Marine Protected Areas in the 21st
Century – breakthrough or static?
By Christine Boeker
Capstone Project – Graduate Certificate in Fisheries Management
Oregon State University
Summer 2012
Abstract
Marine protected areas (MPAs) were determined through review of numerous
studies in the late 20th century to be potential tools for fisheries management when
utilized in conjunction with other traditional tools such as seasons and quotas. Since the
turn of the century, new marine protected areas have been established based upon the
principles and deadlines set forth in President Clinton’s Executive Order 13158 (2000),
the World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002), the 5th World Parks Congress
(2003), the Evian Agreement (2003), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (2004),
which paved the way for comprehensive national and international networks of protected
areas. Have these deadlines been met? Have these new networks of MPAs been
established utilizing necessary tools in order to be potentially effective?
I conducted an extensive literature study to determine the progress of MPAs in the
21st Century. I found that MPAs can potentially be effective fisheries management tools
if clear objectives, community involvement, effective enforcement, education and public
awareness are incorporated but that existing MPAs are too few and too scattered to reach
global goals for effective protection. Marine protected area networks need to be created,
both nationally and internationally, in both coastal and pelagic environments. Networks
should be extensively designed utilizing specific and relevant goals and objectives whilst
continuing to be adaptive and transparent. Local communities and government should
be included in all processes and phases of planning and implementation. Networks should
be monitored in accordance with goals and objectives and enforced through passive and
aggressive means. Unless all of these tools are used to establish networks, managers run
2
the risk of creating stagnant or static MPAs with little or no progress towards meeting
their goals.
3
Table of Contents
Abstract
2
Table of Contents
4
Abbreviations
6
List of Figures
7
List of Tables
8
List of Appendices
9
Introduction
10
Definition of Marine Protected Areas
10
Benefits and Costs of Marine Protected Areas
12
Global Recommendations
13
Background
14
Methods
18
Results
19
Necessary Tools for MPA Establishment
19
National Network Progress – the USA
24
International Network Progress
27
Discussion
31
Are the deadlines and goals of the World Summit feasible?
31
Where do we go from here?
33
References
38
Figures
48
Figure 1: Marine Protected Area Sizes
48
4
Figure 2: United States MPA Numbers by State
49
Figure 3: World Status of Marine Protected Areas
50
Figure 4: Highest Ranked Countries for MPA
51
Tables
52
Table 1: Examples of MPA References
52
Table 2: United States History of MPA Legislation
55
Table 3: International History of MPA Legislation
57
Table 4: Current MPA Systems and Objectives
59
Table 5: MPA Targers by Country
61
Appendices
65
Appendix 1: Current US MPAs Listed Under the National System of
MPAs
65
5
Abbreviations
ACCOBAMS – Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea,
Mediterranean Sea, and Contiguous Atlantic Area
BSPA – Baltic Sea Protected Area
CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity
CNMI – Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Island
CZMA – Coastal Zone Management Act
DPSIR - driver-pressure-state-impacts-response
EBFM – Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management
EBM – Ecosystem-based Management
EEZ – Exclusive Economic Zone
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
ESA – Endangered Species Act
FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization
GBRMPA – Great Barrier Reef Marine Protected Area
GOIS – goal-objective-indicator-success
IMO – International Maritime Organization
IMPAC – International Marine Protected Area Congress
IUCN – International Union for the Conservation of Nature
MMA – Marine Managed Area
MMPA – Marine Mammal Protection Act
MPA – Marine Protected Area
MPA-MEI – Marine Protected Area Management Effective Initiative
MSA – Magnusen Stevens Act
MSFCMA - Magnusen-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act
MSFD - Maritime Strategy Framework Directive
NAMPAN – North American MPA Network
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
NMSA – National Marine Sanctuary Act
NOAA – National Oceanic Atmospheric Association
NPS – National Park Service
PAN - Palau Protected Area Network
PAS - Performance Assessment System
PNG – Papua New Guinea
PSSA – Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas
RSP – Regulatory Seas Program
UNCLOS – United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNEP – United Nations Environmental Program
VMS – Vessel Monitoring Systems
WCPA – World Commission on Protected Areas
WDPA-Marine – World Database on Protected Areas - Marine
WHOI – Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
WPC – World Parks Congress
WSSD – World Summit on Sustainable Development
6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Marine Protected Areas Benefits
42
Figure 2: Small Versus Large Marine Protected Areas
43
Figure 3: World Status of Marine Protected Areas
44
Figure 4: Highest Ranked Countries for MPA Coverage
45
Figure 5: Marine Protected Area Sizes
46
Figure 6: United States Marine Protected Area Numbers by State
47
7
List of Tables
Table 1: International History of Marine Protected Area Legislation
48
Table 2: United States History of Marine Protected Area Legislation
50
Table 3: Current Marine Protected Area Networks and Objectives
52
8
List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Definition of Marine Protected Areas
54
Appendix 2: Marine Protected Area Targets by Country
56
Appendix 3: Current United States Marine Protected Areas Listed Under the
National System of Marine Protected Areas
58
9
Introduction
Definition of Marine Protected Areas
President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 13158 on 26 May 2000 regarding
marine protected areas (MPAs). In it he defined a marine protected area as “any area of
the marine environment that has been reserved by Federal, State, territorial, tribal, or
local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and
cultural resources therein,” (EO 13158, 2000).
Prior to the Executive Order in 2000, MPAs were defined as a “geographic area
with discrete boundaries that has been designated to enhance the conservation of marine
resources,” (NRC 2001) and as “any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain together with its
overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical, and cultural features which has
been reserved by law or other effective means to protect all or part of the enclosed
environment,” (Kelleher and Kenchington 1992).
The 2008 Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas of the
United States of America defines a National System of MPAs as “the group of MPA sites,
networks, and systems established and managed by federal, state, tribal, and/or local
governments that collectively enhance conservation of the nation’s natural and cultural
marine heritage, and represent its diverse ecosystems and resources. National system
MPAs work together at the regional and national levels to achieve common objectives for
conserving the nation’s important natural and cultural resources.”
Although many MPAs occur in tropical environments, which can be conducive to
organisms with more sedentary lifestyles and therefore allow for extensive protection of
all species that do not emigrate from the marine protected area, they do occur in
10
temperate environments (i.e. Nantucket Lightship Closed Area, Georges Bank)
(Bohnsack 1993; Murawski et al. 2000; Hilborn et al. 2004).
Protection resulting from MPAs can range from total to minimal or absent. Strict
Nature Reserves are maintained as undisturbed areas available for scientific or
environmental research (NRC 2001). Wilderness Areas are naturally undisturbed and are
maintained for future generation enjoyment. National Parks allow limited public use to
protect areas of national and international significant (NRC 2001). Natural Monuments
and landmarks are maintained in a natural state and closed to extractive uses (NRC
2001). Habitat/Species Management Areas are conservation areas maintained to protect
specific ecosystem components and offer varying levels of protection based on
management objectives (NRC 2001). Protected Landscapes and Seascapes are areas of
distinct character where ecological and cultural activities are balanced (NRC 2001).
Marine Resource Protected Areas are maintained for sustainable use through
management (NRC 2001).
Marine Protected Area Networks are defined by the World Conservation Union
as, “a collection of individual marine protected areas (MPAs) or reserves operating cooperatively and synergistically, at various spatial scales and with a range of protection
levels that are designed to meet objectives that a single reserve cannot achieve,” (IUCNWCPA 2008).
11
Benefits and Costs of MPAs
In the last few decades Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have been a “hot topic”
of discussion in the fields of Fisheries Management, Conservation Biology, Ecology, and
Marine Biology. Many scientists, agencies, and governments have described numerous
potential benefits of MPAs to preserve or enhance marine communities for future
generations, although according to Hilborn et al. (2004) these potential benefits are rarely
realized or quantified. Potential benefits include increased abundance and biomass of
species, age/size composition, spawning stock biomass, increase in spillover and larval
supply, and increase in yield of target species (Roberts et al. 2001; Roberts and Polunin
1993; Sanchirico 2000; McClanahan et al. 2006; Gerber et al. 2007) (see Table 1 for a
complete list of references). Additional potential benefits include restoration of trophic
guilds, conservation of biodiversity, conservation of critical habitat, protection of species,
and availability of undisturbed opportunities for scientific research or collection of
baseline data (Roberts and Polunin 1993; Mangel 1998; Roberts 1998; Hilborn et al.
2004).
Along with many potential benefits to MPAs, there are also costs. These include
direct costs such as those associated with enforcement and education, indirect costs on
non-protected species surrounding the protected area and on relocation of fisheries, and
opportunity costs occurred because all traditional species practices are stopped within
some MPAs (Dixon 1993; Balmford et al. 2004).
12
Global Recommendations
As of 2011, there are over 8570 examples of MPAs in existence throughout
National and International Waters from which successes and failures can be derived
(MPAtlas 2012). In 2002, during the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD), it was decided that National MPA networks would be established by 2012. The
5th World Parks Congress (WPC) additionally recommended 20-30% of all marine
habitats across the global come under protection by 2012 (Balmford et al. 2004). The
2004 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) agreed to the establishment of an
international network and called on all countries to “develop and adopt appropriate
methods and standards, criteria and indicators for evaluating management effectiveness
and governancy,” by 2008 as well as to assess greater than 30% of all protected areas by
2010 (CBD 2012). In addition, numerous other reports and recommendations set the
amount of MPA preservation between 10% and 50% of critical habitat to ensure
protection (McClanahan and Kaunda-Arara 1996; Nowlis and Roberts 1999; Witherell et
al. 2000; Frazier 2003; Gell and Roberts 2003; Roberts et al. 2006).
As the year 2012 has arrived, and the deadline for 20% protection of all habitats
passed, are these methods and deadlines attainable and accurate? Or are they grossly
presumptuous?
I conducted a review of peer-reviewed literature and international reports to
explore this question. My objectives were to determine if published evidence suggests
that establishment of national and global MPAs are feasible, and if established, what
tools would be necessary for national and global networks of MPAs be effective
management measures for the protection of marine resources for future generations.
13
Background
In the latter part of the twentieth century, fisheries management was based on
management of individual species (Beamish and Mahnken 1999). This single-species
management approach was based on population dynamics and life-history characteristics
of individual target species (Davis 1989).
Numerous traditional fisheries management tools were utilized to protect single
species. These included quotas or catch limits so a portion of the genetic stock would be
retained for future seasons, size limits so young fish that had not yet spawned would not
be caught, increases in net mesh size to allow for smaller fish to escape through the mesh,
seasons so as to not catch molting, mating, spawning, or migrating species, and number
and cost of permits to limit the number of boats allowed to catch in any given season
(NRC 1999).
Since the turn of the century, fisheries management has been gradually moving
from single-species conservation to an ecosystem-based approach that considers the
effects of fisheries and environmental variables on the major components of the
ecosystem (Beamish and Mahnken 1999; Trites et al. 1999; Witherell 1999; Sainsbury
and Sumaila 2001; Fraschetti et al. 2011). This type of management combines habitat
values, multi-species perspectives, and socio-economic perspectives with ecosystem
processes for an overall management of the system (NRC 1999; NRC 2001). Both
traditional and ecosystem-based approaches take into account the precautionary principle
or approach, which favors conservative approaches to managing fisheries when a high
degree of uncertainty is involved. When biological data or stock assessments are
14
uncertain, the precautionary principle requires more conservative limits to be set for a
stock or area until the necessary data is collected (NRC 2001).
