PROTECTED RESOURCES PROGRAM 

and the 

NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM 

Strategic Planning Workshop Final Report 

Worhng Together to Conserve and Recover 

Protected Resources in National Marine Sanctuaries 

December 6-8,2004 

NOAA Fisheries Southwest Regional Office 

Long Beach, California 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS-OPR-30 

January 2006 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary: Working Together to Conserve and Recover Protected 

Resources in National Marine Sanctuaries 

I. Introduction 

II. The Strategic Planning Process and Workshop 

A. Phase I: Planning by the Core Team 

B. Phase II: Assessing Baseline Conditions and Regional Priorities 

C. Phase III: Implementing the Strategic Planning Workshop 

III. Activities and Outcomes 

IV. Benefits to NOAA 

A. Linkages to the NOAA Strategic Plan 2005-2010 

1. Ecosystem Goal Outcomes 

2. Ecosystem Goal Performance Objectives 

3. Ecosystem Goal Strategies 

B. Long-term Program Planning and Budgeting 

V. Next Steps for Improved Coordination 

VI. Appendices 

A. List and Description of Appendices 

B. Workshop Participants 

C. Strategic Planning Workshop Agenda 

D. Draft Project Implementation Schedules and Cost Estimates by Region 
Executive Summary

Working Together to Conserve and Recover Protected Resources in National 

Marine Sanctuaries

The National Ocean Service (NOS) National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Protected Resources Program (PRP) share Federal 

stewardship responsibilities for many of the same resources. While the PRP has responsibility 

for protected species throughout their entire range, the NMSP has similar responsibilities for 

those resources and habitats that occur within sanctuaries’ boundaries. The two programs have 

taken a significant strategic step forward towards improved coordination of conservation and 

recovery of protected species. The goal of the planning workshop was to increase the 

collaboration between the two NOAA programs by identifying and formalizing joint activities 

that build upon existing capabilities and improve the implementation of conservation and 

recovery plans for protected resources within sanctuaries’ waters. 

On December 6-8, 2004, staff from both programs met at the NMFS Southwest Regional Office in 

Long Beach, California to outline the steps necessary to move forward with collaborative projects 

between NOAA line offices. The goals of the workshop included mutual learning about each other’s 

programs and staffs and identifying and formalizing joint activities that forward shared capabilities. 

In recent years, several internal and external reports looking at the science and management 

processes used by NOAA have reported an imbalance between the resources needed to meet 

legislative mandates and stakeholder expectations, and the resources available to NOAA. Although 

the workshop identified a need for some additional resources, its primary output was a set of 

projects that incorporate coordinated activities that improve management and decision making 

through increased efficiency and improved cooperative science and management. 

Progress towards the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) mission goals 

will be improved with the execution of collaborative, geographically-based conservation and 

recovery of protected resources in national marine sanctuaries. The two programs support the 

NOAA mission goal to protect, restore and manage the use of coastal and marine resources through 

Ecosystem Approaches to Management (EAM). An EAM is an approach that is: 

“geographically specified, adaptive, takes account of ecosystem knowledge and uncertainties, 

considers multiple external influences, and strives to balance diverse societal objectives. 

Implementation will need to be incremental and collaborative.” 

These two programs have taken significant steps towards improved cooperative conservation and 

EAM by completing a comprehensive assessment of shared capabilities and existing partnerships, 

specifically looking for mutual regional priorities and targets for integration. 

Improving coordination and partnering between the two programs to achieve species recovery 

would enhance protected species populations and their ecosystems. Progress can be gained by the 

development of regulations and permitting activities that affect marine protected resources in 

sanctuaries; by facilitating a more coordinated program to assess, characterize and monitor protected 

resources in sanctuaries; improving the development and implementation of conservation and 

recovery strategies within sanctuaries’ waters; improving the efficiency in animal stranding response, 

and by developing joint education and outreach programs. 
1

I. Introduction

The National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) and Protected Resources Program (PRP) 

strategic planning process aims to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the 

management and planning, education and outreach, and research and monitoring of 

protected resources within national marine sanctuaries. Both the NMSP and the PRP 

recognize that increased interagency collaboration during program planning and budgeting is 

necessary to accomplish NOAA’s goals and objectives and to fulfill individual program 

requirements. The strategic goals of the planning workshop were to increase the 

collaboration between the NOAA line offices by learning about the offices and staff, and 

then by identifying and formalizing joint activities to build upon existing capabilities and 

improve the implementation of conservation and recovery actions within sanctuaries’ waters. 

The NMSP manages sanctuaries through the authority of Title III of the Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA). The NMSP 

serves as the trustee for a system of 14 underwater marine protected areas, encompassing 

more than 150,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington State to 

the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. The system includes 13 

national marine sanctuaries and the Northwest Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem 

Reserve, which is currently undergoing the formal sanctuary designation process. The 

NMSP is dedicated to fulfill its mission to protect and preserve America’s ocean and Great 

Lakes treasures for this and future generations. Since passage of the NMSA in 1972, the 

sanctuary program has worked cooperatively with its partners and the public to protect and 

manage sanctuaries while maintaining compatible recreation and commercial activities, and 

has enhanced public awareness of our marine resources and marine heritage through 

scientific research, monitoring, exploration, educational programs, and outreach. 

The PRP, along with regional offices, science centers, and partners, provides oversight and 

guidance to NOAA on the conservation of marine mammals protected under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and species listed as endangered or threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and their habitats. While other NOAA programs contribute 

to the implementation of these mandates, PRP is the only program in NOAA whose sole 

purpose is the implementation of these mandates and the protection and recovery of species. 

