Are Marine Protected Areas Effective Fisheries Management ...
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 the risk of creating stagnant or static MPAs with little or no progress towards meeting their goals.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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 co-operatively 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,” (IUCN-WCPA 2008).
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).
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.
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 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 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. 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?
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.
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 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 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 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), non-specific 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 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).
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.
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, 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).
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-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).
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 () 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 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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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-objective-indicator-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).
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 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.
References
ACCOBAMS, 2010. The Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, and Contiguous Atlantic Area.
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. P1-22. 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.
CBD. 2012. The Convention on Biological Diversity. .
Cetacean Habitat. 2012. Cetacean Habitat directory for MPAs, national and international sanctuaries.
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. .
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). .
Executive Order 13158, May 26, 2000. Marine Protected Areas.
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.
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: 437-458.
ICMMPA, 2009. The First Annual Conference on Marine Mammal Protected Areas conference proceedings.
ICRI, 2010. The International Coral Reef Initiative.
IUCN and UNEP. 2010. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). UNEP-WCMC. Cambridge, UK.
IUCN. 2008. IUCN Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Edited by Nigel Dudley. . 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 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. mcbi.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.
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.
NOAA, 2005. MPA Management Capacity Building Training handout. An International Program of the National Marine Sanctuary Program. sanctuaries.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 meta-analysis 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: 167-176.
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.
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): 74-80.
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.
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: 752-760.
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.
US MPA Center, 2010. International MPA Efforts. National Marine Protected Areas Center.
US MPA Center, 2012a. About the National System of Marine Protected Areas. National Marine Protected Areas Center.
US MPA Center, 2012b. MPA Inventory.
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.
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.
whoi.edu
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) 2012.
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.
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).
[pic]
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 ).
[pic]
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).
[pic]
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).
[pic]
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 |Empirical |Theoretical |Potential Benefits |
|Bennett and Attwood 1991 |X | | |
|Bohnsack 1993 |X | |increase in biomass |
|Bohnsack and Ault 1996 | |X |protection of species |
|Christie 2004 |X | | |
|Claudet et al. 2011 |X | | |
|Cole 1994 |X | | |
|DeMartini 1993 | |X |increase in yeild per recruit |
|Dugan and Davis 1993 |X | |increase in biomass, increase in |
| | | |yield per recruit |
|Dunlop et al. 2009 | |X |protection of species |
|Frazier 2003 |X | | |
|Gell and Roberts 2003 |X | |increase in spillovers |
|Gerber et al. 2007 |X | |increase in abundance |
|Guenette et al. 1998 | |X |conservation of habitat, increase in |
| | | |yield per recruit |
|Halpern 2003 |X | |increase in abundance, increase in |
| | | |biomass, increase in age/size |
| | | |composition and spawning stock |
| | | |biomass, increase in biodiversity |
|Hannesson 1998 |X | | |
