Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-10-02

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries May 2010

Examples of Ecosystem-Based Management 

in National Marine Sanctuaries: Moving 

from Theory to Practice
About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS) administers the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Its mission is 

to identify, designate, protect and manage the ecological, recreational, research, 

educational, historical, and aesthetic resources and qualities of nationally significant 

coastal and marine areas. The existing marine sanctuaries differ widely in their natural 

and historical resources and include nearshore and open ocean areas ranging in size 

from less than one to over 5,000 square miles. Protected habitats include rocky coasts,

kelp forests, coral reefs, sea grass beds, estuarine habitats, hard and soft bottom habitats, 

segments of whale migration routes, and shipwrecks.

Because of considerable differences in settings, resources, and threats, each marine 

sanctuary has a tailored management plan. Conservation, education, research, 

monitoring and enforcement programs vary accordingly. The integration of these 

programs is fundamental to marine protected area management. The Marine 

Sanctuaries Conservation Series reflects and supports this integration by providing a 

forum for publication and discussion of the complex issues currently facing the National 

Marine Sanctuary Program. Topics of published reports vary substantially and may 

include descriptions of educational programs, discussions on resource management 

issues, and results of scientific research and monitoring projects. The series facilitates 

integration of natural sciences, socioeconomic and cultural sciences, education, and 

policy development to accomplish the diverse needs of NOAA’s resource protection 

mandate.
Examples of Ecosystem-based Management in National 

Marine Sanctuaries: Moving from Theory to Practice

Edited by:

James Lindholm1

Robert Pavia2

Authors (listed in alphabetical order)

Leslie Abramson3

; Catherine Benson4; Kimo Carvalho5; Chelsea CombestFriedman6

; Jen Dupont7; Katherine Emery3; Erik Franklin5; Heather Havens7; 

Jennifer Johnson4

; Jeremy Kerr1; Emily Klein8; Ashley Knight1 Jamie Mooney6; 

Alesia Read8

, Sarah Teck3

1

California State University Monterey Bay

2 NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

3

 University of California, Santa Barbara

4

 University of Michigan

5

 University of Hawai’i

6

 University of Washington

7

 University of South Florida

8 University of New Hampshire

Silver Spring, Maryland

May 2010

U.S. Department of Commerce

Gary Locke, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Dr. Jane Lubchenco

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Ocean Service

David M. Kennedy, Acting Assistant Administrator

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

Daniel J. Basta, Director
DISCLAIMER

Report content does not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use.

REPORT AVAILABILITY

Electronic copies of this report may be downloaded from the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Program web site at www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov. Hard copies may be available from 

the following address:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

SSMC4, N/ORM62

1305 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

COVER 

Rockfish sitting at the base of a soft coral in the Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary. Photo IfAME/MBNMS/MARE

SUGGESTED CITATION

Lindholm, J. and R. Pavia (Eds). 2010. Examples of ecosystem-based management in 

national marine sanctuaries: moving from theory to practice. Marine Sanctuaries 

Conservation Series ONMS-10-02. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, 

MD. 33pp. 

CONTACT

James Lindholm jlindholm@csumb.edu

Robert Pavia bob.pavia@gmail.com

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work resulted from a Distributed Graduate Seminar (The Role of Marine Protected 

Areas in Ecosystem-based Management: Examining the Science and Politics of an Ocean 

Conservation Strategy), conducted through the National Center for Ecological Analysis 

and Synthesis (NCEAS), a Center funded by NSF (Grant #EF-0553768), the University 

of California, Santa Barbara, and the State of California. We wish to thank the student 

and faculty participants at each of the eight universities for their contributions to the 

respective case studies. We also thank the staff of the individual sanctuaries for providing 

support to the respective campuses throughout the seminar, and to the staff of NCEAS for 

their support of the synthesis meeting. Figures 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11 provided by the NOAA 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the fall of 2008, graduate students from eight universities—California State University 

Monterey Bay, University of California Santa Barbara, University of Connecticut, 

University of Hawai’i, University of Michigan, University of New Hampshire, University 

of South Florida, University of Washington—participated in a “Distributed Graduate 

Seminar” (DGS) at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) 

at the University of California Santa Barbara. The goal of the semester-long seminar was 

to examine the role of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) in 

implementing ecosystem-based management (EBM) at the sites that make up the 

National Marine Sanctuary system. Each university collaborated with one or more 

Sanctuaries to conduct a case study based on a core set of questions regarding EBM. The 

products of these case studies encompassed a wide-range of topics, including detailed 

summaries of existing management strategies and original quantitative analyses and tools 

for implementing EBM within sanctuary boundaries. The Sanctuary Program’s important 

role as a facilitator of management action was an emergent property of the case studies.