Outside of NOAA, PRP shares this responsibility with the Department of the Interior’s Fish 

and Wildlife Service. The PRP develops, implements, and coordinates national policies for 

all provisions of these two statutes. 

The program coordinates with NMFS regional and science center protected resources staff 

to minimize harassment of marine mammals and listed species, to develop recovery and 

conservation plans, to review listing petitions and determine their viability, to review and 

permit research on marine mammals and other listed species, to review and authorize 

Federal activities that might affect protected species, to reduce ‘takes,’ as defined by the ESA 

and MMPA, to implement management or regulatory actions to reduce bycatch of protected 

species in commercial and recreational fisheries, to develop marine wildlife interaction 

guidelines, to coordinate cooperative conservation agreements with partnering states, to 

consult under section 7(a) of the ESA on Federal actions which may effect a listed species, 

to administer the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program under the 

MMPA, and to increase environmental literacy, especially as it pertains to listed species. 
2

Interagency coordination between PRP and NMSP is ongoing and incremental. The 

programs have documented collaborations of: management and planning, education and 

outreach, and science and monitoring. However, the effort was not standardized or elevated 

to a strategic level across both programs. 

In the past, PRP and NMSP staffs have attended each other’s meetings to provide updates 

on policy documents that may affect the management of protected resources in sanctuaries. 

For example: 

• PRP staff attended the NMSP Leadership Team meetings in 2003 and 2004. 

• PRP staff participated in the 2004 NMSP Research Coordinators’ meeting. 

• NMSP staff attended marine mammal stranding network regional meetings and 

training events in October 2004 and March 2005. 

• NMSP staff presented at a brownbag lunch in PRP June 2005. 

From these meetings, several topics requiring further discussion were identified including: 

the integration of PRP staff and issues on various Sanctuary Advisory Committee meeting 

agendas; the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to cover 

coordination of personnel and activities during stranding events within sanctuary boundaries; 

and the need for a more strategic approach to our relationship consistent with the matrix 

management. 

Interagency coordination on research and monitoring projects is already occurring between 

PRP and NMSP in numerous places across the United States. For example, the Pacific 

Islands Region currently assesses the status and population levels of humpback whales in the 

North Pacific Ocean through a cooperative research program called SPLASH (Structure of 

Populations, Levels of Abundance, and Status of Humpbacks). These two programs have 

jointly implemented SPLASH for several years. Also, the collaborative research in the 

Northeast on humpback whales conducted by the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

and the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary has been used as a model of 

collaborative work between the two programs. 

PRP and NMSP have used joint education and outreach initiatives to reach common 

constituents. The NMSP has a well-developed education and outreach program with an 

established infrastructure to provide education and outreach materials to the joint 

NMSP/PRP constituents. The two programs established a working group comprised of 

staff from the PRP, NMFS Office of Law Enforcement, and NMSP to address education 

and outreach needs and identify areas for increased collaboration. The two offices 

collaborated on promotional articles for the highly visible and successful SPLASH program. 

PRP and NMSP also launched a collaborative program, Ocean Etiquette, to address 

common concerns on human impact issues during recreational activities. The Ocean 

Etiquette program promotes responsible encounters in the marine environment and builds 

on past coordination. Ocean Etiquette broadens the focus of the cooperative efforts to 

include policy and education/outreach efforts related to all forms of recreational human 

interaction in the natural environment (e.g., boating, wildlife viewing, tidepooling, 

recreational fishing). 

Further coordination is occurring through the development of the acoustic criteria for 

marine mammals. These criteria could eventually affect actions ongoing within the 

sanctuaries. A report on how anthropogenic noise affects sanctuary resources in the Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) was drafted in September 2004 and has already 

been a focus of several discussions by the CINMS Sanctuary Advisory Council. Other points 
3

of coordination are happening through the acoustic lecture series, the large whale recovery 

efforts including the ship-strike strategy for northern right whales, and existing health and 

stranding response efforts. The need for the two agencies to consult under section 7(a) of 

the ESA is ongoing, often at a national or programmatic level, and this has been the focus of 

several discussions as well. 

Although the existing collaborative activities are making incremental progress toward 

achieving the protection, conservation, and recovery of protected species, improved strategic 

planning will further this progress. The recovery and management of threatened resources 

and their habitat in sanctuaries can be improved through better inter-office coordination and 

budgeting between the two agencies. Addressing program planning and budgeting 

strategically will make better use of existing resources and will provide opportunities for 

value-added management and program implementation. 
4

II. The Strategic Planning Process and Workshop

The development of the Protected Resources Strategic Planning Meeting occurred over six 

months of planning beginning in June 2004 with a dialog between the two programs about 

improving future collaborations. This dialog culminated in the execution of the workshop in 

December 2004. The planning process was divided into three phases: 1) workshop planning, 

2) assessing the baseline conditions and regional priorities, and 3) implementing the strategic 

planning meeting. 