|Hilborn et al. 2004 | |X |increase in abundance, increase in |
| | | |aggregate catch, provide areas for |
| | | |education and research |
|Hildreth 2008 | |X | |
|Hyrenbach et al. 2000 | |X |protection of critical life stages |
|Mangel 1998 | |X |baseline data, increase in |
| | | |spillovers, protection of stocks |
|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 |X | |increase in abundance |
|McClanahan and Mangi 2000 |X | |increase in spillovers |
|McClanahan et al. 2006 |X | |increase in abundance, increase in |
| | | |biomass |
|NRC 2001 |X |X |conservation of habitat, increase in |
| | | |spillovers |
|Ojeda-Martinez et al. 2007 |X | |increase in abundance |
|Pastoors et al. 2000 |X | | |
|Piet and Rijnsdorp 1998 |X | |increase in biomass |
|Polunin and Roberts 1993 |X | |increase in abundance |
|Roberts 1998 | |X |protection of species, conservation |
| | | |of habitat |
|Roberts 2006 | |X | |
|Roberts and Polunin 1992 |X | |increase in biomass |
|Roberts and Polunin 1993 | |X |increase in age/size composition and |
| | | |spawning stock biomass, increase in |
| | | |spillovers, restoration of natural |
| | | |populations and community structure, |
| | | |increase in biodiversity |
|Roberts et al. 2001 |X | |increase in aggregate catch |
|Russ and Alcala 1996 |X | |increase in spillovers |
|Sale et al. 2005 | |X | |
|Sanchirico 2000 | |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 |
|Schmidt 1997 | |X |increase in age/size composition and |
| | | |spawning stock biomass, increase in |
| | | |spillovers |
|Selig and Bruno 2010 |X | | |
|Sumaila 2000 | |X |protection of species, conservation |
| | | |of habitat |
|West et al. 2009 | |X |increase in spillovers |
|Worm et al. 2006 |X | |increase in aggregate catch, increase|
| | | |in biodiversity |
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 |Reference |Event |
|1903 |Baur et al. 2008 |The National Wildlife Refuge System was established which created National Wildlife |
| | |Refuges. |
|1906 |Baur et al. 2008 |The Antiquities Act was passed. |
|1916 |Baur et al. 2008, |The National Park Service Organic Act was passed which created national parks, monuments,|
| |Davis and Moretti |and seashores. |
| |2005 | |
|1953 |Baur et al. 2008 |The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act was passed. |
|1969 |McLeod and Leslie |National Environmental Policy Act was passed which helped managers coordinate decisions |
| |2009 |between many stakeholders and required parties to produce Environmental Impact Statements|
| | |(EIS). |
|1972 |McLeod and Leslie |Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed which created Marine Mammal Protection Areas. |
| |2009 | |
|1972 |Baur et al. 2008, |The National Marine Sanctuaries Act was passed which allowed for creation of National |
| |Davis and Moretti |Marine Sanctuaries. |
| |2005 | |
|1972 |Baur et al. 2008, |The Coastal Zone Management Act was passed which established National Estuarine Research |
| |Davis and Moretti |Reserves. |
| |2005 | |
|1972 |Baur et al. 2008 |The Clean Water Act was passed. |
|1973 |McLeod and Leslie |Endangered Species Act was passed which created Critical Habitat Areas for species. |
| |2009 | |
|1976 |McLeod and Leslie |Magnusen-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act was passed which called for the |
| |2009 |nation to avoid irreversible effects on the ocean environment. |
|1982 |Baur et al. 2008 |The Coastal Barrier Resources Act was passed. |
|1996 |Baur et al. 2008, |The Magnusen Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act was updated and passed which|
| |Davis and Moretti |restored areas based on gear-type and created closed areas. |
| |2005 | |
|2000 |Baur et al. 2008 |Executive Order 13158 was implemented. |
|2006 | |Draft Version of the National System of MPAs written. |
|2008 | |Draft version of the National System of MPAs put out for public review. |
|2008 | |Final version of the National System of MPAs completed. |
|2012 | |Currently 335 of over 1700 national MPAs listed under the new National System of MPAs. |
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.
| |Reference |Event |
| | | |
|Year | | |
|During WW2 |Gulland 1974 |1st evidence of MPA benefits due to interruption of fishing caused by war |
|1946 |Scovazzi 2004 |The Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was held which included designation of |
| | |sanctuary areas. |
|1958 |Toropova et al 2010 |The Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea were adopted. |
|1962 |Toropova et al 2010 |The First World Conference on National Parks determined a need for protection of coastal |
| | |and marine areas. |
|1971 |Toropova et al 2010 |The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance was created. |
|1972 |Toropova et al 2010 |The World Heritage Convention was developed. |
|1972 |Toropova et al 2010 |The UN developed Regional Seas Programme was developed. |
|1973-1977 |Toropova et al 2010 |The Third United Nations Conference of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provided a legal |
| | |framework for the establishment of MPAs. |
|1975 |Toropova et al 2010 |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. |
|1979 |Scovazzi 2004 |Sanctuaries that prohibited commercial whaling were established in the Indian Ocean. |