They also found that facilitating management actions and engagement of partners is 

effectively used by sanctuaries and more common than regulatory actions. In April 2009, 

NCEAS hosted a “Synthesis Working Group” that brought together representative 

graduate students and faculty from seven of the eight universities and ONMS staff to 

examine their case studies and share findings and establish commonalities amongst all 

Sanctuaries. The following is a synthesis produced at the April meeting of the Seminar 

case study materials.

KEY WORDS

Ecosystem-based management, marine protected areas, national marine sanctuaries.
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................1

Key Words...........................................................................................................................1

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................2

List of Figures .....................................................................................................................3

List of Tables.......................................................................................................................4

Introduction .........................................................................................................................5

I. Examples of EBM within ONMS ....................................................................................8

A. EBM in Policy Language: Case Study: Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary..................................................................................................................................8

B. Co-management Strategies ................................................................................................11

Case Study: Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary................................................11

Case Study: Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary ............................................12

C. Stakeholder Involvement....................................................................................................14

Case Study: Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whales National Marine Sanctuary ....14

D. Marine Zoning..........................................................................................................................16

Case Study: The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary ..................................17

Case Study: The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary........................................19

II. Emerging Tools for EBM implementation ...................................................................21

Case Study: Papahanumokuakea Marine National Monument..................................21

Case Study: The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS)................24

Case Study: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary..............................................26

Conclusions.......................................................................................................................28

References.........................................................................................................................30

Appendix A .......................................................................................................................35
3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The locations managed by the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries...........6

Figure 2: Map of Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and surrounding 

environs. ..........................................................................................................8

Figure 3: Map of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and surrounding environs.

11

Figure 4: Map of Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary and surrounding environs. 13

Figure 5: Map of Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary and 

surrounding environs.....................................................................................15

Figure 6: Map of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and surrounding 

environs, including the network of State Marine Reserves and Conservation 

Areas..............................................................................................................17

Figure 7: Diagram of the collaborative federal/state process for MPA design in the 

CINMS. .........................................................................................................18

Figure 8: Map of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and surrounding 

environs, including elements of marine zoning.............................................20

Figure 9: Map of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and 

surrounding environs.....................................................................................22

Figure 10: Map of percent change in impact per pixel for Management Option 2.. ......25

Figure 11: Map of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and surrounding 

environs. ........................................................................................................27

Figure 12: Cartogram depicting the relative influence of “relevance factors” in the 

implementation of EBM in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary..28
4

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: The date established, location, and area for each National Marine Sanctuary 

that collaborated with a University participant in the Distributed Graduate 

Seminar............................................................................................................7

Table 2: Key elements of ecosystem-based management as articulated by the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, and 

described by Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea 

(COMPASS)....................................................................................................9

Table 3: Example of an ecosystem-based resource list for the Papahanaumokuakea 

Marine National Monument. .........................................................................23
5

INTRODUCTION

In the last two decades, ecosystem-based management (EBM) emerged as a compelling 

alternative to traditional single-species approaches for effective management of marine 

and coastal resources. Christensen et al. (1996) defined ecosystem management as 

“management driven by explicit goals, executed by policies, protocols, and practices, and 

made adaptable by monitoring and research based on our best understanding of the 

ecological interactions and processes necessary to sustain ecosystem composition, 

structure, and function.” Ecosystem-based management integrates many sectors and 

stakeholders, considers cumulative impacts, explicitly includes humans as integral to the 

system, and preserves important services for humans as goals for management (McLeod 

et al. 2005). The Pew Oceans Commission and the US Commission on Ocean Policy both 

articulated the scientific community’s support for EBM and identified it as a necessary 

element of effective resource management (Pew Oceans Commission 2003, US 

Commission on Ocean Policy 2004).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS) manages more than 150,000 mi2

 (388,498 km2) of marine and 

freshwater systems in 13 National Marine Sanctuaries and 1 Marine National Monument 

(Figure 1). These locations have important “conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, educational, or esthetic qualities” (NMSA 

2000, Sec 301). A legal textual analysis of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) 

completed during the Distributed Graduate Seminar (DGS) reveals neither an explicit 

mandate for, nor a prohibition of, the use of EBM in Sanctuaries (Carden, unpublished). 

However, sections of the legislation are consistent with EBM. For example, the NMSA 

seeks to “maintain natural biological communities ... and [to] protect, and, where 

appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, populations, and ecological processes” 

16 U.S.C.§§1431(b)(3). To achieve this goal, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to 

“develop and test methods to enhance degraded habitats or restore damaged, injured, or 

lost sanctuary resources” Id. at § 1440(b)(1)(B). In addition, the NMSA requires the 

ONMS to enhance conservation and management, encourage sustainable use, improve 

public awareness, and maintain “for future generations the habitat, and ecological 

services, of the... living resources that inhabit [the Sanctuaries]” (NMSA 2000, Section 

301). 