Phase I: Planning by the Core Team

During the preliminary planning phase a core team was convened to design and carry out a 

strategic planning process and facilitate the workshop. The core team consisted of staff from 

both headquarters and field staff of both line offices. The core team held weekly and biweekly conference calls with headquarters, site, and regional staff to coordinate the meeting 

logistics, to develop the meeting’s agenda and procedures, and to develop matrices of 

existing capabilities for conserving protected resources in sanctuaries. The core team is as 

follows: 

National Marine Sanctuary Program

Dan Basta, Director, National Marine Sanctuary Program 

Deidre Hall, Monterey Bay NMS 

Margo Jackson, NMSP Headquarters 

Craig MacDonald, Stellwagen Bank NMS 

Seaberry Nachbar, Monterey Bay NMS 

Holly Price, Monterey Bay NMS 

Nathalie Ward, Stellwagen Bank NMS 

Dave Wiley, Stellwagen Bank NMS 

Vicki Wedell, NMSP Headquarters 

Protected Resources Program

Bud Antonelis, NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

Cathy Campbell, NMFS Southwest Regional Office 

Laura Engleby, NMFS Southeast Regional Office 

Molly Harrison, NMFS Headquarters 

Jill Lewandowski, NMFS Headquarters 

Richard Merrick, NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Michael Payne, NMFS Headquarters 

Donna Wieting, Deputy Director, NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

Phase II: Assessing baseline conditions and regional priorities

During Phase II, matrices were created by the core team as a means to collect background 

and baseline information on what the NMSP and NMFS are currently doing together and 

separately in regards to key protected resources activities. The matrices were organized into 

three program themes: Management and Planning, Education and Outreach, and Research 

and Monitoring. Program activities under the legal authority or mandate of only one office 

or the other, but not for both, and for which collaboration would neither be effective nor 

prudent, were recognized but not further discussed in this collaborative effort. 
5

To complete the baseline assessment of current protected resources activities in sanctuaries, 

the core team identified workshop participants by region and provided them with blank 

spreadsheets to complete prior to the workshop. The four regions were: the West Region 

(WR), the Pacific Islands Region (PIR), the Southeast/Gulf Region (SER), and the 

Northeast Region (NER). The NMFS Alaska Region did not participate in this process given 

that there are no marine sanctuaries in Alaska. Each attendee was asked to fill in the 

spreadsheet with information on what their office/sanctuary was currently doing within their 

region in regards to specific key protected resources activities. They were asked to also 

identify current collaborative projects and basic fiscal and staff resources involved with these 

collaborations so as to provide a baseline on costs and personnel associated with the project 

activities. Completing the spreadsheet for each of these themes resulted in a list of types of 

activities for which NMSP and PRP could collaborate resulting in a more efficient and 

coordinated effort. 

Each of the workshop participants reviewed the regional spreadsheets and made a 

determination on the top ten primary activities and ranked them as regional priorities. The 

priorities were examined and aggregated by the core team and returned to the workshop 

participants just prior to the workshop. 

Phase III: Implementing the Strategic Planning Workshop

The workshop included 44 participants, representing almost every NMSP sanctuary, NOAA 

Fisheries Regional Office, and NOAA Fisheries Science Center across the United States 

(Appendix A). Participants also included headquarters staff from both line offices. The 

participants were knowledgeable on the wide spectrum of programs, resources, priorities and 

needs of their respective locations and were tasked to think collaboratively about innovative 

ways to combine programs and resources between PRP and the NMSP to address protected 

resources priorities and needs in sanctuaries. 

The Workshop Agenda is found at Appendix B of this report. The first day of the meeting 

provided an opportunity for the participants to discuss and learn about each respective 

program through a series of introductory presentations and a consensus-building exercise to 

reach agreement on the suite of regional priorities to be addressed during the bulk of the 

workshop. The regional matrices and the final regional priorities distributed at the workshop 

focused the regional breakout groups on identifying a subset of activities under each priority 

that could be discussed in detail during the majority of the workshop. During most of the 

meeting workshop participants were broken out into their respective regional groups. 

Although the original agenda called for participants to consider which projects would require 

a more national programmatic approach, it became apparent that those types of projects 

would rise to the surface after the regional break-out groups reviewed and reported out on 

their priority activities. Some participants were encouraged to participate in more than one 

regional group discussion, if their expertise was required there. 
6

III. Activities and Outcomes 

Each group identified priorities within the three key program themes: Management and 

Planning, Education and Outreach, and Research and Monitoring. The following five 

themes were common between some regions and were identified as national in scope. 

• Improve inter-office coordination and communication 

• Identify, conserve and recover protected resources: Planning and implementation 

• Develop a shared Marine Animal Health and Stranding Response Network 

• Improve education and outreach: Providing information to the public 

• Increase monitoring and assessment of shared resources 

Twenty activities were identified and project templates completed by the regional groups. 

Several regions focused on coordinating stranding response and collaborating on education 

and outreach initiatives, raising those to a national priority. 

West Region (WR): 

WR1: Continue SPLASH 

WR2: Joint West Coast Marine Mammal/Ecosystem Survey (aka ‘ORCAWALE’) 

WR3: West Coast Collaborative Research on Underwater Anthropogenic Noise 

WR4: White Abalone Monitoring and Recovery in the Channel Islands NMS 

WR5: West Coast Protected Resources Management and Policy Coordination 

Pacific Islands Region (PIR): 

PIR3: Develop a Coordinated Program to Assess, Characterize and Monitor NOAA’s Federally 

Protected Marine Resources and Their Role in the Ecosystem 

PIR4: Improve Federal Coordination on Development of Regulations and Environmental 

Assessments that Affect Protected Resources in Sanctuaries 

Northeast Region (NER): 

NE1: Implement a Cooperative Enforcement Plan in the Stellwagen Bank NMS 

NE2: An Ocean Observing System for Identifying Anthropogenic Noise Sources/Levels and the 

Presence of Large Whales within the Stellwagen Bank NMS 

NE3: Whale Watching Approach Regulations: Research, Develop and Educate 

NE4: Mitigate Bycatch of Marine Mammals 

NE5: Reducing Vessel Strikes of Large Whales within the Stellwagen Bank NMS 

NE6: Stellwagen Bank NMS as a Model for Place-based Ecosystem-based Management 

Southeast/Gulf of Mexico Region (SER): 

SE2: Engage Sanctuaries in the Conservation and Recovery of Protected Species 

SE3: Biological Monitoring of Federally Protected Species in the Sanctuaries of the Southeast/Gulf 

of Mexico Region 

SE4: Characterize the Use of Sanctuary Habitat and/or Resources by Protected Species 

Coordination of Marine Animal Stranding and Response Program 

SE1: Improving Coordination for Marine Animal Health and Stranding Response 

PIR2: Design an Integrated Marine Animal Health, Stranding and Rescue Response Program for 

Protected Species in the Pacific Islands 

WR6: Improving Wildlife Stranding Response and Detection of Health Issues in NMSs 

Coordination of Protected Resources Education and Outreach 

WR7: West Coast Outreach and Education Coordination 

PIR1: Enhance Education and Outreach Coordination 

SE5: Create Joint Education and Outreach Program 
7

IV. Benefits to NOAA

The strategic collaboration between the programs benefits NOAA by: providing additional 

science support for PRP and NMSP mandated responsibilities; leveraging resources resulting 

in cost savings with NOS/NMFS/NOAA through a shared infrastructure and expertise; and 

by leveraging a broader constituent support group (sanctuaries and coastal managers). 

Constituent education and outreach is enhanced by allowing PRP to share the expertise and 

educational and outreach infrastructure already established within NMSP. Our legislative 

mandates are better met by increasing our ability to coordinate mandatory planning, 

permitting and consultations thereby reducing the likelihood of potential unforeseen 

conflicts. The research ability of NOS and NMFS to “Analyze, Predict, Respond and 

Manage” is linked under one collaborative research plan thereby enhancing an ongoing 

collaborative research effort that integrates conservation of biota and habitats with placebased research and management. Finally, a much greater emphasis is placed on marine 

health issues by using sanctuaries as a place for implementing ecosystem approaches to 

management and improving the health in the marine and coastal environments. The 

implementation of these science-based conservation and management programs will ensure 

the availability of living marine resources and habitats for the benefit of society. 

Finally, the effort builds much stronger partnerships. The most obvious of these would be 

between NOS and NMFS, and the National Marine Sanctuary Program and the Protected 

Resources Programs. However, relationships with the public and our constituent partners 

are also strengthened and it increases the potential of NOAA to interact and work with 

academia, environmental groups and other NGOs that currently work with one or the other 

organization, but generally not with both. 

Linkages to the NOAA Strategic Plan

The collaborative workshop was convened with the focus of supporting the Ecosystem 

Mission Goal to “Protect, restore, and manage the use of coastal and ocean resources 

through an ecosystem approach to management” through the implementation of the 

requirements of the NMSA, ESA and MMPA. The NMSP/PRP effort contributes to both 

NOAA’s Ecosystem Goal Outcomes, to two of the seven Ecosystem Goal Performance 

Objectives, and to all five of the Ecosystem Goal Strategies presented in the NOAA 

Strategic Plan (2005-2010). 

Ecosystem Goal Outcomes: 

• Healthy and productive coastal and marine ecosystems that benefit society.

This outcome is crosscutting, focusing on shared capabilities of NMSP and NMFS to 

enhance, protect, and restore through ecosystem management. 

• A well-informed public that acts as a steward of coastal and marine ecosystems.

This outcome will result from the increased visibility of the shared protected species 

programs inside and outside of NOAA. Through the implementation of local action 

with stakeholders, the program will achieve direct benefits to species and indirect 

benefits through the increased awareness and education of the public on protected and 

sensitive species and habitat conservation within the sanctuaries. 

Ecosystem Goal Performance Objectives: 

• Increase the number of protected species that reach stable or increasing population levels
8

This objective supports the Protected Species Program strategic goal of recovery and 

conservation of threatened and endangered species. It also supports the NMSP strategic 

goal to maintain natural biological communities in sanctuaries and to protect, and where 

appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, populations, and ecological process 

through innovative, coordinated and community-based measures and techniques. 

• Increase portion of population that is knowledgeable of and acting as stewards for coastal and 

marine ecosystem issues.

The objective is to expand NOAAs capability to educate the public on the role of the 

sanctuaries in protecting and conserving species and their ecosystems through the 

development of educational materials and programs, and outreach. This objective 

supports the NMSP strategic goal to enhance the nation-wide public awareness, 

understanding and appreciation of marine ecosystems through outreach, education and 

interpretation efforts. 

Ecosystem Goal Strategies: 

• Engage and collaborate with our partners to achieve regional objectives by delineating regional 

ecosystems, forming regional ecosystem councils, and implementing cooperative strategies to improve 

regional ecosystem health. 

• Manage uses of ecosystems by applying scientifically sound observational, assessments, and research 

findings to ensure the sustainable use of resources and to balance competing uses of coastal and 

marine ecosystems. 

• Improve resource management by advancing our understanding of ecosystems through better 

simulation and predictive models. Build and advance the capabilities of an ecological component of 

the NOAA global environmental observing system to monitor, assess, and predict national and 

regional ecosystem health, as well as to gather information consistent with established social and 

economic indicators. 

• Develop coordinated regional and national outreach and education efforts to improve public 

understanding and involvement in stewardship of coastal and marine ecosystems. 

• Engage in technological and scientific exchange with our domestic and international partners to 

protect, restore, and manage marine resources within and beyond the Nation’s borders. 

Protected species are key components and indicators of healthy and sustainable ecosystems. 

The NMSP and PRP are addressing the protection and recovery of species and ecosystems 

under their jurisdiction in a regionally-integrated fashion. The strategies used encompass the 

full suite of education and outreach, research and monitoring, and management and planning 

strategies to accomplish this goal. 

Long-term Program Planning and Budgeting 

The framework used in NOAA to maximize resources and optimize our capabilities is the 

Programming, Planning, Budgeting, and Execution System (PPBES). PPBES is an integrated 

system that provides the structure to link NOAA’s strategic vision with the details of 

programmatic planning and budgeting. The NMSP and PRP programs contribute to the 

NOAA Ecosystem Goal. Budgeting initiatives are implemented through the Ecosystem 
9

Goal matrix programs. The partnership between the NMSP and PRP implements the 

Coastal and Marine Resources Matrix Program’s capability of Ecosystem Approaches to 

Management of Coastal and Marine Resources, under the NMSP activity of Resource 

Protection and Stewardship. The effort also implements two of the three Protected 

Resources Matrix Program’s capabilities of pursuing proactive conservation efforts and 

recovery and conservation of protected species. 

Improved program outcomes include: 

• Recovery (and maintenance) of all protected species to fully functioning elements of 

their ecosystems. 

• Improved or maintained protected species status including abundance, distribution, 

productivity, and diversity. 
10

IV. The Next Steps for Improved Coordination 

The next step in the process to develop a long-term collaborative program was to further 

analyze the information provided in the project templates and to develop a draft 

implementation schedule and cost estimates for each of the priority activities. A Draft 

Project Implementation Schedule was developed after the workshop based on these 

activities (Appendix C). This type of schedule is used to direct and monitor implementation 

and completion of priority activities. Funding is required to complete the priority activities 

for fiscal years 2008-2012 was estimated based on information available at the time this 

workshop was convened. The amount needed to actually complete the activities may change 

as specific actions are pursued and status of resources varies. Some collaborative activities 

are already underway in FY05 without the need for additional resources or funding. Other 

projects and phases of existing projects will progress during FY06/07 with existing resources 

and priorities. However, many of the activities or new projects identified in the 

implementation schedule will require the commitment of additional resources through the 

program planning and budgeting process for FY08 and beyond. 

Draft project evaluation criteria and procedures have been developed and will be reviewed 

by staff from both programs before being formally adopted. This process will provide an 

analytical structure to assess and prioritize future collaborative protected resources projects 

in sanctuaries. The second strategic planning meeting is being scheduled in in early 2006 and 

will provide an opportunity to further build on the partnership. 
11

LIST AND DESCRIPTON OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Workshop Participants 

This appendix is the list of the workshop attendees who made up the regional breakout 

groups. Each geographic region includes representatives from the National Marine 

Sanctuary Program and the Protected Resources Program, including staff from headquarters 

offices, sanctuary sites, NMFS regional offices and NMFS science centers. 

Appendix B: Strategic Planning Workshop Agenda 

Appendix B is the three-day agenda from the Strategic Planning Workshop. Day one 

included an afternoon of program and personnel introductions, a summary of the NOAA 

program planning and budgeting system, and identification of regional project priorities. 

Breakout groups completed project templates on day two of the workshop. On the third 

day, the final national and regional priority projects were identified and discussed. 

Appendix C: Draft Project Implementation Schedule and Cost Estimates by Region 

Appendices C1-C4 are the DRAFT project implementation schedules and project cost 

estimates by geographic regions. Appendix C5 is the project implementation schedule and 

cost estimate for program coordination of the stranding and response network. Project 

abbreviations relate to the table presented on page 6 of the report. The schedule of activities 

and timeline associated with each project was estimated for fiscal years 2008-2012 to assess 

project integration into the NOAA Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution 

System. Regional program staff will review and amend these schedules at the next strategic 

planning meeting in 2006. 
12

APPENDIX A: 

Workshop Participants 
13

Appendix A: Workshop Participants 

West Region 

Todd Jacobs NMSP West Regional Coordinator 

Dan Howard Cordell Bank NMS 

Dierdre Hall Monterey Bay NMS 

Holly Price Monterey Bay NMS 

Karen Reyna Gulf of the Farallones NMS 

Jan Roletto Gulf of the Farallones NMS 

Chris Mobley Channel Islands NMS 

Carol Bernthal Olympic Coast NMS 

Brady Phillips NMSP HQ 

Jill Lewandowski* NMFS HQ 

Karin Forney NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

Tina Fahy/Cathy Campbell NMFS Southwest Regional Office 

salmon contact TBD NMFS Southwest Regional Office 

Brent Norberg NMFS Northwest Regional Office 

Linda Jones NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

 

Northeast Region 

Craig MacDonald Stellwagen Bank NMS 

David Wiley Stellwagen Bank NMS 

Columbine Culberg NMSP HQ 

Molly Harrison* NMFS HQ 

David Gouveia NMFS Northeast Regional Office 

Richard Merrick NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

 