Marine protected areas (MPAs), one technique for managing fisheries, are widely
suggested to protect multiple species and complex ecosystems while providing resilience
to overexploitation and reducing the risk of collapse of stocks (Guénette et al. 1998).
Some studies have shown that areas closed to fishing have the potential to exhibit
numerous management benefits when clear objectives are formulated. MPAs can
conserve habitats and populations and can maintain essential fish habitat and habitat
quality, protect spawning stocks, and increase of the number recruits into the population
by the preservation of spawning stocks (DeMartini 1993; Roberts et al. 2001; Gell and
Roberts 2003; Halpern 2003). Restoration of stocks (Sumaila et al. 2000) and increase of
fishery yields can also result from area-based management (Dugan and Davis 1993).
Protected areas may demonstrate an increase in reproductive output and species
diversity when compared to adjacent unprotected areas (Schmidt 1997; Roberts 1998;
Roberts et al. 2001; Gell and Roberts 2003; Worm et al. 2006; Gladstone 2007) as well
as an increase in abundance and biomass of species (Polunin and Roberts 1993; Halpern
2003; McClanahan et al. 2006, Ojeda-Martinez et al. 2007). Adjacent unprotected areas
may enhance commercial catches via emigration, increase in abundance, and increase in
fish size (Bennett and Attwood 1991; Roberts and Polunin 1992; Bohnsack 1993; Dugan
and Davis 1993; Piet and Rijnsdorp 1998; McClanahan and Mangi, 2000; Roberts et al.
2001).
In addition, areas closed to fishing may presumably enhance a return to a more
natural species composition, age structure, spawning potential, and genetic variability of
15
stock (Bohnsack and Ault 1996; Roberts et al. 2005). Protected areas may return to
historic trophic guilds, increase aggregate catch levels within the fishery and increase
market value by changing the fishery (Sanchirico 2000, NRC 2001; Roberts et al. 2001,
Sale et al. 2005, Hildreth 2008). Protected areas could also increase resiliency to
perturbations due to increased diversity (Ward et al. 2001; Worm et al. 2006). The areas
protected could potentially provide pristine opportunities for research, protect rare,
endangered or threatened species, conserve habitat (Claudet et al. 2011). Additionally,
MPAs protect critical life-history stages of species and decrease bycatch (Sanchirico
2000; NRC 2001; Roberts et al. 2001; Sale et al. 2005; Hildreth 2008). Protected areas
have been shown to allow benthic communities to return to mature, undisturbed states
(Sumaila et al. 2000).
Although there are numerous potential benefits to MPAs, there are costs
associated with their establishment and implementation. Surrounding fished areas could
become congested due to too many fishers concentrated in a smaller area (Sanchirico
2000). Fishing activities could concentrate on the edge or border of the MPA and
therefore minimize potential benefits within the MPA (Agardy 2000; NRC 2001; Hilborn
et al. 2006). Costs per fisherman could increase if gear type has to become more versatile
or fished areas relocate further away from shore (Sanchirico 2000; Hilborn et al. 2006;
MPA News 2008). Fisheries could become more dangerous as less experienced fishers
join the ranks and travel further away from port (Holland 2000). Direct costs associated
with education, management, and enforcement also may increase in order to allow for the
protected areas to become effective (Sanchirico 2000; MPA News 2008; Boncoeur et al.
16
2011). Additional costs to enforce a marine area, when compared to terrestrial parks,
include boats, gasoline, mooring buoys, and SCUBA equipment (MPA News 2008).
Several global initiatives and conferences have called for an increase in marine
protected areas throughout the world, encompassing numerous different habitats,
protecting numerous species, and being located in national and international waters.
Have the deadlines of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), the 5th
World Parks Congress (WPC), and the 2004 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
been met? Have new networks of MPAs been established utilizing necessary tools in
order to be potentially effective?
17
Methods
I conducted a review of peer-reviewed literature concerning numerous aspects of
marine protected areas. Topics concerning MPAs that I searched for were MPA success,
MPA failure, marine reserve effectiveness, MPA benefits and costs, and MPA
regulations. Out of 41 scientific papers and books concerning MPA implementation, 23
were empirical studies regarding MPA successes and failures, 17 were theoretical studies
regarding MPA success, and one used empirical and theoretical data (Table 1).
Additionally I utilized information from law and policy courses that I attended
and current conference topics and papers concerning MPAs to identify current and
historical laws and regulations concerning MPAs as well as national and international
goals current being attained.
Lastly I utilized governmental organizational websites to determine progress of
regional and international network systems, challenges, and roadblocks. The information
contained in this review is by far from complete but offers a picture of marine protected
areas in national and international waters today.
18
Results
Necessary Tools for MPA Establishment
Clearly defined goals are needed to accurately establish, design, monitor, and
enforce MPAs. There are numerous evaluation methods currently in place across the
globe that can assist managers in determining effectiveness of MPAs from broad
generalities to specific evaluations (MPA News 2006). Evaluations are necessary in
order to determine if there are gaps present in the MPA design, goals, objectives,
monitoring, or enforcement processes.
Protected area size and location are important in protecting habitat and
ecosystems. ECOSPACE models suggest that fishing, dispersal, and trophic effects
decrease the effectiveness of small MPAs versus large ones (Walters 2000). Size of
protected areas can depend on target species mobility (Dunlop et al. 2009). Small MPAs
may show positive results but have a larger border to protected area ratio than large
MPAs. Therefore the chances of a spill-over of recruits to adjacent areas are higher than
chances of species remaining within small MPAs, resulting in low biomass development
(Walters 2000).
Large reserves may provide a higher spill-over into adjacent areas while allowing
the stock the space to bounce back in times of high stress or shock (Sumaila et al. 2000)
(see Fig 1 for examples of large MPAs). Large protected areas limit the proportion of
stock exposed to perturbation and therefore a few large areas may protect ecosystems
better than several small ones (Walters 2000). Large MPAs may be required in temperate
and Arctic/Antarctic latitudes due to highly migratory species with high dispersal rates
(Laurel and Bradbury 2006). Laurel and Bradbury (2006) found that with each degree of
19
increase in latitude, there was on average an 8% increase in dispersal potential and
decrease in population substructure. Therefore MPAs placed in high latitudes may need
to be extremely large in size in order to retain an increase in biomass of species.
Additionally, small MPAs, MPAs close to coastal communities, and MPAs
located in developed countries may have higher operating costs (Balmford et al. 2004).
A global network of MPAs that protects 20-30% of the world’s marine ecosystems may
cost between 5 and 19 billion US dollars and create more than one million jobs
(Balmford et al. 2004).
Location in relation to preferred habitat is extremely important because large
aggregations of species may occur in or around a specific habitat feature (e.g. coral reef,
hydrothermal vent, or seamount) or oceanographic feature (e.g. current or upwelling)
(Roberts et al. 2006). If MPAs are created at random and preferred habitat is not taken
into account, benefits may be minimal. MPA benefits may also depend on whether MPA
location is near features that minimize dispersal (e.g. coastal areas or other areas that
prevent movement) (Walters 2000). Protected areas located in feeding grounds may
affect size structure in certain fish populations, while protection in spawning grounds
may enhance larval production (Dunlop et al. 2009). Dunlop et al. (2009) determined that
reserves located in feeding habitats could potentially reduce evolutionary-selected
pressures on species and therefore preserve evolutionary traits (e.g. age and size at
maturation).
Additionally, areas need to be adaptive to take into account changes in preferred
habitat of species. Piet and Rijnsdorp (1998) determined that expected results of
increased biomass did not occur in the North Sea “plaice box” due in part to habitat
20
preference change in the species as a result of climate change. As changes in global
climate occur, great shifts in species habitat or prey preference may occur.
Results from closed areas can take numerous years to appear, whether positive or
negative. Use of short-term results is cautioned because results may be confounded by
inadequate experimental design, lack of “before” data, and inappropriate habitat choice
for study (Gerber et al. 2007; Osenberg et al. 2011). Claudet and colleagues (2011)
found that, initially, MPAs may appear to have little to no effect on communities.
Dependent on specific management goals, success of targeted species may increase while
other species may decrease. In some studies, when large predatory fish were no longer
targeted due to MPAs, their prey decreased, resulting in a trophic cascade of the entire
ecosystem. Additionally, over time benefits may increase as closure time increases (Selig
and Bruno 2010).
Increased community and stakeholder involvement can increase the effectiveness
of MPAs (Christie 2004; Lundquist and Granek 2005). If stakeholders do not support
MPAs, conflict and disagreements can arise that may ultimately decrease the success of
the MPA. In the Philippines, one MPA had a decline in fish abundance of 291% in one
area due to social discord between the local community and the centralized government
agency that controls the MPA (Christie 2004).
On the other hand, if the community is involved, MPAs can be successful.
Increases in average size and biomass of fish in closed areas were higher within MPAs
than open areas in close proximity (McClanahan et al. 2006). According to McClanahan
et al. (2006), the increase was positively correlated to education about the closed area,
visibility of signage, and length of time in existence. They also found that areas that
21
showed the most benefit were extensively funded and had high community involvement
(McClanahan et al. 2006). Additionally, the 21st century has seen more areas closed due
to scenic, natural, or scientific reasons rather than fishery protection (Sumaila et al.
2000). Public participation and local community involvement are key to the
establishment and management of MPAs but fishers also need to be included in the
process to ensure support (Sumaila et al. 2000).
The effectiveness of MPAs can be diminished by numerous factors, including
limited fishing within “buffer zones” that border the MPA (Hilborn et al. 2006), nonspecific indicators on how to measure success of stated goals, noncompliance by local
communities and stakeholders, and ineffective enforcement. Even limited fishing within
closed areas diminishes results from MPAs (Sumaila et al. 2000). Other results are
unexpected. Invasive species may increase within MPAs due to lack of fishing effort and
perturbation and host-parasite interactions may be disrupted (Claudet et al. 2011).
In order to effectively manage fisheries in the United States and across the globe,
MPA networks need to be established, enforced, and introduced to the community in
order to properly educate, inform, and involve stake-holders. Measures of effectiveness
need to be created and tested to incorporate operational indicators, reference points,
benchmarks, and performance measures into management plans (Sainsbury and Sumaila
2001). Measures of success need to involve both elements inside the MPA as well as
outside the MPA (Claudet et al. 2011). Nearby oceanographic and anthropogenic
activities can affect ecosystems, communities, and species within MPAs. Some
Philippine MPAs measure success as the level of community empowerment, the level of
22
compliance with MPA rules and regulations, and the degree at which components of the
MPA are maintained (Christie and Pollnac 2011).
If the precautionary principle is used to identify numerous locations in potential
need of protection, and management of these areas is adaptive to changing physical,
financial, and cultural needs, the goals of the World Summit on Sustainable Development
could be attained if the deadline is extended until 2069 (MPA News 2005). The key is to
establish efficient and effective marine protected area networks that incorporate goals and
objectives, research, education, management, and enforcement while catering to the
needs of the local population. Time is needed in order to properly set up networks that
will be effective. If millions of acres of marine area are closed without proper set up,
management, and enforcement they will be in danger of becoming “paper parks,” that
utilize resources but don’t protect species or habitat (NRC 2001).
23
National Network Progress – the United States of America
MPAs, as defined by the President of the United States in 2000, through
Executive Order 13158, are “any area of the marine environment that has been reserved
by Federal, State, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting
protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.” There have been
numerous national laws and systems in place throughout U.S. history that have
incorporated guidelines for MPA policy (Table 2). Dating back to 1903 with the
establishment of the National Wildlife Refuge System, there have been a variety of acts
passed to protect varying aspects of the marine environment (Baur et al. 2008). These
include, but are not limited to, the Antiquities Act, the National Park Service Organic Act
of 1916, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1972, the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Magnusen-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982,
and Executive Order 13158 of 2000 (Baur et al. 2008; McLeod and Leslie 2009).
Despite a rich history of legislation, to date there is still no over-arching national
policy governing the ocean that incorporates ecological and social resilience, adaptive
management, and ecosystem-based management (McLeod and Leslie 2009). The need is
grossly apparent for one national policy that incorporates existing policies and practices
into standard national guidelines for marine protected area implementation, management,
monitoring, and enforcement.
24
Although EO 13158 was published in the year 2000, due to a lack of specific
deadlines, the progress was slow-going. By 2006, there were over 1500 marine managed
areas (MMA) in the United States, an MMA boundary-making guideline book available,
an MPA Virtual Library, and an MPA Advisory Committee that provided expert advice
on Executive Order 13158 (NOAA 2006).
It wasn’t until 2006, that the National Oceanic Atmospheric Association (NOAA)
published a progress report that stated the goal of the draft framework for developing a
national system of MPAs was, “efficient protection of United States marine resources by
enhancing governmental agency cooperation, helping to sustain fisheries and maintain
healthy marine ecosystems for tourism and recreation, business, and increase public
access to scientific information about the nation’s marine resources,” (NOAA 2006).
Additionally a draft Framework for the National System of MPAs of the United States of
America was published for review and comment (NOAA 2006).
By 2008, the number of marine managed areas in the United States increased to
over 1700 and preserved a variety of different ecosystems to include biological hotspots,
sunken historical vessels, and specific grounds that were deemed important to fisheries
and currently represent 40% of US waters (NOAA 2008, WHOI 2012). The 1700+ areas
ranged from strict no-take areas to multi-usage areas and included areas that were
important to both commercial and recreational fisheries (NOAA 2008). In 2008, the final
version of the Framework for the National System of MPAs of the United State of
America was published (Wenzel 2008), which described goals, eligibility criteria, the
nomination process, improvement processes, mechanisms for coordination,
25
implementation guidance, and mechanisms for monitoring, evaluations, and reporting
(Wenzel 2008).
The National System of MPAs created numerous benefits in addition protecting
the marine environment. These include increased conservation, social and economic
benefits, local stakeholder interest, education and awareness, cooperation between
parties, and common goal and objectives (Wenzel 2008). By utilizing and enhancing
standard practices across the Nation, the establishment, monitoring, and enforcement of
MPAs was streamlined and became more effective and efficient (Wenzel 2008).
By March 2012, there were currently 355 MPAs listed in the National System of
Marine Protected Areas database (USAMPA Center 2012a). These MPAs include
previously listed areas that had been nominated for entry into the National System as well
as new MPAs. (USAMPA Center 2012b) (Figure 2; see Appendix 1 for a complete list).
26
International Network Progress
In 2002, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, nations of the world
called for a Global System of MPA networks to be created by the year 2012. The Summit
recognized that more research, case studies, and pilot experiments were critical to
determine the effectiveness of international MPA networks and recommended that the
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) disseminate the scientific findings of this
research globally to further educate all nations involved. The Summit also recognized
potential allocation implications for the fishing community and between the fishing
community and other interests (USAID 2007). Multiple other agencies made similar
recommendations. These included the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature’s (IUCN) World Commission on Protected Areas, the Convention on
Biodiversity, and the G8 Group of Nations (NOAA 2005).
Currently there are several international MPAs established and effectively
preserving marine ecosystems. These include the Latin American Cetacean Network, the
South China Sea Regional MPA, the Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape, the Red Sea
Marine Peace Park, the Amistad Cahuita Rio Canas Area, and the Baltic Sea Protected
Areas (ICMMPA, 2009; NOAA, 2005; USAID, 2007).
While there is a lack of effective and established international MPAs, there are
numerous agencies dedicated to the creation, establishment, effective management, and
enforcement of future international MPA networks. The International Maritime
Organization’s Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSA) program, the Wider Caribbean
Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife, North American MPA
Network (NAMPAN), the World Database on Protected Areas – Marine (WDPA-
27
Marine), the Transborder MPA Initiative, the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition,
and the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean
Sea, and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS) are just a few of these agencies and
coalitions (ACCOBAMS, 2010; ICRI, 2010; ICMMPA, 2009; SJCMRC, 2010; MPA,
2010). All of these organizations and coalitions plan for or take necessary protective
measures to sustainably manage areas that are in need of conservation or safeguarding.
International MPAs require collaboration between countries across the world,
whether neighboring countries due to shared MPA network responsibility, educational
partnerships to train and facilitate positive management, or through management and
financial partnership in areas of economic crises or lack of funds. An international
network(s) of MPAs could utilize the precautionary principle and incorporate adaptive
management in order to protect or enhance the status of global fisheries. There is a rich
legislative history from which international MPAs can be formulated (Table 3). The
United Nations Council on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the FAO Code of conduct for
responsible fisheries, the International Maritime Organization’s (PSSAs), the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), can act as a
few of the laws and regulations under which international MPAs can be established (Baur
et al. 2007) (Table 3).
International MPAs create an opportunity for multiple nations to collaborate and
learn from one another by sharing science and management assessments, linking MPA
initiatives, and sharing lessons learned (MPA 2010). Currently there are numerous
closed areas around the world that have varying objectives from which ideas and lessons
learned can be derived (Table 4).
28
International MPAs can come in many forms. Closures may be seasonal in order
to limit poaching (Davis and Moretti 2005). Closures may be utilized to regulate High
Seas Fisheries as well as protect highly migratory species. These dynamic MPAs move
in space and time and can be monitored by the use of Observers on fishing boats or vessel
monitoring systems (VMS) (Davis and Moretti 2005; Hobday et al. 2012). MPAs can
protect unique oceanographic features that attract numerous species (Hyrenbach et al.
2000; Roberts et al. 2006). They can be used to conserve critical life cycle habitats and
safeguard threatened or endangered species of flora and fauna. They can be used to
protect marine mammals that are migrating, feeding, or rearing (Davis and Moretti 2005).
The can also be used to protect predictable annual migrations of certain species as well as
currents and fronts that attract numerous species but are spatially variable (Hyrenbach et
al. 2000; Grantham et al. 2011). Closures can be used to eliminate capture of targeted
species by fishers that do not hold quotas (aka poachers) (Hobday et al. 2012).
There are also numerous constraints that impede the establishment of international
MPAs. The shear vast openness of the ocean and high seas creates the notion that it
would require a very costly management and enforcement plan to evaluate the
effectiveness of international MPAs. The complexity of the open ocean causes challenges
for managers with regards to design, enforcement, and governance (Game et al. 2009).
The Voluntary International Monitoring, Surveillance, and Control Network of
Enforcement Professionals (www.imcsnet.org) is one type of organization that could be
used, in conjunction with VMS, to enforce High Seas MPAs (Game et al. 2009).
Standardization and cooperation are key ingredients to the establishment and
effective monitoring and enforcement of international MPAs. There can be a lack of
29
collaboration between countries that is potentially due to lack of funding, friendliness, or
interest. There currently is a lack of central monetary funds to create, establish, and
enforce international MPAs. There are also conflicts between laws and regulations of
different countries that share common marine network ecosystems (Sanchirico 2000).
The establishment of one overarching resolution by the United Nations or the
International Maritime Organization could require member states to protect biodiversity
through the use of MPAs as has been accomplished in the past with the deep sea (Gjerde
et al. 2008). In addition, standardizing the enforcement process by improving sanctions
and litigation, strengthening cooperation between interested parties, and effectively
educating the public about boundaries and sites can lead to greater overall compliance
(NOAA 2005).
30
Discussion
Are the deadlines and goals of the World Summit feasible?
No. At the end of the year 2010, 193 countries agreed at the 10th Conference of
the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to extend the 2012 deadline of 20%
to 2020 (MPA News 2010b).
If reserves continue to be established at the rate they are currently being
established, the goal of 20% of the world’s marine resources protected will not be
attained until the year 2085. At the current rate, 10% will be attained by the year 2069
(MPA News 2005). In order to effectively reach goals of 10% and 20% protected marine
resources, serious policy changes and standardization need to be made in order to
efficiently and effectively establish an International Network of Marine Protected Areas.
As of June 2012, there were over 8750 MPAs in the world that covered 1.2% of
protected habitat (MPAtlas 2012) (Figure 3). According to Mora et al. (2006), 980
marine protected areas cover 18.7% of the coral reef habitats in the world, but less than
0.1% are in no-take areas with effective enforcement and less than 0.01% are in no-take
areas with effective enforcement and at low risk for environmental degradation due to
sedimentation, pollution and development. Additionally, there are 969 MPAs and
sanctuaries in the world that protect cetacean habitat (Cetacean Habitat 2012).
As a whole, the world has not yet met the agreed upon objectives but numerous
countries have made their own targets (Table 5). Additionally, several countries have
already met or surpassed targets for marine protected areas (Figure 4). These include
Monaco, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Portugal, Kazakhstan, and Estonia (MPA News 2012).
31
In order to meet the World Summit goal of 20%, an additional 2559 (10km2 each)
marine protected areas would need to be established within areas of adequate
environmental and enforceable conditions worldwide (Mora et al. 2000). Currently only
12 of the CBD-represented 193 countries have MPAs that total greater than 10% of their
marine ecosystems (MPA News 2010b).
32
Where do we go from here?
Numerous tools are necessary in order to create, manage, and establish MPAs in
national and international waters. These tools include goals, evaluation methods and
monitoring programs, stakeholder involvement, and effective enforcement. It is also
necessary to continue the creation of numerous relationships across the globe in order to
enhance and preserve marine biodiversity, an increase use of science, research, and pilot
projects to determine effectiveness and standardize practices, and the use of adaptive
management, the precautionary principle, and ecosystem-based fisheries management in
addition to traditional single-species management techniques in order to effectively
provide a safeguard to important fishery resources in the open ocean.
In order to create and establish a Global Network of MPAs in the future several
parameters need to be addressed. First, goals need to be established and set. Goals of
international MPAs should include, but not be limited to:

Enhanced collaboration between countries to address challenges presented to each
situation

Joint prioritization of conservation actions

Development of effective conservation approaches to conserve critical habitats

Recognition of ecological, economic, social, and cultural issues to each situation

Sharing of conservation approaches across international borders

Conservation of international fish and habitats

Recognition of the need for scientific research opportunities (NRC 2001; Sanchirico,
2000).
33
If goals incorporate local community preference, establishment, monitoring, and
enforcement should be less time consuming and costly due to compliance and support
from the surrounding community. Success in some Philippine MPAs was demonstrated
by the level of community involvement, compliance, maintenance of MPA signs and
guard shacks, education, and increase in ecosystem conditions (Sanchirico 2011).
Monitoring effectiveness of MPAs is key to adaptive management strategies (Gerber
et al. 2007), effective allocation of resources, accountability and transparency, and
involvement and support of interested stakeholders (IUCN 2008). Parameters need to be
set to determine effectiveness. If the MPA is established but effectiveness is never
measured, the outcome of whether or not the MPA is accomplishing any of its goals will
never be realized.
Effectiveness can be measured by a wide variety of available methods that include
species population parameters, community parameters, and ecosystem parameters (Syms
and Carr 2002). Population parameters to determine effectiveness include, but are not
limited to, abundance, density, size structure, age structure, larval production, population
resilience and resistance, genetic diversity, fishery yield, and connectivity (Syms and
Carr 2002). Community parameters to determine effectiveness of MPA design and
creation are community-wide species composition, species diversity, trophic diversity
and structure, trophic dynamics, community function, community stability, and bycatch
community structure (Syms and Carr 2002). Ecosystem parameters to measure
effectiveness include habitat structure, richness, and diversity, physical complexity,
interactions between structures and altering species, nutrient matter cycling, and
ecosystem stability and productivity (Syms and Carr 2002).
34
Many different evaluation techniques are used to determine effectiveness of these
parameters. Researchers at Wood Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) discovered a
way to identify distance dispersed of juvenile clownfish using DNA parentage analysis
(WHOI 2009). This method, similar to DNA fingerprinting, allows researchers to
determine relatedness through genetic markers (WHOI 2009), therefore they can
determine how large a protected area needs to be in order to protect specific species.
Additionally, fish stock assessments and resulting quota limits are useful tools to
decrease fishing effort when used in conjunction with MPAs (Walters 2000).
Several types of assessment frameworks are available for use to evaluate
effectiveness in MPAs. These include the Marine Prtoected Area Management
Effectiveness Initiative (MPA-MEI), the MPA Performance Assessment System (PAS),
the driver-pressure-state-impacts-response (DPSIR) framework, and goal-objectiveindicator-success (GOIS) (Hilborn et al. 2004, Pomeroy et al. 2004, Ojeda-Martínez et
al. 2009, Stelzenmüller and Pinnegar 2011). These frameworks take into account
objectives and goals, realistic benchmarks or indicators to measure success, simple and
organized monitoring programs, and continuous feedback by all interested parties
(Pomeroy et al. 2004, Ojeda-Martínez et al. 2009).
Additionally there are numerous other international examples of frameworks
available for MPA managers to use in order to effectively manage their MPAs. Current
successful frameworks include Europe’s Maritime Strategy Framework Directive
(MSFD) and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Protected Area framework
(GBRMPA) (EU 2008, Jennings 2009).
35
Established MPAs need to have proper management in order to function to meet
goals. Proper management includes the implementation of adaptive management
concepts and techniques, the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management techniques
(EBFM), utilizing the MPA as a means of controlling the fishing effort, utilizing the
precautionary principle, and utilizing MPAs to improve the overall ecological health of
the ecosystem (Sanchirico, 2000).
Management also includes utilizing results from monitoring and evaluation to
determine size, connectivity, and location of MPAs. The Goldilocks Effect, as described
by researchers at WHOI, incorporates the idea that if MPAs are too small, too few larvae
with remain within the borders of the MPA. If MPAs are too large, all the larvae will
remain in the MPA and not spillover to adjacent fisheries (WHOI 2009). The size of the
MPA is determinant on the dispersal distance of targeted species within.
Once established, goals are set, proper management is determined, and
effectiveness parameters are defined, a working MPA would need effective enforcement.
Without enforcement to ensure that the goals and management are accurate and true, an
MPA could become a “paper park,” an ineffective closed area known only as an MPA on
paper (NRC 2001). Enforcement requires the collaboration of all interested stakeholders.
Enforcement can be “soft,” or “hard,” (Brunio 2009). Soft enforcement involves
preventive measures to deter fishers and other users away from the MPA. The use of
VMS allows any boat with navigational technology to receive real-time data about the
location of MPAs (Brunio 2009). Although it does not deter fishers from fishing, it does
provide valuable information on the location of MPAs. The State of California created a
mobile website that allows the public to search the locations of MPAs as well as utilize
36
mobile cell phones to track current locations in order to determine if the users are in or
around an MPA (CADFG 2011). Hard enforcement involves the apprehension of
criminals, enforcement officers, lawyers, and litigation (Brunio 2009).
Important economic issues involved with the ecosystem in question need to be
identified. A permit process needs to be instilled in order to create a pool of funds in
which to pay for proper enforcement. An enforcement agency or body needs to be
created in order to enforce the standards and goals of the MPA. The agency or body
would need to be made up of all interested parties with equal representation in order to
effectively meet all countries goals (Hemphill and Shillinger 2007; Witherell 1999).
There are numerous agencies, stakeholders, and individuals who are interested in
meeting the World Summit on Sustainable Development’s goal of a Global Network of
MPAs although the deadline of 2012 has passed. Funding, collaboration, training, and
interest can make the goal achievable if given additional time. National and International
MPA networks are the next step to sustainable fisheries when used in conjunction with
other forms of multi-use management (Fraschetti et al. 2011). The protection of the open
ocean may seem like a daunting task to undertake but numerous agencies have already
begun. The deadline for a Global network of MPAs may have come and gone in the year
2012 but MPA managers, scientists, ecologists, and governmental and non-governmental
agencies have multiple tools at their disposal to continue the process that has already
begun.
37
References
ACCOBAMS, 2010. The Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea,
Mediterranean Sea, and Contiguous Atlantic Area.
http://www.accobams.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=40&Ite
mid=50
Agardy, T. 2000. Informational needs for Marine Protected Areas: Scientific and societal.
Bulletin of Marine Science. 66 (3): 875-888.
Balmford, A., P. Gravestock, N. Hockley, C.J. McClean, and C.M. Roberts. 2004. The
worldwide costs of marine protected areas. PNAS 101(26): 9694-9697.
Baur, D.C., T. Eichenberg, and M. Sutton, 2008. Ocean and Coastal Law and Policy.
American Bar Association. 707pp.
Beamish, R.J. and C. Mahnken. 1999. Taking the next step in fisheries management. P122. In: Ecosystem Approaches for Fisheries Management. University of Alaska Sea
Grant. AK-SG-99-01. Fairbanks.
Bennett, B.A. and C.G. Attwood. 1991. Evidence for recovery of a surf-zone fish
assemblage following the establishment of a marine reserve on the southern coast of
South Africa. Marine Ecological Progress Series 75 (2-3): 173-181.
Bertzky, B. November 9, 2011. Protected Planet Report: Tracking progress on how
protected areas are contributing to meeting the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. CBD
SBSTTA 15 Side Event. UNEP-WCMC; IUCN-WCPA. PDF Text of Protected Planet
Report.
Bohnsack, J.A. 1993. Marine reserves; they enhance fisheries, reduce conflicts, and
protect resources. Oceanus 36: 63-71.
Bohnsack J.A. and J.S. Ault. 1996. Management strategies to conserve marine
biodiversity. Oceanography 9: 73-82.
Boncoeur, J., F. Alban, and O. Thébaud. 2011. Bioeconomy – Bioeconomic analysis of
marine protected are fisheries effects. In: Marine Protected Areas: A Multidisciplinary
Approach. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 190-225.
Brunio, E.O. 2009. Keeping F zero: A new role for communities in MPA enforcement.
International Marine Conservation Congress.
www2.cedarcrest.edu/imss.Program_Abstracts/data
CADFG News. 2011. South Coast Marine Protected Areas Effective January 1. News
Releases from the California Department of Fish and Game. December 16, 2011.
38
CBD. 2012. The Convention on Biological Diversity. www.biodiv.org.
Cetacean Habitat. 2012. Cetacean Habitat directory for MPAs, national and international
sanctuaries. www.cetaceanhabitat.org
Christie, P. 2004. Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures in
Southeast Asia. American Fisheries Society Symposium 42: 155-164.
Christie, P. and R. Pollnac. 2011. Socio-Economy – Social dynamics of scaling-up
marine protected area declarations and management. In: Marine Protected Areas: A
Multidisciplinary Approach. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 121-140.
Claudet, J., P. Guidetti, D. Mouillot, N.T. Shears, and F. Micheli. 2011. Ecology –
Ecological effects of marine protected areas: conservation, restoration, and functioning.
In: Marine Protected Areas: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge. 37-71.
Cole, R.G. 1994. Abundance, size structure, and diver-oriented behavior among three
large benthic carnivorous fishes in a marine reserve in Northeastern New Zealand.
Biological Conservation. 70 (2): 93-99.
Davis, G.E. 1989. Designated harvest refugia: the next stage of marine fishery
management in California. CalCOFI Report 30: 53-58.
Davis, B. and J. Lopez. 2004. Case Studies of State-Level Marine Managed Area
Systems. Coastal States Organization, Washington D.C. 31 pp.
Davis, B. and G. Moretti. 2005. Enforcing United States Marine Protected Areas:
Synthesis Report. National Marine Protected Area Center. www.mpa.gov.
DeMartini, E.E. 1993. Modeling the potential of fishery reserves for managing Pacific
coral reef fishes. Fishery Bulletin 91: 414-427.
Dixon, J.A., L.F. Scura, and T. van’t Hof. 1993. Meeting ecological and economic goals:
marine parks in the Caribbean. Ambio 22: 117-125.
Dugan, J.E. and G.E. Davis. 1993. Applications of marine refugia to coastal fisheries
management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 50: 2029-2042.
Dunlop, E.S., M.L. Baskett, M. Heino, and U. Dieckmann. 2009. Propensity of marine
reserves to reduce the evolutionary effects of fishing in a migratory species. Evolutionary
Applications 2: 371-393.
European Union, 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC of 17 June 2008, establishing a framework
for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Maritime Strategy
Framework Directive). http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF.
39
Executive Order 13158, May 26, 2000. Marine Protected Areas.
http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo13158.html
Fraschetti, S., J. Claudet, and K. Grorud-Colvert. 2011. Management – Transitioning
from single-sector management to ecosystem-based management: what can marine
protected areas offer? In: Marine Protected Areas: A Multidisciplinary Approach.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 12-34.
Frazier, C.A. 2003. Effects of Areas Closed to Bottom Trawling on Fish and Invertebrate
Species in the Eastern Bering Sea. M.S. Thesis. University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Game, E.T., H.S. Grandtham, A.J. Hobday. R. L. Pressey, A. T. Lombard, L. E. Beckley,
K. Gjerde, R. Bustamante, H. P. Possingham and A. J. Richardson. 2009. Pelagic
Protected Areas: the missing dimension in ocean conservation. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution. 24: 360-369.
Gell, F.R. and C.M. Roberts. 2003. Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of
marine reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 448-455.
Gerber, L.R., J. Wielgus, and E. Sala. 2007. A Decision Framework for the Adaptive
Management of an Exploited Species with Implications for Marine Reserves.
Conservation Biology 21(6): 1594-1602.
Gjerde, K., H. Dotinga, S. Hart, E. Molenaar, R. Rayfuse, and R. Warner. 2008. Options
for Addressing Regulatory and Governance Gaps in the International Regime for the
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity in Areas beyond National
Jurisdiction. IUCN Marine Series No. 2. 36 pp.
Grantham, H.S., E.T. Game, A.J. Hobday. A.T. Lombard, A. J. Hobday, A. J.
Richardson, E. Beckley, R. L. Pressey, J. A. Huggett, J. C. Coetzee, C. D. van der
Lingen, S. L. Petersen, D. Merkle, H. P. Possingham. 2011. Accommodating dynamic
oceanographic processes and pelagic biodiversity in marine conservation planning. PLoS
ONE. 6: e16522.
Guénette, S., T. Lauck, and A. Totland. 1998. Marine reserves: from Beverton and Holt
to the present. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 8: 251-272.