In the fall of 2008, graduate students from seven universities (Table 1) participated in a 

DGS with support from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis 

(NCEAS) at the University of California, Santa Barbara and in collaboration with 

NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. The seminar’s goal was to examine the 

role of U.S. marine protected areas as tools for EBM. Because National Marine 

Sanctuaries are the most significant single MPA management program in the United 

States, they received particular emphasis in the seminars. Seminar participants examined

how our growing scientific understanding of ecosystem processes within MPAs and 

evolving ocean-observing capabilities, can allow us to manage MPAs as integral 

components of the ecosystems in which they reside.
6

Each of the seminar groups considered five questions for examination and chose one or 

more of them to incorporate into a case study. The seminar participants were give 

considerable leeway to develop their own perspective on how to address the questions in 

the context of their case study. The questions were:

1. Does place-based management of MPAs create conflicts with species-based 

approaches that reduce the effectiveness of both?

2. Should MPAs be integrated into larger scale ecosystem management approaches 

or managed as individual entities?

3. Are existing legal and jurisdictional authorities sufficient to integrate MPAs into 

ecosystem based management efforts at local and regional scales?

4. Can National Marine Sanctuaries effectively implement EBM approaches within 

their boundaries and contribute to broader EBM efforts in the regions in which 

they occur?

5. Can insights derived from an evaluation of National Marine Sanctuaries and EBM 

be extrapolated to the broader global discussion of MPAs?

Figure 1: The locations managed by the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

(http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/visit/welcome.html).

The DGS participants compiled eight case studies to examine the role of the Sanctuaries 

in implementing EBM within their boundaries. The case studies present a variety of 

approaches employed by DGS participants to identify existing and potential EBM 

actions. To promote synthesis of these case studies, we focused on aspects that help move 

EBM from theory to practice. 

In April 2009, NCEAS hosted a “Synthesis Working Group” that brought together 

representative graduate students and faculty from seven of the eight universities and 
7

ONMS staff to examine their case studies, share findings and establish commonalities 

amongst all Sanctuaries, and to produce a synthesis of their findings. That synthesis 

resulted in two elements: (I) Current examples of EBM in Sanctuaries and (II) emerging 

tools for EBM. This report describes case study examples where strong EBM language 

was applied to guiding documents, co-management strategies, stakeholder involvement, 

and marine zoning. Second, we describe tools and results that have been used for 

planning, implementing and assessing EBM. Our overarching goal is to describe 

examples that can provide guidance for resource managers to realize EBM in practice. 

Table 1: The date established, location, and area for each National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) 

and Marine National Monument (MNM) that collaborated with a University 

participant in the Distributed Graduate Seminar.

Name Established Location Area University

Channel Islands NMS 1980 California 1,658 mi2

(4,294 km2)

University of California Santa 

Barbara

Florida Keys NMS 1990 Florida 3,707 mi2

(9,600 km2) University of South Florida

Hawaiian Islands 

Humpback Whale NMS 1992 Hawai’i 1,400 mi2(3,600 km2) University of Hawai’i, Manoa

Monterey Bay NMS 1992 California 5,322 mi2

(13,784 km2)1

California State University 

Monterey Bay

Olympic Coast NMS 1994 Washington 3,309 mi2

(8,570 km2) University of Washington

Papahanaumokuakea 

MNM 2006 Hawai’i 138,997 mi2(360,000 km2) University of Hawai’i, Manoa

Stellwagen Bank NMS 1992 Massachusetts 842 mi2

(2,181 km2) University of New Hampshire

Thunder Bay NMS 2000 Michigan 448 mi2

(1,160 km2) University of Michigan

 1 In March 2009 Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary expanded to include the Davidson Seamount Management 

Zone, adding 775 square statute miles.
8

I. Examples of EBM within ONMS 

A. EBM in Policy Language: Case Study: Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary 

The University of New Hampshire examined the policy language within a central guiding 

document of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS; Figure 2), the 

SBNMS Draft Management Plan (DMP), to understand if and how EBM is meant to be 

initiated within the sanctuary. Each sanctuary in the National Marine Sanctuary System 

has a management plan. In general, management plans are used to inform decision 

making and project planning, while articulating goals, objectives, and priorities. 

Management plans are organized into action plans that link to management issues.

The group compared language within the SBNMS DMP to nine elements for ecosystembased management defined by Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea 

(COMPASS) (Table 2; McLeod et al. 2005). The SBNMS DMP includes management 

objectives and action plans that provide strategies for achieving these objectives. The 

approach identified assets, shortcomings, and stakeholders that could provide leverage for 

or act as barriers to effective EBM implementation. The SBNMS DMP outlines actions 

for EBM, yet actual strategies for implementation were missing.