Pacific Islands Region 

Naomi McIntosh Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale NMS 

David Matilla Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale NMS 

Malia Chow Northwestern Hawaiian Islands CRER 

Steve Gittings NMSP HQ 

Margo Jackson* NMSP HQ 

Michael Payne NMFS HQ 

Tamra Faris NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office 

Bud Antonelis NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

 

Southeast/Gulf of Mexico Region 

Greg McFall Gray's Reef NMS 

Cheva Heck Florida Keys NMS 

GP Schmahl Flower Garden Banks NMS 

Vicki Wedell* NMSP HQ 

Claire Johnson NMSP HQ- education coordinator 

Brad Barr NMSP HQ 

Cheryl Ryder NMFS HQ- sea turtle team 

Trevor Spradlin NMFS HQ- health and stranding team 

Phil Williams NMFS HQ- endangered species 

Laura Engleby NMFS Southeast Regional Office 

 

Floating: Dan Basta, Donna Wieting, Emily Menashes (PPBES); * denotes regional group facilitator 
14

APPENDIX B: 

Strategic Planning Workshop Agenda 
15

Appendix B: Strategic Planning Workshop Agenda 

PROTECTED RESOURCES STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP AGENDA 

December 6-8, 2004 

NMFS Southwest Regional Office 

501 West Ocean Boulevard 

Long Beach, California 90802 

Tel: (562) 980-4000 

Day One Topic 

1:00-3:30 Welcome and Orientation to Workshop Goals and Process 

The purpose of the session is to introduce participants, understand the goals and expected 

outputs of the workshop, how these goals relate to the PPBES process, and become more 

familiar with the protected resources missions of the Sanctuary and NMFS offices. 

1. Welcome and overview of workshop goals (15 minutes) 

• Dan Basta, National Marine Sanctuary Program 

• Donna Wieting, National Marine Fisheries Service

• Rod McInnis, National Marine Fisheries Service

2. Introduction of participants and regional planning groups (25 minutes) 

• workshop participants 

3. Presentation by NMSP and NMFS on office missions, structures, goals and 

priorities in regards to protected resources issues (20 minutes) 

• Brady Phillips, National Marine Sanctuary Program 

• Michael Payne, National Marine Fisheries Service

4. Overview of PPBES process and its relation to workshop goals (5 minutes) 

• Emily Menashes, National Marine Fisheries Service 

5. Presentation on development of workshop goals, outcomes, and process, 

review of agenda, and opportunities for participant Q&A (25 minutes) 

• Vicki Wedell, National Marine Sanctuary Program 

• Jill Lewandowski, National Marine Fisheries Service 

3:30–3:45 Break 

3:45–5:30 Regional Group Breakout - Identification of Regional Priorities 

 Regional Group Facilitators 

This session will take place in the regional groups and focus on discussions of the regional 

matrix and priority projects. A list will be provided to each regional group outlining the 

priority projects submitted in advance of the meeting. The groups will then discuss the 

highest priorities from this list and select five regional projects for discussion in detail 

during day two of the workshop. 

Outcomes:

1. Ranked list of priority regional projects identified in the early afternoon 

session. 

2. Identification of top five priority regional projects that will be discussed in 

detail for day two of the workshop. 

7:00–10:00 Group dinner and social event – Aquarium of the Pacific, Long Beach 
16

Day Two Topic 

8:30-10:30 Regional Group Breakout- Discussion of Top Five Regional Priority Projects 

and Completion of Project Templates 

 Regional Group Facilitators 

Regional groups will meet to discuss the top five regional priority projects selected from 

the previous day and identify details in implementing these projects. Regional groups will 

complete templates for each project that will help identify the project’s milestones, goals, 

timeline, human and fiscal resources, national level needs and other requirements needed 

for implementation. The group templates will then be presented to the large group at the 

end of the day. 

Outcome:

1. Completion of template sheets for each top five regional priority project. 

2. Identification of group member to present templates to large group during 

the session at the end of the day. 

10:30-10:45 Break 

10:45-12:30 SAME 

12:30-1:30 Lunch on your own 

1:30-3:30 SAME 

3:30-3:45 Break 

3:45-5:30 Regional Group Presentations of Priority Project Templates 

Regional groups will have 25 minutes to present their top five projects to the large group.

7:00-9:00 Dinner on your own 

Day Three Topic 

8:30-10:30 Large Group Session- Identification, Discussion and Planning of 

Programmatic Themes and National Level Needs 

The compiled top five project templates for each regional group will be reviewed as a 

whole and projects/needs from these projects requiring a programmatic or national level 

approach will be identified and discussed. 

Outcomes:

1. List of projects/needs requiring a programmatic or national approach and 

discussion on how to implement these project/needs. 

2. List of national level resources needed to implement these projects. 

10:30-10:45 Break 

10:45-12:30 Large Group Session- Recap of Meeting Outcomes and Next Steps 

This session will require the large group to recap meeting outcomes, clearly identify next 

steps in implementing the priority projects from a planning and budgeting perspective, and 

discuss the final workshop report. If time allows, the large group will also discus next 

steps beyond the top five projects to increase collaboration, such as “second tier” projects 

for future consideration and tools/ways to improve communication. 