Gulland, J.A. 1974. The Management of Marine Fisheries. University of Washington
Press. Seattle. 198 pp.
Halpern, B.S. 2003. The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve
size matter? Ecological Applications 13: S117-S137.
HELCOM (Helsinki Commission). 2008. Baltic Sea Action Plan Fish/Fisheries. Helsinki,
Finland. 23 September 2008.
40
Hemphill, A.H. and G. Shillinger, 2007. 2006 Yearbook of Sustainable Development
Law & Policy: Casting the Net Broadly: Ecosystem-Based Management Beyond National
Jurisdiction. American University: 1-10.
Hilborn, R., K. Stokes, J.J. Maguire, T. Smith, L.W. Botsford, M. Mangel, J. Orensanz,
A. Parma, J. Rice, J. Bell, K.L. Cochrane, S. Garcia, S.J. Hall, G.P. Kirkwood, K.
Sainsbury, G. Stefansson, and C. Walters. 2004. When can marine reserves improve
fisheries management? Ocean & Coastal Management 47: 197-205.
Hilborn, R., F. Micheli, and G.A. De Leo. 2006. Integrating marine protected areas with
catch regulation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 63: 642-649.
Hilborn, R. 2007. Reinterpreting the state of fisheries and their management. Ecosystems
10: 1362-1369.
Hildreth, R.G., 2008. Place-based ocean management: Emergency U.S. law and practice.
Ocean & Coastal Management 51: 659-670.
Hobday, A.J., E.T. Game, H.S. Grantham, and A.J. Richardson. 2012. Missing
Dimension: Conserving the largest habitat on Earth: protected areas in the pelagic ocean.
In: Marine Protected Areas: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge. 347-372.
Holland D.S. 2000. A bioeconomic model of marine sanctuaries on Georges Bank.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 56: 1307-1319.
Hyrenbach, K.D., K.A. Forney, and P.K. Dayton. 2000. Marine protected areas and ocean
basin management. Aquatic Conservation: marine and freshwater ecosystems 10: 437458.
ICMMPA, 2009. The First Annual Conference on Marine Mammal Protected Areas
conference proceedings. http://www.icmmpa.org/
ICRI, 2010. The International Coral Reef Initiative. http://www.icriforum.org/
IUCN and UNEP. 2010. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). UNEPWCMC. Cambridge, UK.
www.protectedplanet.net
IUCN. 2008. IUCN Guidelines for applying protected area management categories.
Edited by Nigel Dudley. http://www.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAPS-016.pdf. Pulled 19
June 2012.
IUCN-WCPA. 2008. International Union for the Conservation of Nature World
Commission of Protected Areas. Establishing Marine Protected Area Networks – Making
41
it Happen. Washington, D.C. IUCN-WCPA. National Oceanic Atmospheric Association
and the Nature Conservancy. 118 pp.
Jennings, S. 2009. The role of marine protected areas in environmental management.
ICES Journal of Marine Science. 66: 16-21.
Kelleher, G. and R. Kenchington. 1992. Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park:
making development compatible with conservation. Ambio 11: 262-267.
Laffoley, D., K. Gjerde, and L. Wood. 2008. Progress with marine protected areas since
Durban, and future directions. Parks 17(2): 13-22.
Laurel, B. and I. Bradbury. 2006. Big concerns with high-latitude MPAs: trends in
connectivity and MPA size. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 63 (12):
2603-2607.
Lundquist, C.J., and E. F. Granek. 2005. Strategies for Successful Marine Conservation:
integrating socioeconomic, political, and scientific factors. Conservation Biology 19 (6):
1771-1778.
Mangel, M. 1998. No-take areas for sustainability of harvested species and a
conservation invariant for marine reserves. Ecology Letters 1: 87-90.
Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI). 2000. Safeguarding America’s Seas:
Establishing a National System of Marine Protected Areas, A Call for Presidential
Action. www.mcbi.marine-conservation.org/what/what_pdfs/safeguardingseas.pdf.
McClanahan, T.R. and B. Kaunda-Arara. 1996. Fishery recovery in a coral-reef marine
park and its effect on the adjacent fishery. Conservation Biology 10: 1187-1199.
McClanahan, T.R. and S. Mangi. 2000. Spillover of explitable fihes from a marine park
and its effect on the adjacent fishery. Ecological Applications 10: 1792-1805.
McClanahan, T.R., M.J. Marnane, J.E. Cinner, and W.E. Kiene. 2006. A Comparison of
Marine Protected Areas and Alternative Approaches to Coral-Reef Management. Current
Biology 16: 1408-1413.
McLeod, K. and H. Leslie (eds). 2009. Ecosystem-based Management for the Oceans.
Island Press. Washington. 369 pp.
Mora, C., S. Andréfouët, M.J. Costello, C. Kranenburg, A. Rollo, J. Vernon, K.J. Gaston,
and R.A. Myers. 2006. Coral Reefs and the Global Network of Marine Protected Areas.
Science 312: 1750-1751.
MPAtlas. 2012. MPAtlas Global marine protected areas database. Waitt Foundation.
www.mpatlas.org
42
MPAFAC. 2007. Management Criteria, Priority Objectives, and Categories for the
National System of Marine Protected Areas. Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory
Committee. 7 May 2007. 6 pp.
MPAFAC. 2008. MPA Management Principles – Compliance and Enforcement. Marine
Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee. 12 May 2008. 9 pp.
MPA News. 2001. Paper Parks: Why they happen, and what can be done to change them.
2(11): 1-3.
MPA News. 2005. Global targets for MPA designations will not be met; experts respond.
MPA News. 2005. 7(5): 1-2.
MPA News. 2006. Measurement of Management Effectiveness: the next major stage in
MPAs? MPA News 7(10): 1-9.
MPA News. 2008. What does your MPA cost?: Considering the various costs of MPAs to
stakeholders and management. MPA News 10(1): 1-3.
MPA News. 2010a. MPA Enforcement: How practitioners are developing new tools,
strategies, and partnerships. MPA News 11(5): 1-2.
MPA News. 2010b. With Global MPA Coverage Falling Short of 10% Target,
Biodiversity Summit Extends Deadline. MPA News 12(3): 1-3.
MPA News 2011. The Surge in Very Large MPAs: What is driving it and what does the
future hold. MPA News 13 (2): 1-2.
MPA News 2012. New Calculation of World MPA Coverage is Twice Previous
Estimates, but Still Far Below Target. MPA News 14 (1): 1-2.
Murawski S.A., R. Brown, H-L Lai, P.J. Rago, and L. Hendrickson. 2000. Large-scale
closed areas as a fishery-management tool in temperate marine systems: the Georges
Bank experience. Bulletin of Marine Science 66: 775-798.
Nowlis, J.S. and C.M. Roberts. 1999. Fisheries benefits and optimal design of marine
reserves. Fishery Bulletin 97: 604-616.
National Research Council. 1999. Sustaining Marine Fisheries. National Academy Press.
Washington, D.C. 164 pp.
National Research Council. 2001. Marine Protected Areas: tools for sustaining ocean
ecosystems. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 272 pp.
43
NOAA, 2005. MPA Management Capacity Building Training handout. An International
Program of the National Marine Sanctuary Program.
sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/pdfs/handout.pdf
NOAA. 2006. NOAA Progress Report: Status of MPA Executive Order 13158 and
National Marine Protected Areas Center Fiscal Year 2006. NOAA. Silver Spring, MD. 19
pp.
Ojeda-Martinez, C., J.T. Bayle-Sempere, P. Sánchez-Jerez, A. Forcada, and C. Valle.
2007. Detecting conservation benefits in spatially protected fish populations with metaanalysis of long-term monitoring data. Marine Biology 151: 1153-1161.
Orbach, M. and L.B. Karrer. 2010. Marine Managed Areas: What, Why, and Where.
Science and Knowledge Division, Conservation International. Arlington, Virginia. 16 pp.
Osenberg, C.W., J.S. Shima, S. L. Miller, and A.C Stier. 2011. Ecology – Assessing
effects of marine protected areas: confounding in space and possible solutions. In:
Marine Protected Areas: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge. 143-167.
Pastoors, M.A., A.D. Rijnsdorp, and F.A. Van Beek. 2000. Effects of a partially closed
area in the North Sea (“plaice box”) on stock development of plaice. ICES Journal of
Marine Science 57: 1014-1022.
Piet, G.J. and A.D. Rijnsdorp. 1998. Changes in the demersal fish assemblage in the
south-eastern North Sea following the establishment of a protected area (“plaice box”).
ICES Journal of Marine Science 55: 420-429.
Polunin, N.V.C. and C.M. Roberts. 1993. Greater biomass and value of target coral-reef
fishes in two small Caribbean marine reserves. Marine Ecology Progress Series 100: 167176.
Pomeroy, R.S., J.E. Parks, and L.M. Watson. 2004. How is your MPA doing? A
Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area
Management Effectiveness. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Roberts, C.M. 1998. Sources, sinks, and the design of marine reserve networks. Fisheries
23: 16-19.
Roberts, C.M. and N.V.C. Polunin. 1992. Effects of marine reserve protection on
northern Red Sea fish populations. Proceedings of the Seventh International Coral Reef
Symposium, Guam. Vol. 2.
Roberts, C.M. and N.V.C. Polunin. 1993. Marine Reserves: simple solutions to managing
complex fisheries? Ambio 22 (6): 363-368.
44
Roberts, C.M., J.A. Bohnsack, F. Gell, J.P. Hawkins, and R. Goodridge, 2001. Effects of
Marine Reserves on Adjacent Fisheries. Science 294: 1920-1923.
Roberts, C.M., L. Mason, and J.P. Hawkins. 2006. Roadmap to Recovery: A global
network of marine reserves. University of York. York. 60 pp.
Sainsbury, K. and U.S. Sumaila. 2001. Incorporating Ecosystem Objectives into
Management of Sustainable Marine Fisheries, Including ‘Best Practice’ Reference Points
and use of Marine Protected Areas. Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the
Marine Ecosystem. Reykjavik, 1-4 October 2001.
Sale, P.F., R.K. Cowen, B.S. Damilowicz, G.P. Jones, J.P. Kritzer, K.C. Lindeman, S.
Planes, N.V.C. Polunin, G.R. Russ, Y.J. Sadovy, and R.S. Steneck, 2005. Critical science
gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20 (2): 7480.
Sanchirico, J.N. 2000. Marine Protected Areas as Fishery Policy: A discussion of
potential costs and benefits. Resources for the Future. Washington, D.C. 16pp.
Sanchirico, J.N. 2011. Bioeconomy – Economically optimal spatial and inter-temporal
fishing patterns in a metapopulation. In: Marine Protected Areas: A Multidisciplinary
Approach. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 99-120.
Schmidt, K.F. 1997. ‘No-Take’ zones spark fisheries debate. Science 277: 489-491.
Scovazzi, T. 2004. Marine Protected Areas on the High Seas: Some legal and policy
considerations. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 19(1): 1-17.
Selig, E.R. and J.F. Bruno. 2010. A Global Analysis of the Effectiveness of Marine
Protected Areas in Preventing Coral Loss. PLoS ONE 5(2): 1-7.
Singleton, S. 2009. Native People and Planning for Marine Protected Areas: How
“Stakeholder” Processes Fail to Address Conflicts in Complex, Real-World
Environments. Coastal Management 37: 421-440.