Figure 2: Map of Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and surrounding environs.
9

Table 2: Key elements of ecosystem-based management as articulated by the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, and described by 

Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS). 

COMPASS Elements of EBM

• Make protecting and restoring marine ecosystems and all their services the 

primary focus, even above short-term economic or social goals for single services. 

Only intact, healthy ecosystems can provide the complete range of benefits that 

humans want and need over long periods of time.

• Consider cumulative effects of different activities on the diversity and interactions 

of species.

• Facilitate connectivity among and within marine ecosystems by accounting for the 

import and export of larvae, nutrients, and food.

• Incorporate measures that acknowledge the inherent uncertainties in ecosystembased management and account for dynamic changes in ecosystems, for example 

as a result of natural oscillations in ocean state or shifts in the frequency or 

intensity of storms. In general, levels of precaution should be proportional to the 

amount of information available such that the less that is known about a system, 

the more precautionary management decisions should be.

• Create complementary and coordinated policies at global, international, national, 

regional, and local scales, including between coasts and watersheds. Ecosystem 

processes operate over a range of spatial scales, and thus appropriate scales for 

management will be goal-specific.

• Maintain historical levels of native biodiversity in ecosystems to provide 

resilience to both natural and human-induced changes.

• Require evidence that an action will not cause undue harm to ecosystem 

functioning before allowing that action to proceed.

• Develop multiple indicators to measure the status of ecosystem functioning, 

service provision and effectiveness of management efforts.

• Involve all stakeholders through participatory governance that accounts for both 

local interests and those of the wider public.
10

The SBNMS DMP incorporates several elements of EBM, indicating the potential for 

future implementation of EBM. These include operationalizing ecological integrity, 

defining the sanctuary’s ecology and uses, and identifying and zoning habitats. 

Additionally, the SBNMS DMP outlines the development of an oceanographic 

circulation model to integrate local, regional, and larger-scale patterns. For multiple uses 

and cumulative impacts, action plans within the DMP call for collaborative research 

regarding recreational and commercial fishing, habitat zoning, laying of cables and 

pipelines, alteration of benthic habitat, bycatch and discard, ballast water, pollutants and 

wastes, marine mammal disturbances, vessel strikes, noise levels and gear modifications. 

The sanctuary also aims to protect and manage maritime heritage and develop outreach, 

tourism, and education. Integrated with these action plans, the SBNMS DMP stipulates 

observing, monitoring, and other long-term research, and it recommends monitoring 

include socioeconomic impacts to adequately address social capital. All of these 

components are consistent with the COMPASS elements of EBM. 

In addition to the components above, the SBNMS DMP recognizes the importance of 

involving multiple stakeholders and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of various 

agencies and groups for sanctuary management, both of which are fundamental for 

realizing EBM. The SBNMS DMP also specifies that the sanctuary needs to provide 

advice, information, and coordination of efforts across these agencies and groups. To 

facilitate cooperation and collaboration, an Interagency Cooperation action plan is 

included for information sharing among agencies and with the public. Additional action 

plans include the establishment of an information management system, a portal for public 

access to databases and a website for all pertinent fishing regulations, research and 

agency contact information within the sanctuary.

However, the SBNMS DMP lacks a holistic approach to implementing EBM. Further, 

actions plans and the tactics to achieve them lack clear definitions. Specifically, the plan 

offers many strategies and objectives that move toward EBM, but linking and 

coordinating strategies are absent. Also, existing overlaps among stakeholders’ goals are 

not acknowledged. These overlaps are essential to facilitate stakeholder partnerships that 

could share and leverage resources while working toward common goals. The SBNMS 

DMP does identify possible collaborations, yet fails to outline how relationships will be 

pursued and maintained. Finally, action plans frequently focus on single issues and do not 

account for cumulative effects from multiple, overlapping issues. 

Evaluating existing policies and documents is an important starting point for 

implementing EBM and allows managers and stakeholders to understand the present 

situation and move forward realistically within existing frameworks. It also identifies 

areas within the framework that need alteration. In this case, the SBNMS Draft 

Management Plan is not a final version of the Plan and can still be modified. Thus, 

ONMS staff can use this analysis to alter the draft for better implementation of EBM in 

the future. To apply a similar approach to another region, managers can employ a simple 

and systematic framework, such as the one provided here to ask what strategies are being 

employed, what is missing, and what stakeholder groups are involved. These questions 

should be based on clear EBM elements, such as those outlined by COMPASS (Table 2). 
11

Additionally, management plan goals or actions can be evaluated based on EBM goals, 

such as the seven EBM action items provided in COMPASS (McLeod et al. 2005). This 

process clarifies objectives and strategies and provides a starting point for implementing 

EBM. 

B. