlife Disturbance Action Plan.

The MBNMS provides many opportunities for wildlife viewing, including whale watching, bird

watching, observation of pinniped pupping and haulout activities, and tidepooling. In addition

wildlife habitats along the coastline are subject to aerial over flights for a variety of purposes.

With the multitude of opportunities for observing and interacting with nature comes the potential

for wildlife disturbance which may result in impacts on marine resources such as: flushing of

birds from nesting sites, trampling or over-collecting of tide pools, pinnipeds abandoning pups,

potential harassment or even death to wildlife. MBNMS currently addresses some of these issues

through regulatory measures such as prohibitions of white shark attraction and marine mammal

and seabird harassment, and over-flight restrictions for sensitive areas; and non-regulatory

measures such as the Team OCEAN kayaker interpretive enforcement program, and other

education and outreach efforts to minimize impacts to living marine resources. However due to a

lack of focused strategy on these issues and effective enforcement and education, disturbances to

marine mammals, seabirds, and tidepool habitats, continue to be a major issue within the

MBNMS which sanctuary staff believe should be addressed in this Management Plan Review. A

framework and strategies to address this issue would be incorporated and implemented as part of

this site-specific action plan.

 Thus, components of this action plan would be:

1. Disturbance of tidepools

2. Marine mammal and seabird disturbances

3. Overflight restrictions

MBNMS Site-Specific Issues Addressed as Cross-Cutting Issues

4A&B Biodiversity Protection, 13A&B Fishing and Kelp Harvesting, and 14B Habitat

Alteration

Proposal: Combine into Cross-Cutting Fishery Resources Action Plan.

*See page 11, for a description of this cross-cutting action plan

26A Emergency Response and Contingency Planning Action Plan

Proposal: Develop a Cross-Cutting Emergency Response and Contingency Planning Action

Plan

*See page 11, for a description of this cross-cutting action plan

12A Exotic Species

Proposal: Develop a Cross-Cutting Exotic/Invasive Species Action Plan

*See page 12, for a description of this cross-cutting action plan
48

Issues Addressed as Tools (Strategies)

8B Community Outreach

Proposal: Develop a Cross-Cutting Community Outreach Action Plan

*See page13, for a description of this cross-cutting action plan

10C Education, 5A Boundary Modification, 11A&B Enforcement

Proposal: Combine into Cross-Cutting Coordinated Management Action Plan

*See page12, for a description of this cross-cutting action plan

22A Partnerships with Community Groups

Proposal: No new Action Plan would be developed; however, this would be included as an

integral component of individual action plans.

Developing and maintaining a partnership with community groups is a tool or strategy that

agencies use to help involve local residents in managing and protecting sanctuary resources.

MBNMS will continue to focus on partnerships with community groups and include them, when

appropriate, as integral components of individual issue-specific action plans. However, no new

action plan focusing on partnerships with community groups would be developed at this time.

10B Education (multicultural outreach)

Proposal: Fully implement an MBNMS Multicultural Outreach Action Plan.

MBNMS developed the MERITO (Multicultural Education for Resource Issues Threatening

Oceans) programs in direct response to issues and needs identified by the Hispanic community.

This program while developed has not been fully implemented. Currently, California State Parks,

Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve and the MBNMS have teamed up to

launch a pilot education program. Multicultural outreach strategies specifically for the MBNMS

will focus on implementing the MERITO program and incorporating MERITO into the

management plan.

18A Monitoring

Proposal: Develop a Cross-Cutting Ecosystem Monitoring Action Plan.

With the support of many partners, MBNMS has developed a program for a long-term

assessment of the region’s ecosystem called the Sanctuary Integrated Monitoring Network

(SIMoN). The program will address the critical need for the continuous long-term evaluation of

the region and resources, and commit to a stable network of ecosystem and issue-based

monitoring programs. SIMoN will establish baselines and trends, and assist managers in

distinguishing between natural and human-caused resource impacts. MBNMS has extensive

investment in the design of the SIMoN program, and will develop strategies to implement this

program, as part of this cross cutting action plan. Existing water quality monitoring efforts would

also be integrated into SIMoN through collaboration with the MBNMS Water Quality Protection

Program and strengthening on the Sanctuary Citizen Watershed Monitoring Network.