|1982 |Sainsbury and Sumaila |United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea |
| |2001 | |
|1982 |Toropova et al 2010 |The IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas held workshops on how to create|
| | |and manage MPAs. |
|1984 |Toropova et al 2010 |IUCN published Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers. |
|1991 |Scovazzi 2004 |Guidelines for the Identification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas were adopted by the|
| | |IMO. |
|1991 |Scovazzi 2004 |The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty was created. It included|
| | |information for designation of Antarctic protected areas. |
|1992 |Sainsbury and Sumaila |United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development was held. |
| |2001 | |
| | | |
|Year |Reference |Event |
|1992 |Sainsbury and Sumaila |Convention on Biological Diversity was held. |
| |2001 | |
|1987-1988 |Toropova et al 2010 |The 17th General Assembly of IUCN adopted a statement to define, "marine protected |
| | |area." as well as objectives to be met in creating MPAs. |
|1994 |Toropova et al 2010 |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. |
|1994 |Baur et al. 2008 |The International Coral Reef Initiative was created. |
|1994 |Scovazzi 2004 |Sanctuaries that prohibited commercial whaling were established in the Southern Ocean. |
|1995 |Kelleher et al. 1995 |The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the World Bank, and the IUCN published A |
| | |Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas |
|1997 |McLeod and Leslie 2009 |Canada passed the Canada Oceans Act, which created a foundation for a National Ocean |
| | |Strategy. |
|1999 |Toropova et al 2010 |IUCN published Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas |
|1999 |McLeod and Leslie 2009 |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. |
|2002 |Toropova et al 2010 |World Summit on Sustainable Development called for the establishment of MPAs consistent |
| | |with international law and based on scientific information by 2012 |
|2002 |McLeod and Leslie 2009 |The European Union passed the Marine Thematic Strategy for the Protection and |
| | |Conservation of the European Marine Environment. |
|2003 |Toropova et al 2010 |The 5th World Parks Congress recognized that effective MPAs could be governed by multiple|
| | |types of entities including state, local, regional, and community. |
|2003 |IUCN-WCPA 2008 |The Evian Agreement called for networks of MPAs to be established internationally by |
| | |2012. |
|2004 |IUCN-WCPA 2008 |The Convention of Biological Diversity agreed to establish global networks of MPAs |
|2006 |Toropova et al 2010 |The Convention of Biological Diversity adopted sub-targets and indicators for a goal of |
| | |10% of all the world's ecological regions to be conserved by 2010. |
|2008 |Toropova et al 2010 |IUCN published a new set of "Guidelines to Protected Area Categories," which included a |
| | |new definition of a protected area |
|2010 |mpanews 2010b |CBD extended the target 2010 deadline to 2020. |
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 |Objectives |References |
|Aching Reef Flat Preserve (Guam) |To protect nursery area for juvenile animals located in mangroves and seagrass |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
| |beds. | |
|Baltic Sea Protected Areas |To protect the environment from human perturbations |Helcom 2008 |
|Banc D'Arguin National Park |To protect seagrass beds and mudflats that act as nursery and rearing grounds |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|(Mauritania) |for numerous species. | |
|Bancho Chinchorro Bioshpere Preserve |To protect the countries largest reef formation. |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|(Mexico) | | |
|Bird Island (CNMI) |To protect coral reefs, dive sites and caves, and sea bird nest colonies. |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|Bunaken National Park (Indonesia) |To protect coral communities, diversity, abundance, essential habitat, sea |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
| |turtle and dugong populations. | |
|Cebu Island (Philippines) |To sustain fisheries, maintain diverse coral habitat and to ensure intact food |Laffoley 2008 |
| |chain. | |
|Channel Islands MPAs (US) |Address biodiversity, socioeconomic well-being, fisheries, natural and cultural |Davis and Lopez 2004 |
| |features, and public education | |
|Far Eastern Federal Marine Preserve |To protect coastal marine islands and over 2700 species. |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|(Russian Federation) | | |
|Florida's Aquatic Preserves System |To protect Florida's coastal resources by using education, resource management, |Davis and Lopez 2004 |
|(US) |research, monitoring, and partnerships. | |
|Galapagos Island Marine Reserve |To support a rich food chain and numerous protected species. |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|(Ecuador) | | |
|Hol Chan Marine Reserve (Belize) |To protect unique channel formations, fish resources, and habitat. |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|Kimbe Bay Marine Protected Area (PNG)|To conserve marine biodiversity and natural resources and to address local |Laffoley 2008 |
| |marine resource management needs. | |