SJCMRC, 2010. Transborder Marine Protected Area Initiative. San Juan County and the
Sound and Straits Coalition of NGOs. http://www.sjcmrc.org/programs/transborder.htm
Stelzenmüller, V. and J.K. Pinnegar. 2011. Fisheries – Monitoring fisheries effects of
marine protected areas: current approaches and the need for integrated assessments. In:
Marine Protected Areas: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge. 168-189.
Sumaila, U.R., S. Guénette, J. Alder, and R. Chuenpagdee. 2000. Addressing ecosystem
effects of fishing using marine protected areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 752760.
45
Syms, C. and M.H. Carr. 2002. International Clearinghouse for MPA Effectiveness
Measures: a Conceptual Design. Report prepared for the North American Commission
for Environmental Cooperation.
Toropova, C., Meliane, I., Laffoley, D., Matthews, E. and Spalding, M. eds. 2010. Global
Ocean Protection: Present Status and Future Possibilities. Brest, France: Agence des aires
marines protégées, Gland, Switzerland, Washington, DC and New York, USA: IUCN
WCPA, Cambridge, UK : UNEP-WCMC, Arlington, USA: TNC, Tokyo, Japan: UNU,
New York, USA: WCS. 96pp.
Trites, A.W., P.A. Livingston, M.C., S. Mackinson, A.M. Springer, and D. Pauly. 1999.
Ecosystem considerations and the limitations of ecosystem models in fisheries
management: insights from the Bering Sea. P609-619. In: Ecosystem Approaches for
Fisheries Management. University of Alaska Sea Grant. AK-SG-99-01. Fairbanks.
UNEP-WCMC. 2008. National and Regional Networks of Marine Protected Areas: A
Review of Progress. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
USAID, 2007. Promoting Marine and Coastal Protected Areas for Sound Development
and Biodiversity Conservation.
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/water/promoting_areas.html
US MPA Center, 2010. International MPA Efforts. National Marine Protected Areas
Center. http://www.mpa.gov/aboutmpas/programs/international/
US MPA Center, 2012a. About the National System of Marine Protected Areas. National
Marine Protected Areas Center.
http://www.mpa.gov
US MPA Center, 2012b. MPA Inventory.
www.mpa.gov/dataanalysis/mpainventory
Walters, C. 2000. Impacts of dispersal, ecological interactions, and fishing effort
dynamics on efficacy of marine protected areas: how large should protected areas be?
Bulletin of Marine Science 66(3): 745-757.
Wenzel 2008. Framework for the National System of MPAs of the United States of
America.
West, C.D., C. Dytham, D. Righton, and J.W. Pitchford. 2009. Preventing
overexploitation of migratory fish stocks: the efficacy of marine protected areas in a
stochastic environment. ICES Journal of Marine Science 66:1-12.
46
Witherell, D. 1999. Incorporating ecosystem considerations into management of Bering
Sea Groundfish Fisheries. P315-317. In: Ecosystem Approaches for Fisheries
Management. University of Alaska Sea Grant. AK-SG-99-01. Fairbanks.
Wilkinson, Z. 2012. Preparing for the 6th IUCN World Parks Congress 2014: A draft
background discussion paper. IUCN. 34 pp.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) 2009. You Don’t Call, You Don’t Write:
Connectivity in marine fish populations. 25 March 2009.
www.whoi.edu
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) 2012.
www.whoi.edu
Worm, B., E.B. Barbier, N. Beaumont, J.E. Duffy, C. Folke, B.S. Halpern, J.B.C.
Jackson, H.K. Lotze, F. Micheli, S.R. Palumbi, E. Sala, K.A. Selkoe, J.J. Stachowicz, and
R. Watson. 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 214:
787-790.
47
Figures
Figure 1: Marine Protected Area Sizes
Marine Protected Areas can vary greatly in size. Some of the larger areas include the
Phoenix Island MPA (410,500km2) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Protected Area
(344,400 km2) (Laffoley et al. 2008). In contract, some small MPAs include the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary (9,901 km2) and the Hawaiian Islands Humpback
Whale National Marine Sanctuary (3,554 km2) (Laffoley et al. 2008).
Examples of MPA Size
1,200,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
Hawaiian
Islands
Humpback
Whale National
Florida Keys
National Marine
Sanctuary
Macquerie
Island
Commonwealth
Marine Reserve
Australia
Southeast
Commonwealth
Marine Reserve
Great Barrer
Reef Marine
Protected Area
Phoenix Islands
Protected Area
0
Northwest
Hawaiian
Islands Marine
Managed Area
200,000
Greenland
National Park
Size (km2)
1,000,000
Establish MPA Examples
48
ba
Al ma
Ar as
k k
Ca an a
Co lif sas
nn orn
e ia
D cti
el cu
aw t
Fl are
o
G rid
eo a
rg
G ia
ua
H m
a
In wa
Lo dia ii
ui na
si
an
M M Ma a
a s a in
sa ry e
ch lan
u d
M set
N M ich ts
ew is ig
H siss an
am i
N p ppi
ew sh
J ir
N N ers e
or e
t w ey
O h C Yo
ff- a r
sh ro k
or lin
e a
Pa
F
ci Or ed
fic e
g
Pu Isl on
Rh er and
t
So od o R s
ut e I ic
h sl o
Ca an
U
S
ro d
Vi
lin
rg
in Te a
Is xa
la s
n
W Vir ds
as gi
hi ni
ng a
to
n
Al
a
Figure 2: U.S. Marine Protected Area Numbers by State
There are currently over 1700 MPAs in the United States but as of March 2012, 335 of
these had been nominated and entered into the National System of MPAs (data taken
from www.mpa.org).
Number of MPAs per U.S. State
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
49
Figure 3: World Status of Marine Protected Areas
Currently the world status on MPAs is far below the targeted 10% required by the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Most of these areas occur within Exclusive
Economic Zones (EEZs) which is located within 200 nm of the shore, although some do
occur in the high seas. Additionally, there are more no-take areas located within EEZs,
than in the high seas (Mora et al. 2006).
% Protected
Total % Protected World Area
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
EEZ
World
No-Take
EEZ
No-Take
World
Categories
50
Figure 4: Highest Ranked Countries for MPA Coverage
Currently the top ranked countries for MPA coverage in national waters include Monaco,
Bosnia, Herzegovina, Portugal, Kazakhstan, and Estonia (MPA News 2012).
Highest Ranked Countries for MPA %
120
100
97.1
97.1
80
60
51.6
47.3
45.7
40
20
to
ni
a
Es
an
Ka
za
kh
st
al
tu
g
Po
r
na
H
er
ze
go
vi
ia
Bo
sn
o
0
M
on
ac
Percentage (%)
100
51
Tables
Table 1: Examples of MPA References
I reviewed numerous studies to determine costs and benefits to marine protected areas.
The following 41 studies were used in this review about specific MPAs. Of these, 23
were empirical studies, 17 were theoretical studies, and one both types of data. Many
references also included potential benefits to MPAs.
Reference
Bennett and Attwood 1991
Bohnsack 1993
Bohnsack and Ault 1996
Christie 2004
Claudet et al. 2011
Cole 1994
Empirical
X
X
Potential Benefits
X
increase in biomass
protection of species
X
X
X
DeMartini 1993
X
Dugan and Davis 1993
Dunlop et al. 2009
Frazier 2003
Gell and Roberts 2003
X
Gerber et al. 2007
X
X
X
X
Guenette et al. 1998
Halpern 2003
Hannesson 1998
Theoretical
increase in yeild per
recruit
increase in biomass,
increase in yield per
recruit
protection of species
increase in spillovers
X
increase in abundance
conservation of
habitat, increase in
yield per recruit
increase in abundance,
increase in biomass,
increase in age/size
composition and
spawning stock
biomass, increase in
biodiversity
X
X
Hilborn et al. 2004
Hildreth 2008
X
X
Hyrenbach et al. 2000
X
Mangel 1998
X
increase in abundance,
increase in aggregate
catch, provide areas
for education and
research
protection of critical
life stages
baseline data, increase
in spillovers,
protection of stocks
52
MCBI 2000
X
baseline data,
protection of species,
conservation of
habitat, increase in
biodiversity, provide
areas for education
and research
McClanahan and Kaunda-Arara 1996
McClanahan and Mangi 2000
X
X
McClanahan et al. 2006
X
NRC 2001
X
Ojeda-Martinez et al. 2007
Pastoors et al. 2000
Piet and Rijnsdorp 1998
X
X
X
increase in abundance
Polunin and Roberts 1993
X
increase in abundance
Roberts 1998
Roberts 2006
Roberts and Polunin 1992
X
increase in abundance,
increase in biomass
conservation of
habitat, increase in
spillovers
increase in biomass
X
X
protection of species,
conservation of habitat
X
increase in biomass
X
X
increase in age/size
composition and
spawning stock
biomass, increase in
spillovers, restoration
of natural populations
and community
structure, increase in
biodiversity
increase in aggregate
catch
increase in spillovers
Roberts and Polunin 1993
Roberts et al. 2001
Russ and Alcala 1996
Sale et al. 2005
increase in abundance
increase in spillovers
X
X
53
Sanchirico 2000
Schmidt 1997
Selig and Bruno 2010
X
increase in age/size
composition and
spawning stock
biomass, increase in
spillovers
X
Sumaila 2000
West et al. 2009
Worm et al. 2006
X
increase in abundance,
increase in age/size
composition and
spawning stock
biomass, increase in
yield per recruit,
restoration of natural
populations and
community structure,
provide areas for
education and
research
X
X
X
protection of species,
conservation of habitat
increase in spillovers
increase in aggregate
catch, increase in
biodiversity
54
Table 2: United States History of Marine Protected Areas Legislation
The United States has a long and rich history of legislation that protects parts of the ocean
and animals within. Marine protected area legislation combines numerous laws and
regulations in order to be effective in the United States.
Year
1903
1906
1916
1953
Reference
Baur et al.
2008
Baur et al.
2008
Baur et al.
2008, Davis
and Moretti
2005
Baur et al.
2008
Event
The National Wildlife Refuge System was established
which created National Wildlife Refuges.
The Antiquities Act was passed.
The National Park Service Organic Act was passed which
created national parks, monuments, and seashores.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act was passed.
1972
McLeod and
Leslie 2009
McLeod and
Leslie 2009
National Environmental Policy Act was passed which
helped managers coordinate decisions between many
stakeholders and required parties to produce
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed which created
Marine Mammal Protection Areas.
1972
Baur et al.
2008, Davis
and Moretti
2005
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act was passed which
allowed for creation of National Marine Sanctuaries.
1969
1972
1972
1973
1976
1982
Baur et al.
2008, Davis
and Moretti
2005
Baur et al.
2008
McLeod and
Leslie 2009
McLeod and
Leslie 2009
Baur et al.
2008
2000
Baur et al.
2008, Davis
and Moretti
2005
Baur et al.
2008
2006
mpa.gov
1996
The Coastal Zone Management Act was passed which
established National Estuarine Research Reserves.
The Clean Water Act was passed.
Endangered Species Act was passed which created
Critical Habitat Areas for species.
Magnusen-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act was passed which called for the nation
to avoid irreversible effects on the ocean environment.
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act was passed.
The Magnusen Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act was updated and passed which restored
areas based on gear-type and created closed areas.
Executive Order 13158 was implemented.
Draft Version of the National System of MPAs written.
55
2008
mpa.gov
2008
mpa.gov
2012
mpa.gov
Draft version of the National System of MPAs put out for
public review.
Final version of the National System of MPAs completed.
Currently 335 of over 1700 national MPAs listed under
the new National System of MPAs.
56
Table 3: International History of Marine Protected Areas Legislation
Numerous laws and regulations build the backbone of marine protected area legislation in
the international forum.
Year
Reference
During WW2
Gulland 1974
Scovazzi
2004
Toropova et
al 2010
1946
1958
1962
1971
1972
1972
1973-1977
1975
1979
1982
1982
1984
1991
1991
1992
Toropova
al 2010
Toropova
al 2010
Toropova
al 2010
Toropova
al 2010
et
et
Event
1st evidence of MPA benefits due to interruption of
fishing caused by war
The Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was held
which included designation of sanctuary areas.
The Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea were
adopted.
The First World Conference on National Parks determined
a need for protection of coastal and marine areas.
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance was created.
et
et
Toropova et
al 2010
Toropova et
al 2010
Scovazzi
2004
Sainsbury
and Sumaila
2001
Toropova et
al 2010
Toropova et
al 2010
Scovazzi
2004
Scovazzi
2004
Sainsbury
and Sumaila
2001
The World Heritage Convention was developed.
The UN developed Regional Seas Programme was
developed.
The Third United Nations Conference of the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) provided a legal framework for the
establishment of MPAs.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) conducted a Conference on MPAs in Tokyo that
called for the establishment of a system of MPAs that
included all ecosystems across the world.
Sanctuaries that prohibited commercial whaling were
established in the Indian Ocean.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected
Areas held workshops on how to create and manage
MPAs.
IUCN published Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A
Guide for Planners and Managers.
Guidelines for the Identification of Particularly Sensitive
Sea Areas were adopted by the IMO.
The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic
Treaty was created. It included information for
designation of Antarctic protected areas.
United Nations Conference on the Environment and
Development was held.
57
Year
Reference
1992
1987-1988
1994
1994
1994
1995
1997
1999
Sainsbury
and Sumaila
2001
Toropova et
al 2010
Toropova et
al 2010
Baur et al.
2008
Scovazzi
2004
Kelleher et
al. 1995
McLeod and
Leslie 2009
Toropova et
al 2010
1999
McLeod and
Leslie 2009
2002
Toropova et
al 2010
2002
McLeod and
Leslie 2009
2004
Toropova et
al 2010
IUCN-WCPA
2008
IUCN-WCPA
2008
2006
Toropova et
al 2010
2003
2003
2008
2010
Toropova et
al 2010
mpanews
2010b
Event
Convention on Biological Diversity was held.
The 17th General Assembly of IUCN adopted a
statement to define, "marine protected area." as well as
objectives to be met in creating MPAs.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) and the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) came into force. The rights and duties of 200 mile
EEZ's were established.
The International Coral Reef Initiative was created.
Sanctuaries that prohibited commercial whaling were
established in the Southern Ocean.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the World
Bank, and the IUCN published A Global Representative
System of Marine Protected Areas
Canada passed the Canada Oceans Act, which created a
foundation for a National Ocean Strategy.
IUCN published Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas
Australia passed the Commonwealth Environmental
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999 that
created a foundation for Ecosystem Based Management
across Australia's ocean environment.
World Summit on Sustainable Development called for the
establishment of MPAs consistent with international law
and based on scientific information by 2012
The European Union passed the Marine Thematic
Strategy for the Protection and Conservation of the
European Marine Environment.
The 5th World Parks Congress recognized that effective
MPAs could be governed by multiple types of entities
including state, local, regional, and community.
The Evian Agreement called for networks of MPAs to be
established internationally by 2012.
The Convention of Biological Diversity agreed to establish
global networks of MPAs
The Convention of Biological Diversity adopted subtargets and indicators for a goal of 10% of all the world's
ecological regions to be conserved by 2010.
IUCN published a new set of "Guidelines to Protected
Area Categories," which included a new definition of a
protected area
CBD extended the target 2010 deadline to 2020.
58
Table 4: Current MPA Systems and Objectives
Listed below are some examples of marine protected areas and reserves from around the
world. Objectives for designation as MPAs are as diverse as the habitats that each MPA
protects.
Current MPA Examples
Aching Reef Flat
Preserve (Guam)
Objectives
To protect nursery area for juvenile animals located
in mangroves and seagrass beds.
References
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
Baltic Sea Protected
Areas
To protect the environment from human
perturbations
Helcom
2008
Banc D'Arguin National
Park (Mauritania)
Bancho Chinchorro
Bioshpere Preserve
(Mexico)
To protect seagrass beds and mudflats that act as
nursery and rearing grounds for numerous species.
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
Bird Island (CNMI)
Bunaken National Park
(Indonesia)
Cebu Island
(Philippines)
Channel Islands MPAs
(US)
Far Eastern Federal
Marine Preserve
(Russian Federation)
Florida's Aquatic
Preserves System (US)
Galapagos Island
Marine Reserve
(Ecuador)
Hol Chan Marine
Reserve (Belize)
Kimbe Bay Marine
Protected Area (PNG)
Lenger Island Marine
Protected Area
(Micronesia)
Loreto Bay National
Park (Mexico)
Mafia Island Marine
Park (Tanzania)
To protect the countries largest reef formation.
To protect coral reefs, dive sites and caves, and
sea bird nest colonies.
To protect coral communities, diversity, abundance,
essential habitat, sea turtle and dugong
populations.
To sustain fisheries, maintain diverse coral habitat
and to ensure intact food chain.
Address biodiversity, socioeconomic well-being,
fisheries, natural and cultural features, and public
education
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
Laffoley
2008
Davis and
Lopez 2004
To protect coastal marine islands and over 2700
species.
To protect Florida's coastal resources by using
education, resource management, research,
monitoring, and partnerships.
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
To support a rich food chain and numerous
protected species.
To protect unique channel formations, fish
resources, and habitat.
To conserve marine biodiversity and natural
resources and to address local marine resource
management needs.
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
To protect spawning and aggregation sites, a turtle
hatchery, diverse species, and a World War II Base.
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
To protect diversity of species.
To protect diverse species, habitat, and species
aggregations.
Davis and
Lopez 2004
Laffoley
2008
59
Mediterranean Marine
Mammals Sanctuary
To conserve marine mammals and habitat from
negative impacts.
Scovazzi
2004
Michigan's Underwater
Preserves System (US)
To protect and preserve shipwrecks and stimulate
local economy through tourism.
Davis and
Lopez 2004
Miramare Marine
Protected Area (Italy)
To promote education and research about
reproductive biology of species and water quality.
Ngemelis (Palau)
To protect a diverse habitat.
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
North Carolina's
Primary and Secondary
Nursery Areas (US)
To protect nursery areas that support juvenile
seafood species.
Davis and
Lopez 2004
Oregon's Natural and
Conservation
Management Units
(US)
To protect essential habitats and preserve natural
resources in dynamic habitats.
Davis and
Lopez 2004
To protect biodiversity, important habitats and
vulnerable resources essential to stability.
Laffoley
2008
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
Palau Protected Areas
Network (Micronesia)
Piti Bomb Holes
Preserve (Guam)
Saguency-St.
Lawrence Marine
Preserve (Canada)
Sasanhaya Fish
Reserve (CNMI)
Sian Ka'an Biosphere
Reserve (Mexico)
Tubbataha Reef
National Marine
Preserve (Philippines)
To protect habitat for marine mammals.
To protect feeding grounds for numerous protected
species.
To protect coral features, dive sites, and World War
II wrecks.
To protect coral habitats.
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
To protect nesting sites and pristine reef habitat.
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
Upper Gulf of California
and Colorado River
Delta Biosphere
Reserve (Mexico)
To protect marine and coastal habitats, dunes, and
deserts.
Pomeroy et
al. 2004
Washington's Aquatic
Reserves (US)
To conserve and enhance aquatic resources,
enhance biodiversity, foster stakeholder
representation, and increase educational and
research opportunities.
Davis and
Lopez 2004
60
Table 5: Marine Protected Area Targets by Country
The following lists projected targets, by country, for marine protected throughout the
world in response to global calls for protected resources and progress to date (UNEPWCMC 2008, Toropova et al. 2010, Bertzky 2011).
Country
Bahamas
Belize
Target
Status as of 2012
20% of fished ecosystem by 2010, 20% of
marine and coastal habitats by 2015
10% of marine habitats
already protected by 31
MPAs, deadline for 20%
changed to 2020*, joined
'Caribbean Challenge',
devoted to protection**
20% of bioregions, 30% of coral reefs, 30% of
manatee habitat, 60% of turtle and aligator
nesting sites, and 80% of breeding areas
2387 km2 protected (25
MPAs), 8% of which
protects turtle nesting
sites, 4% reef habitats,
and 1% territorial
waters**
Chile
10% of marine areas by 2010, establish a
National Network by 2015
Cuba
25% of coral reefs, 25% of wetlands
Dominican
Republic
20% of marine and coastal areas by 2020
Currently have 22 MPAs,
and 55 proposed,
recommendations have
been made to include MPAs
and MMAs in regional
marine network**
21.9% of insular waters
approved or proposed for
MPA protection**
joined 'Caribbean
Challenge', devoted to
protection**
30% of coastal areas by 2020
20% of the country's
inshore fishery is protected
by management, 15-20%
of these areas are closed**
38% of marine areas in MPAs
16,216km2 protected by
14 areas, 4 areas
nominated for inclusion in
the OSPAR network**
25% of marine areas by 2020
joined 'Caribbean
Challenge', devoted to
protection, 12% of waters
approved or proposed for
MPA protection**
Fiji
Germany
Grenada
61
30% of marine areas by 2020
Has a protected area
network established and an
Action Plan for MPA
implementation, part of the
Microsnesia Challenge***
Indonesia
100,000km2 by 2010, 200,000km2 by 2020
28,260 km2 established
(73 MPAs) with 70
additional sites proposed**
Ireland
14% of EEZ waters by 2009
810km2 protected by 66
areas**
Guam
Jamaica
20% of marine areas by 2020
Kiribati
Established the Phoenix Islands MPA in 2008
14 MPAs currently covering
10% of territorial waters
but underrepresented in
bioregions, joined
'Caribbean Challenge',
devoted to protection of all
bioregions**
Established in 2006
covering 410,000km2 of
marine environment.**
100,000 km2 by 2012
Data gathering is
underway for a regional
network, small examples of
regional MPAs are being
proposed and
established**
30% of marine areas by 2020
Has a protected area
network established and an
Action Plan for MPA
implementation, part of the
Microsnesia Challenge***
30% of coastal areas by 2020
Has a protected area
network established and an
Action Plan for MPA
implementation, part of the
Microsnesia Challenge***
20% of marine areas by 2010
30% of EEZ is protected**
Madagascar
Marshal
Islands
Micronesia
New
Zealand
62
North
Nariana
Islands
30% of coastal areas by 2020
Palau
30% of coastal areas by 2020
Has a protected area
network established and an
Action Plan for MPA
implementation, part of the
Microsnesia Challenge***
27 MPAs already
established, as well as a
regional network**
Establish a National Network of MPAs by 2015
Currently have 4 protected
areas covering 1.86% of
waters, recommendations
have been made to include
MPAs and MMAs in regional
marine network**
10% No-take by 2020
A national system and
national database have
been established, currently
there are over 1170
MPAs**
Peru
Phillipines
Senegal
St. Vincent
and the
Grenadines
Tanzania
United
Kingdom
20% marine areas by 2020
Initial steps have been
taken to establish a
Western Africa regional
network**
joined 'Caribbean
Challenge', devoted to
protection**
10% marine areas by 2010, 20% by 2025
A national system has been
proposed to include 6
subregions for MPA
protection**
Establish a National Network of MPAs by 2012
901 km2 (4 areas) already
protected, 55 nominated
for inclusion into the
OSPAR network**
Establish a National Network of MPAs
63
United
States
National Network of MPAs
Over 2000 MPAs that are
spread throughout coasts
(18% of California coast,
6% of Florida coast, 22%
of Gulf of Maine-proposed)
, 355 sites already
nominated into the
National Network, part of
the NAMPAN MPA network,
established the NW
Hawaiian Islands Marine
National Monument
(362,6000km2) **
* www.waittfoundation.org/bahamas (Waitt Foundation pulled 15 August 2012)
** www.unep.org (National and Regional Networks of MPAs – a review of progress,
pulled 15 August 2012)
*** www.glispa.org (The Micronesia Challenge, pulled 30 August 2012)
64
Appendices
Appendix 1: Current U.S. MPAs Listed under the National System of MPAs. (data
taken from www.mpa.gov).