*See page__, where this cross-cutting action plan is explained in additional detail.
49

8A Community Outreach (visitor center)

Proposal: Develop an MBNMS Interpretive Facilities Action Plan.

Comments by the public and the SAC suggested an important issue facing the sanctuary was a

lack of awareness of the resource issues facing our local oceans. Facilities for education,

research, and outreach provide a critical vehicle for interaction and developing a sense of

stewardship with the constituent base of the MBNMS. The MBNMS should develop strategies to

provide for the construction of an MBNMS Visitors Center and Regional Interpretive Centers.

Other locally driven efforts regarding coastal trails could benefit with a focused effort by the

sanctuary.

MBNMS Site-Specific Issues that will not be addressed

1A Acoustic Impacts

Proposal: No new Action Plan would be developed at this time; however, MBNMS would add

acoustic monitoring to its ongoing ecosystem monitoring program.

Anthropogenic noise and pressure waves may be impacting living marine resources in the

sanctuaries. Anthropogenic sources of noise include: large commercial shipping traffic such as

container ships, freighters, barges and tankers, recreational and commercial boats; military low

frequency testing; research activities; and aerial over flights. MBNMS has been involved in

evaluating and requesting limits or alterations to specific proposals to use acoustic devices in the

region, such as the Navy’s recent Low-Frequency Array proposal, but has not addressed the

overall issue of cumulative noise impacts. We will continue to evaluate and comment on projects

and permits with potential acoustic impacts. However we will not develop a specific action plan

on this issue. Acoustic impacts will be evaluated by MBNMS through its ecosystem monitoring

program.

3A Aquaculture

Proposal: No new Action Plan would be developed at this time.

Currently, at least six aquaculture companies operate within the MBNMS, culturing such diverse

species as abalone, algae, steelhead, salmon and shrimp. MBNMS believes the current level of

production is relatively small when compared to the size and of the area and the population

living along the sanctuary’s shores, and given other priorities, aquaculture is not a priority for the

development of a separate action plan for this five-year management plan. The sanctuary already

has a permit authorization process in place to review discharges from aquaculture activities, and

its current management plan allows the MBNMS to develop regulations for aquaculture, should

problems arise in the future. No specific action plan will be developed by the MBNMS during

this management plan review. However, the MBNMS will continue with the existing permit

review process that may involve discharge from aquaculture activities. Key aquaculture issues

that involve exotic/invasive species introduction and water quality would also be addressed

through other action plans.
50

5C&D Boundary Modifications (harbor buffers/permits)

Proposal: No new Action Plan would be developed at this time.

This issue was not considered to be a high priority during the MBNMS SAC site-specific issue

prioritization workshop. MBNMS will not address this in a specific action plan at this time.

However permitting issues may be reviewed as part of the MBNMS Coastal Development

action plan.

13C Fishing/Kelp Harvesting (kelp harvest)

Proposal: No new Action Plan would be developed at this time.

Kelp harvesting is adequately managed by the California Department of Fish and Game, and is

not considered to warrant a separate action plan. In 2001, based on advice and input from the

SAC and the community, the MBNMS presented recommendations to the Department of Fish

and Game for consideration in the 5-year kelp management plan. Most of the recommendations

were adopted by the state. The MBNMS will provide additional input when the State’s Kelp

Harvesting plan is next reviewed in 2006.

16B Marine Discharge and Debris (discharges from cruise ships)

Proposal: No new Action Plan would be developed at this time.

This issue was not considered to be a high priority during the MBNMS SAC site-specific issue

prioritization workshop. MBNMS will not develop a separate action plan on this issue. Rough

seas that are characteristic of the area, and lack of sufficient docking infrastructure in harbors

will prevent the MBNMS from being a major cruise ship destination. Cruise ship operators

scheduled to visit MBNMS destinations in the near future have voluntarily agreed to a zero

discharge policy in sanctuary waters, and we would pursue obtaining similar promises from any

future ship visits.

25A Sanctuary Advisory Council

Proposal: No new Action Plan would be developed at this time.

Revision of the operation and management of the Sanctuary Advisory Councils as it pertains to

the autonomy from NOAA should be addressed through modifications to the SAC’s charter.

However, it should be noted that the MBNMS SAC is authorized under the National Marine

Sanctuaries Act, and local requests for changes are reviewed for consistency by the NMSP

headquarters for consistency. This issue was not considered to be a high priority during the SAC

prioritization workshops and would expend major staff and budget resources on potential

modifications. Advisory Councils may consider and request modifications to their charter if the

council determines it is necessary to continue operating the SAC effectively.

17A Military Activities

Proposal: No new Action Plan will be developed at this time.

There are many human activities that may have impacts on sanctuary resources. Current military

activities are either exempt from sanctuary regulations in certain zones or are addressed through
51

existing consultations on a case-by-case basis. Addressing these issues was not determined to

require a separate action plan at this time. Concerns regarding military activities in the MBNMS

were generally limited to their impact on wildlife through acoustic disturbance or through

disturbance of the seabed. MBNMS will continue to review and comment on specific military

projects and proposals as they arise, and consult with the military on appropriate mitigation

measures. Strategies to monitor acoustic impacts associated with military activities as well as

other anthropogenic activities would be incorporated into the cross-cutting: Ecosystem

Monitoring action plan.
52

 APPENDIX 1

JMPR Internal Prioritization Workshop

Criteria To Be Applied For Issue Prioritization

Criterion #1 – Site Benefits

Responses: Major – “A”

Moderate – “B”

Minor – “C”

Does addressing this issue have positive site benefits to natural resources/ecosystem, cultural

resources, habitat protection, protection of biodiversity, or resolving user conflicts? If we make

progress on this issue will it have major, moderate, or minimal site benefits? For more insight

on this criterion, please refer to the purposes and policies language excerpt from the National

Marine Sanctuaries Act located at the end of this document.

Criterion #2 – Feasibility (Short-Term Staffing/Working Groups)

Responses: Existing Staff Will Be Used – “A”

Working Group Will Be Established – “B”

Requires Additional Contract to gather Information – “C”

The NMSP needs to assess how it will address priority issues during the JMPR. What is the

ability of the program to address this issue during the JMPR given existing resources: Can it be

done with existing staff, through the establishment of a working group, or by externally

contracting with another group/organization.

Criterion #3 – Feasibility (Long-term Implementation)

Responses: Existing Resources Available – “A”

Additional Resources Needed – “B”

Major Resources Needed – “C”

What makes it feasible to address an issue once the strategies are developed? Having the

necessary: people resources/skills, money/funding, infrastructure, and technical capability. What

is the ability of the program to address this issue during the implementation phase: existing

resources are currently available, additional resources are needed, major resources are needed.
53

Criterion #4 – Improving Coordination and Operations Between the Sites

Responses: Major – “A”

Moderate – “B”

Minor – “C”

Does addressing this issue have positive benefits to improving coordination and operations

between the sites? If we make progress on this issue will it have major, moderate, or minimal

benefits to improving coordination and operations between the sites?

Criterion #5 – Urgency

Responses: Develop Strategies – “A”

Develop a Framework – “B”

Defer Action – “C”

What makes an issue “Urgent”? If the issue/problem is: adversely impacting resources,

persistent, getting worse with time/deteriorating, increasing in frequency, wide spatial extent,

non-reversible. What is the level of response/urgency needed for this issue: develop strategies to

be implemented immediately, develop a framework for action in the management plan, defer any

action until after the management plan has been completed.

Purposes and Policies of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act:

1) to identify and designate as national marine sanctuaries areas of the marine environment which

are of special national significance and to manage these areas as the National Marine Sanctuary

System;

2) to provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of these

marine areas, and activities affecting them, in a manner which complements existing regulatory

authorities;

3) to maintain the natural biological communities in the national marine sanctuaries, and to protect,

and, where appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, populations, and ecological

processes;

4) to enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation and wise and sustainable use of the

marine environment, and the natural, historical, cultural, and archeological resources of the

National Marine Sanctuary System;

5) to support, promote, and coordinate scientific research on, and long-term monitoring of, the

resources of these marine areas

6) to facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, all public

and private uses of the resources of these marine areas not prohibited pursuant to other

authorities;

7) to develop and implement coordinated plans for the protection and management of these areas

with appropriate Federal agencies, State and local governments, Native American tribes and

organizations, international organizations, and other public and private interests concerned with

the continuing health and resilience of these marine areas;

8) to create models of, and incentives for, ways to conserve and manage these areas, including the

application of innovative management techniques; and

9) to cooperate with global programs encouraging conservation of marine resources.
54

APPENDIX 2

NMSP Objectives for an Integrated JMPR Process

• Ensure that the purposes and policies of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act are fulfilled.

• Conduct a “true” public participation process, ensuring as much “self-determination” as

possible within the constraints of available resources, programmatic objectives, and regulatory

requirements.

• Establish a “broader” community of interest across all three sanctuaries to promote increased

ecosystem thinking and related behavior along the entire coast.

• To maximize efficiency, effectiveness, and appropriate program integration between the 3 sites

• To determine the appropriate distribution of facilities and overall sanctuary program presence

across the 3-sanctuary region, without regard to boundaries, that supports the local community

sense of place and ownership for marine conservation.

• To answer the question if there are areas of special biological, ecosystem, or economic

significance within the sanctuary system where consensus points to consideration for increased

protection.
Appendix 3: Joint Management Plan Review for Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and 

 Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries - Next Steps

Process Products

Joint SAC Prioritization

of Cross-cutting Issues

SAC Prioritization of 

Site-Specific Issues

NOAA Evaluation &

Final Prioritization

Develop Work

Plan Teams

Characterize Issues

& Develop Strategies

(Work Plan Teams)

Develop Action Plans

 

Last Modified 6/27/02

Step 4 Internal Evaluation

of Issues

Step 5 Characterize 

Priority Issues & 

Develop

Recommendations

Step 6 Prepare Draft

Management Plan

Date

Joint SAC Workshop

To review individual priorities, apply

review criteria, and arrive at priority

cross-cutting issues.

April 15, 2002

CB: April 22, 2002

GF: April 26, 2002

MB: April 29, 2002

May 13, 2002

Late-June, 2002

CBNMS

SAC

GFNMS

SAC

MBNMS

SAC

Final Priority Issues

to Address in JMPR

• Cross-Cutting

• Site-Specific

Draft Work Plan

• Cross-Cutting

• Site-Specific

Summary of CrossCutting and SiteSpecific Prioritization

Workshops

Final Work Plan

• Cross-Cutting Issues

• Site-Specific Issues

Develop Work Plan for Priority Issues

• Characterize issues

• Assign team leader and staffing

• detail team composition (SAC + Staff + Experts)

• Define team objectives

• Develop Timeline

NOAA Assessment of Priorities & Binning

• Cross-cutting 

• Site specific

Evaluate Draft Work Plan with SACs

MB: Oct. 4, CB: Dec 10, GF: Dec 5

Aug./ Sept., 2002

SAC Review of Final Priority Issues

MB: Aug.2, CB: Sept. 10, GF: Sept 12

Sept/Oct., 2002

Final Issue 

Characterizations

List of Strategies and

activities for 

Priority Issues

Prioritized List of 

Strategies & Activities 

with Performance

Measures

Action Plans

SAC Members

will actively

participate in

issue working

groups. The

working groups

will provide

regular updates at

SAC meetings.

Assemble key staff and Working Groups

Complete preliminary issue characterization and

develop strategies and activities .

Characterize Issues

Develop issue characterizations to fully describe priority

Issues and identify information gaps.

Identify and describe strategies and activities to address

priority issues

(methods, partners, staffing, cost, schedule)

Prioritize Strategies and Activities & Develop

Performance Measures

Organize Strategies and Activities into 

Appropriate Action Plans

Draft Management Plan

Intro., background, setting,

Issues, action plans & 

Appropriate NEPA 

documentation

Oct./Nov., 2002

Dec.., 2002

Spring., 2003

Late Summer,

2003

Assemble all action plans and other sections into Draft

Management Plans. Prepare supporting NEPA

Documentation. Hold Public Hearings.

You are

Here!