|Lenger Island Marine Protected Area |To protect spawning and aggregation sites, a turtle hatchery, diverse species, |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|(Micronesia) |and a World War II Base. | |
|Loreto Bay National Park (Mexico) |To protect diversity of species. |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|Mafia Island Marine Park (Tanzania) |To protect diverse species, habitat, and species aggregations. |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|Mediterranean Marine Mammals |To conserve marine mammals and habitat from negative impacts. |Scovazzi 2004 |
|Sanctuary | | |
|Michigan's Underwater Preserves |To protect and preserve shipwrecks and stimulate local economy through tourism. |Davis and Lopez 2004 |
|System (US) | | |
|Miramare Marine Protected Area |To promote education and research about reproductive biology of species and |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|(Italy) |water quality. | |
|Ngemelis (Palau) |To protect a diverse habitat. |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|North Carolina's Primary and |To protect nursery areas that support juvenile seafood species. |Davis and Lopez 2004 |
|Secondary Nursery Areas (US) | | |
|Oregon's Natural and Conservation |To protect essential habitats and preserve natural resources in dynamic |Davis and Lopez 2004 |
|Management Units (US) |habitats. | |
|Palau Protected Areas Network |To protect biodiversity, important habitats and vulnerable resources essential |Laffoley 2008 |
|(Micronesia) |to stability. | |
|Piti Bomb Holes Preserve (Guam) |To protect habitat for marine mammals. |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|Saguency-St. Lawrence Marine Preserve|To protect feeding grounds for numerous protected species. |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|(Canada) | | |
|Sasanhaya Fish Reserve (CNMI) |To protect coral features, dive sites, and World War II wrecks. |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)|To protect coral habitats. |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|Tubbataha Reef National Marine |To protect nesting sites and pristine reef habitat. |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|Preserve (Philippines) | | |
|Upper Gulf of California and Colorado|To protect marine and coastal habitats, dunes, and deserts. |Pomeroy et al. 2004 |
|River Delta Biosphere Reserve | | |
|(Mexico) | | |
|Washington's Aquatic Reserves (US) |To conserve and enhance aquatic resources, enhance biodiversity, foster |Davis and Lopez 2004 |
| |stakeholder representation, and increase educational and research opportunities.| |
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 (UNEP-WCMC 2008, Toropova et al. 2010, Bertzky 2011).
|Country |Target |Status as of 2012 |
|Bahamas |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** |
|Belize |20% of bioregions, 30% of coral reefs, 30% of manatee habitat, 60% of turtle |2387 km2 protected (25 MPAs), 8% of which |
| |and aligator nesting sites, and 80% of breeding areas |protects turtle nesting sites, 4% reef |
| | |habitats, and 1% territorial waters** |
|Chile |10% of marine areas by 2010, establish a National Network by 2015 |Currently have 22 MPAs, and 55 proposed, |
| | |recommendations have been made to include |
| | |MPAs and MMAs in regional marine network** |
|Cuba |25% of coral reefs, 25% of wetlands |21.9% of insular waters approved or proposed|
| | |for MPA protection** |
|Dominican Republic |20% of marine and coastal areas by 2020 |joined 'Caribbean Challenge', devoted to |
| | |protection** |
|Fiji |30% of coastal areas by 2020 |20% of the country's inshore fishery is |
| | |protected by management, 15-20% of these |
| | |areas are closed** |
|Germany |38% of marine areas in MPAs |16,216km2 protected by 14 areas, 4 areas |
| | |nominated for inclusion in the OSPAR |
| | |network** |
|Grenada |25% of marine areas by 2020 |joined 'Caribbean Challenge', devoted to |
| | |protection, 12% of waters approved or |
| | |proposed for MPA protection** |
|Guam |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** |
|Jamaica |20% of marine areas by 2020 |14 MPAs currently covering 10% of |
| | |territorial waters but underrepresented in |
| | |bioregions, joined 'Caribbean Challenge', |
| | |devoted to protection of all bioregions** |
|Kiribati |Established the Phoenix Islands MPA in 2008 |Established in 2006 covering 410,000km2 of |
| | |marine environment.** |
|Madagascar |100,000 km2 by 2012 |Data gathering is underway for a regional |
| | |network, small examples of regional MPAs are|
| | |being proposed and established** |
|Marshal Islands |30% of marine areas by 2020 |Has a protected area network established and|
| | |an Action Plan for MPA implementation, part |
| | |of the Microsnesia Challenge*** |
|Micronesia |30% of coastal areas by 2020 |Has a protected area network established and|
| | |an Action Plan for MPA implementation, part |
| | |of the Microsnesia Challenge*** |
|New Zealand |20% of marine areas by 2010 |30% of EEZ is protected** |
|North Nariana Islands|30% of coastal areas by 2020 |Has a protected area network established and|
| | |an Action Plan for MPA implementation, part |
| | |of the Microsnesia Challenge*** |
|Palau |30% of coastal areas by 2020 |27 MPAs already established, as well as a |
| | |regional network** |
|Peru |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** |
|Phillipines |10% No-take by 2020 |A national system and national database have|
| | |been established, currently there are over |
| | |1170 MPAs** |
|Senegal |Establish a National Network of MPAs |Initial steps have been taken to establish a|
| | |Western Africa regional network** |
|St. Vincent and the |20% marine areas by 2020 |joined 'Caribbean Challenge', devoted to |
|Grenadines | |protection** |
|Tanzania |10% marine areas by 2010, 20% by 2025 |A national system has been proposed to |
| | |include 6 subregions for MPA protection** |
|United Kingdom |Establish a National Network of MPAs by 2012 |901 km2 (4 areas) already protected, 55 |
| | |nominated for inclusion into the OSPAR |
| | |network** |
|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) ** |
* bahamas (Waitt Foundation pulled 15 August 2012)
** (National and Regional Networks of MPAs – a review of progress, pulled 15 August 2012)
*** (The Micronesia Challenge, pulled 30 August 2012)
Appendices
Appendix 1: Current U.S. MPAs Listed under the National System of MPAs. (data taken from ).
|State |MPAs |
|Alabama |Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge |
|Alaska |Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Arctic National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve |
| |Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge |
|American Samoa |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 |
|California |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 |
| |Duxbury Reef ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area |
| |Duxbury State Marine Conservation Area |
|California |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 |
| |Point Resistance Special Closure |
| |Point Reyes Headlands ASBS State Water Quality Protection Area |
|California |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 |
| |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 |
|Connecticut |Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge |
|Delaware |Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge |
|Florida |Biscayne National Park |
| |Canaveral National Seashore |
| |Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Dry Tortugas National Park |
|Florida |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 |
|Georgia |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 |Guam National Wildlife Refuge |
|Hawaii |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 |Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore |
|Louisiana |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 |
|Maine |Cross Island National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Pond Island National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge |
|Maryland |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 |
|Massachusetts |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 |
| |Romance Exempt Site |
| |Seaconnet Exempt Site |
|Massachusetts |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 |
|Michigan |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 |
|Mississippi |Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge |
|New Hampshire |Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge |
|New Jersey |Cape May National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve |
| |Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge |
|New York |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 |
|North Carolina |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 |
|Off-shore Federal Areas |Lydonia Canyon Gear Restricted Area |
| |Norfolk Canyon Gear Restricted Area |
| |Oceanographer Canyon Gear Restricted Area |
| |Veatch Canyon Gear Restricted Area |
|Oregon |Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge |
|Pacific Islands |Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge |
|Pacific Islands |Johnston Island National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge |
|Puerto Rico |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 |
|Rhode Island |Block Island National Wildlife Refuge |
| |John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge |
|South Carolina |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 |
|Texas |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 |
|U.S. Virgin Islands |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 |
|Virginia |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 |
| |Norfolk Canyon Gear Restricted Area |
| |Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge |
|Virginia |Plum Tree Island National Wildlife Refuge |
| |Savage Neck Dunes Natural Area Preserve |
| |Wallops Island National Wildlife Refuge |
|Washington |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 |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- effective time management techniques
- effective financial management practices
- effective time management for students
- effective time management pdf
- effective financial management pdf
- effective time management strategies
- 10 effective classroom management techniques
- effective classroom management strategies pdf
- effective time management tips
- effective classroom management strategies
- effective classroom management pdf
- effective classroom management skills