State
Alabama
Alaska
American
Samoa
California
MPAs
Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge
Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve
Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge
Alofau Village Marine Protected Area
Amanave Village Marine Protected Area
Amaua & Auto Village Marine Protected Area
Aoa Village Marine Protected Area
Aua Village Marine Protected Area
Fagamalo Village Marine Protected Area
Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Masausi Village Marine Protected Area
Matu'u & Faganeanea Village Marine Protected Area
National Park of American Samoa
Poloa Village Marine Protected Area
Sa'ilele Village Marine Protected Area
Vatia Village Marine Protected Area
Ano Nuevo ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Ano Nuevo State Marine Conservation Area
Asilomar State Marine Reserve
Big Creek State Marine Conservation Area
Big Creek State Marine Reserve
Bird Rock ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Bodega ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Bodega Head State Marine Conservation Area
Bodega Head State Marine Reserve
Cabrillo National Monument
Cambria State Marine Conservation Area
Carmel Bay ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Carmel Bay State Marine Conservation Area
Carmel Pinnacles State Marine Reserve
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
Channel Islands National Park
Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary
Del Mar Landing ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Del Mar Landing State Marine Reserve
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Double Point ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Double Point/Stormy Stack Special Closure
Drakes Estero State Marine Conservation Area
65
California
Duxbury Reef ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Duxbury State Marine Conservation Area
Edward F. Ricketts State Marine Conservation Area
Egg (Devil's Slide) Rock to Devil's Slide Special Closure
Elkhorn Slough State Marine Conservation Area
Elkhorn Slough State Marine Reserve
Estero Americano State Marine Recreational Management Area
Estero de Limantour State Marine Reserve
Estero de San Antonio State Marine Recreational Management Area
Farallon Islands ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Farallon National Wildlife Refuge
Farnsworth Bank ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Gerstle Cove ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Gerstle Cove State Marine Reserve
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Greyhound Rock State Marine Conservation Area
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
Heisler Park ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Irvine Coast ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
James V. Fitzgerald ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Jughandle Cove ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Julia Pfeiffer Burns ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
King Range ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
La Jolla ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Laguna Point to Latigo Point ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Lovers Point State Marine Reserve
Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Montara State Marine Reserve
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Moro Cojo Slough State Marine Reserve
Morro Bay State Marine Recreational Management Area
Morro Bay State Marine Reserve
Natural Bridges State Marine Reserve
North Farallon Islands & Isle of St. James Special Closure
North Farallon Islands State Marine Reserve
Northwest Santa Catalina Island ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Pacific Grove ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area
Piedras Blancas State Marine Conservation Area
Piedras Blancas State Marine Reserve
Pillar Point State Marine Conservation Area
Point Arena State Marine Conservation Area
Point Arena State Marine Reserve
Point Buchon State Marine Conservation Area
Point Buchon State Marine Reserve
Point Lobos ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Point Lobos State Marine Conservation Area
Point Lobos State Marine Reserve
66
California
Point Resistance Special Closure
Point Reyes Headlands ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Point Reyes Headlands Special Closure
Point Reyes National Seashore
Point Reyes State Marine Conservation Area
Point Reyes State Marine Reserve
Point Sur State Marine Conservation Area
Point Sur State Marine Reserve
Portugese Ledge State Marine Conservation Area
Redwoods National Park ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Robert E. Badham ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Russian River State Marine Conservation Area
Russian River State Marine Recreational Management Area
Salmon Creek Coast ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Salt Point State Marine Conservation Area
San Clemente Island ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge
San Diego-Scripps ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands ASBS State Water Quality
Protection Area
San Nicolas Island and Begg Rock ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Santa Barbara and Anacapa Islands ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Saunders Reef ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Saunders Reef State Marine Conservation Area
Sea Lion Cove State Marine Conservation Area
Soquel Canyon State Marine Conservation Area
Southeast Farallon Island State Marine Conservation Area
Southeast Farallon Island State Marine Reserve
Southeast Farallon Special Closure A
Southeast Farallon Special Closure B
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Southeast Santa Catalina Island ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Stewarts Point State Marine Conservation Area
Stewarts Point State Marine Reserve
Trinidad Head ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
Vandenberg State Marine Reserve
Western Santa Catalina Island ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area
White Rock (Cambria) State Marine Conservation Area
Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge
Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge
Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge
Biscayne National Park
Canaveral National Seashore
Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge
67
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Indiana
Louisiana
Maine
Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge
Dry Tortugas National Park
Everglades National Park
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge
Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve
Island Bay National Wildlife Refuge
J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge
Key West National Wildlife Refuge
Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge
Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
National Key Deer Refuge
Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge
Pine Island National Wildlife Refuge
Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge
Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge
Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge
Cumberland Island National Seashore
Fort Pulaski National Monument
Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary
Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge
Tybee National Wildlife Refuge
Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge
Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
Guam National Wildlife Refuge
Ahihi-Kinau Natural Area Reserve
Hanauma Bay Marine Life Conservation District
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary
Kaho'olawe Island Reserve
Kalaupapa National Historical Park
Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park
Kealakekua Bay Marine Life Conservation District
Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
Molokini Shoal Marine Life Conservation District
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument
Pupukea Marine Life Conservation District
West Hawaii Regional Fishery Management Area
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
Breton National Wildlife Refuge
Delta National Wildlife Refuge
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, Barataria Preserve
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Cross Island National Wildlife Refuge
68
Maryland
Massachusetts
Pond Island National Wildlife Refuge
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge
Assateague Island National Seashore
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge
Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge
Martin National Wildlife Refuge
Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge
U-1105 Black Panther Historic Shipwreck Preserve (Maryland Archaeological
Survey # 18ST6
Albert Gallatin Exempt Site
Alice M. Colburn Exempt Site
Alice M. Lawrence Exempt Site
Ardandhu Exempt Site
Barge and Crane Exempt Site
California Exempt Site
Cape Cod National Seashore
Charles S. Haight Exempt Site
Chelsea Exempt Site
Chester A. Poling Exempt Site
City of Salisbury Exempt Site
Corvan Exempt Site
Dixie Sword Exempt Site
Edward Rich Exempt Site
French Van Gilder Exempt Site
Gerry E. Studds/Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
H.M.C.S. Saint Francis Exempt Site
Henry Endicott Exempt Site
Herbert Exempt Site
Herman Winter Exempt Site
Hilda Garston Exempt Site
James S. Longstreet Exempt Site
John Dwight Exempt Site
Kershaw Exempt Site
Kiowa Exempt Site
Lackawana Exempt Site
Lunet Exempt Site
Lydonia Canyon Gear Restricted Area
Mars Exempt Site
Mashpee National Wildlife Refuge
Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge
Nomans Land Island National Wildlife Refuge
Oceanographer Canyon Gear Restricted Area
Parker River National Wildlife Refuge
Pemberton Exempt Site
Pendleton Exempt Site
Pinthis Exempt Site
Port Hunter Exempt Site
Pottstown Exempt Site
69
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Off-shore
Federal Areas
Oregon
Pacific Islands
Romance Exempt Site
Seaconnet Exempt Site
Trojan Exempt Site
U.S.S. Grouse Exempt Site
U.S.S. New Hampshire Exempt Site
U.S.S. Triana Exempt Site
U.S.S. Yankee Exempt Site
U.S.S. YSD Exempt Site
Veatch Canyon Gear Restricted Area
Vineyard Sound Lightship Exempt Site
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
Huron National Wildlife Refuge
Isle Royale National Park
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve
Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Cape May National Wildlife Refuge
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge
Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve
Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Conscience Point National Wildlife Refuge
Fire Island National Seashore
Gateway National Recreation Area
Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge
Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge
Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Cape Lookout National Seashore
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Currituck National Wildlife Refuge
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
NOAA's Monitor National Marine Sanctuary
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
Lydonia Canyon Gear Restricted Area
Norfolk Canyon Gear Restricted Area
Oceanographer Canyon Gear Restricted Area
Veatch Canyon Gear Restricted Area
Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge
Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge
70
Pacific Islands
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
U.S. Virgin
Islands
Virginia
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge
Johnston Island National Wildlife Refuge
Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge
Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
Arrecifes de la Cordillera Natural Reserve
Canal Luis Peña Natural Reserve
Isla de Desecheo Marine Reserve
Isla de Mona Natural Reserve
Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
Tres Palmas de Rincón Marine Reserve
Block Island National Wildlife Refuge
John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge
Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge
Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge
ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
Ashley River Heritage Canoe Trail
Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
Cooper River Heritage Dive Trail
Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge
Tybee National Wildlife Refuge
Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge
Aransas National Wildlife Refuge
Big Boggy National Wildlife Refuge
Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge
Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge
Buck Island Reef National Monument
Salt River Bay National Historic Park and Ecological Preserve
St. Croix East End Marine Park
St. Thomas East End Reserves
Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument
Virgin Islands National Park
Assateague Island National Seashore
Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Bethel Beach Natural Area Preserve
Blue Crab Sanctuary
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge
Dameron Marsh Natural Area Preserve
Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge
False Cape State Park
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge
Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuge
Hughlett Point Natural Area Preserve
Kiptopeke State Park
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
71
Virginia
Washington
Norfolk Canyon Gear Restricted Area
Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Plum Tree Island National Wildlife Refuge
Savage Neck Dunes Natural Area Preserve
Wallops Island National Wildlife Refuge
Admiralty Head Marine Preserve
Argyle Lagoon San Juan Islands Marine Preserve
Blake Island Underwater Park
Brackett's Landing Shoreline Sanctuary Conservation Area
Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve
Cypress Island Aquatic Reserve
Deception Pass Underwater Park
Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge
Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve
False Bay San Juan Islands Marine Preserve
Fidalgo Bay Aquatic Reserve
Friday Harbor San Juan Islands Marine Preserve
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Haro Strait Special Management Fishery Area
Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge
Maury Island Aquatic Reserve
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
Olympic National Park
Orchard Rocks Conservation Area
Protection Island Aquatic Reserve
Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge
San Juan Channel and Upright Channel Special Management Fishery Area
San Juan County/Cypress Island Marine Biological Preserve
San Juan Island National Historical Park
Shaw Island San Juan Islands Marine Preserve
Smith and Minor Island Aquatic Reserve
South Puget Sound Wildlife Area
Sund Rock Conservation Area
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge
Yellow and Low Islands San Juan Islands Marine Preserve
Zella M. Schultz/Protection Island Seabird Sanctuary
72