Departure (lunch on your own) 
17

APPENDIX C: 

Draft Project Implementation Schedules and Cost Estimates by Region 
Appendix C1: Draft Project Implementation Schedule and Cost Estimates for Priority Activities FY08-FY12 

Region 

& 

Project 

Target Species Outcome Activities FY08 FY09 FY10 

WR 1.1 Obtain a current estimate of overall abundance for the North Pacific 

100 100 1

WR 1.2 Identify the population structure of North Pacific humpback whales 

75 75 

WR 1.3 Determine key population parameters 

0 0 

WR 1.4 Identify habitat and characterize use 

0 0 

WR 1.5 Examine human impact 0 0 

WR1 Humpback whales Increase information on 

abundance, population structure, population parameters, habitat and use, and human impacts 

Project Subtotals 

175 175 1

WR 2.1 Conduct marine mammal survey every 4 years 

200 0 2

WR 2.2 Meet NMFS and NMS objectives 0 0 WR 2.3/4 Obtain marine mammal/ecosystem data for marine mammal assessment 

0 0 

WR 2.5 Outreach and education about protected species and habitat monitoring 

75 75 

WR2 Marine mammals Obtain abundance estimates, 

baseline data on marine mammals and habitat, monitoring status of marine mammals and habitats 

Project Subtotals 

275 75 2

18
Region 

& 

Project 

Target Species Outcome Activities FY08 FY09 FY10 

WR 3.1 Coordinate with relevant agencies and research institutions to develop collaborative program 

50 50 

WR 3.2 Join monitoring program 200 200 2WR 3.3 Evaluate management impacts; continue longterm monitoring as needed 

0 0 

WR3 Marine mammals Increase information on 

anthropogenic noise to feed into national assessment of anthropogenic. sound on marine mammals 

Project Subtotals 

250 250 2

WR 4.1 Assess wild abalone 50 0 WR 4.2 Identify potential outplant sites 50 0 WR 4.3 Outplant abalone 0 50 WR 4.4 Monitor outplants 0 25 WR 4.5 Develop outreach and education plan 

50 25 

WR4 White abalone Increase the number of white 

abalone in the CINMS in the wild 

Project Subtotals 

150 100 1

WR 5.1 Liaisons identified 0 0 WR 5.2 Hold annual meetings 35 35 WR 5.3 Increase number of collaborative efforts 

0 0 

WR 5.4 Evaluate efforts 0 0 

WR5 Marine mammals 

white abalone sockeye salmon 

Ensure early coordination to keep both line offices of NOAA working together for a common outcome/goal. 

Project Subtotals 

35 35 

19
Region 

& 

Project 

Target Species Outcome Activities FY08 FY09 FY10 

WR 7.1 Educator team meeting 

40 40 

WR 7.2 Targeted Campaigns 

0 0 

WR.7.3 Identify gaps and new opportunities 

0 0 

WR7 Listed species in area 

sanctuaries 

Ensure consistent messaging; develop targeted outreach and education campaigns for high priority issues 

Project Subtotals 

40 40 

Regional FY Totals 

925 675 9

20
Appendix C2: Draft Project Implementation Schedule and Cost Estimates for Priority Activities FY08-FY12 

Southeast/Gulf of Mexico Region 

Region 

& 

Project 

Target Species Outcome Activities FY08 FY09 FY10 

SER 2.1 Dissemination of recovery plans to sanctuary staff 

0 0 

SER 2.2 Identify mechanism and strategy for improved communication/coordination/cooperation 

0 0 

SER 2.3 Participation of sanctuary staff in national recovery coordinators meeting 

20 0 

SER 2.4 Develop working group to develop gap analysis and integration plan 

10 10 

SER 2.5 Sanctuary recovery planning meeting – develop action plan 

25 0 

SER 2.6 Update Encyclopedia of the Sanctuaries 

0 0 

SER2 Green loggerhead, 

Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill and leatherback turtles; North Atlantic right and humpback whales; smalltooth sawfish, elkhorn, staghorn, and fusedstaghorn corals 

Improve prospects of species recovery through more effective planning and implementation of conservation programs Information on species of interest to incorporate into the Encyclopedia of the Sanctuaries 

Project Subtotals 

55 10 

21
Region 

& 

Project 

Target Species Outcome Activities FY08 FY09 FY10 

SER 3.1 Identify protected species in NMS 

0 0 

SER 3.2 Identify long-term index sites 

0 0 

SER 3.3 Link data form permitting activities in NMS that do not require NMSP permit 

0 0 

SER 3.4 Hold coordination meeting to discuss annual research occurring in NMS 

35 0 

SER 3.5 Write comprehensive results booklet for monitoring projects 

25 25 

SER3 Turtles, coral 

grouper, elasmobranches, whales and other marine mammals 

Improved understanding of resources to focus protection and conservation efforts 

Project Subtotals 

60 25 

SER 4.1 Catalog and synthesize current and previous surveys and data sets 

20 0 

SER 4.2 Exchange information and identify ways to enhance existing knowledge base 

30 0 

SER 4.3 Research and Monitoring 

0 100 1

SER4 Including but not 

limited to: Marbled grouper, speckled hind grouper, Warsaw and goliath grouper, and sea turtles 

Improved understanding of resources to focus protection and conservation efforts 

Project Subtotals 

50 100 1

22
Region 

& 

Project 

Target Species Outcome Activities FY08 FY09 FY10 

SER 5.1 Regional working group 

25 25 

SER 5.2 Joint outreach products 

35 0 

SER 5.3 Materials with responsible wildlife viewing information 

0 0 

SER 5.4 Fisheries viewing guidelines on sanctuary websites 

0 0 

SER 5.5 Media messaging 

0 0 

SER 5.6 Messaging through volunteer groups 

0 0 

SER 5.7 Information in existing and future centers and partnerships 

0 0 

SER 5.8 Communications plan 

25 0 

SER5 Dolphins; sea turtles Improved responsibility of wildlife 

viewing of target species with commercial operators and individual boaters 

Project Subtotals 

85 25 

Regional FY Totals 

250 160 2

23
Appendix C3: Draft Project Implementation Schedule and Cost Estimates for Priority Activities FY08-FY12 

Region 

Region 

& 

Project 

Target Species Outcome Activities FY08 FY09 FY10 

NER 1.1 At-sea enforcement 

200 200 2

NER 1.2 Increase prosecution 

0 0 

NER1 Marine mammals – 

whales 

Increase compliance of cooperative enforcement of existing regulations within the Stellwagen Bank NMS 

Project Subtotals 

200 200 2

NER 2.1 Moored passive acoustic buoy (ARU) deployment, retrieval, and data download 

100 100 

NER 2.2 Data analysis for ARUs deployed during FY06-FY09 

100 100 1

NER2 Large whales Characterize ocean noise and 

detection of large whales 

Project Subtotals 

200 200 1

24
Region 

& 

Project 

Target Species Outcome Activities FY08 FY09 FY10 

NER 3.1 Approach regulations 

100 100 1

NER 3.1.1 Research 

0 0 

NER 3.1.2 Management 

0 0 

NER 3.2 Outreach and Education 

50 50 

NER 3.2.1 Commercial whale watch vessels 

0 0 

NER 3.2.2 Recreational boaters 

0 0 

NER3 Marine mammals – 

whales 

Increased protection for marine mammals from whales watching activities 

Project Subtotals 

150 150 1

NER 4.1 Estimation 

75 75 

NER 4.2 Take reduction 

100 100 1

NER 4.3 Gear research 

100 100 1

NER 4.4 Dtag 

50 50 

NER 4.5 Gear Buyback 

0 0 

NER4 Marine mammals – 

common dolphin, pilot whales 

Increased bycatch mitigation 

Project Subtotals 

325 325 3

25
Region 

& 

Project 

Target Species Outcome Activities FY08 FY09 FY10 

NER 5.1 Maintain vessel Automated Identification System (AIS) 

50 50 

NER 5.2 Analyze vessel speed data obtained from AIS relative to the risk of ship strikes within and around the NMS 

50 50 

NER 5.3 Analyze the response of large whales to vessel sound 

100 100 

NER 5.4 Analysis of the vertical and horizontal distribution of large whales within the SBNMS 

50 50 

NER5 Marine mammals – 

whales 

Identity where and when vessel strikes occur in the sanctuary, determine the causal relationship and what mitigation measures might be necessary and appropriate 

Project Subtotals 

250 250 1

Regional Totals 

1125 1125 8

26
Appendix C4: Draft Project Implementation Schedule and Cost Estimates for Priority Activities FY08-FY12 

Islands Region 

Region 

& 

Project 

Target Species Outcome Activities FY08 FY09 FY10 

PIR 1.1 Improve efficiency of permitting, planning, and consultation requirements 

0 0 

PIR 1.2 Integrate consultation and recovery with place-based research and mgt. 

0 0 

PIR 1.3 Enhance constituent education and outreach opportunities 

50 50 

PIR 1.4 Define role of Hawaiian Island NMS in non-humpback whale marine resource management 

0 0 

PIR 1.5 Improve inter-office communication 

0 0 

PIR1 ESA-listed species 

in area sanctuaries 

Improve decision making and coordination between NMS and NMFS, and state and federal partners 

Project Subtotals 

50 50 

27
Region 

& 

Project 

Target Species Outcome Activities FY08 FY09 FY10 

PIR 2.1 SPLASH 

0 0 

PIR 2.2 Acoustic environment 

100 100 1

PIR 2.3 False killer whales 

50 100 

PIR 2.4 Factors affecting protected resource pop. recovery 

100 100 1

PIR 2.5 Monk seal prey 

100 100 1

PIR 2.6 Habitat Loss 

125 25 

PIR 2.7 Vessel and Aircraft Allocation 

100 100 1

PIR 2.8 NWHI Regional Science Plan 

0 50 

PIR2 Humpack whales, 

false killer whales, monk seals, and sea turtles 

To ensure better information for resource management, gathered in a more cost-efficient manner, and at a scope that neither NMSP or PR could achieve individually 

Project Subtotals 

575 575 4

PIR 4.1 Shared definitions – education and outreach 

0 0 

PIR4.2 Implement Ocean Etiquette program 

75 75 

PIR4 ESA-listed species 

in area sanctuaries 

Long-term program that builds stronger stewardship ethics and reduces inappropriate interactions 

Project Subtotals 

75 75 

Regional FY Totals 

700 700 5

28
Appendix C5: Draft Project Implementation Schedule and Cost Estimates for Priority Activities FY08-FY12 

Stranding and Response Networks – National Plan 

Region 

& 

Project 

Target Species Outcome Activities FY08 FY09 FY10 

NAT 1.1 Develop MOU for Marine Mammal Health, Stranding, and Response 

National 0 0 0 Includes: WR6 PIR2 SE1 

Marine mammals and sea turtles 

Improved Coordination on Marine Life Stranding Response. NOTE: no funds are needed to create the MOUs. However, additional funds may be needed, depending on the arrangement. NAT 1.2 Develop MOU for Sea Turtle Health, Stranding, and Response 

0 0 0 

Implementation Totals 

2675 2535 24

29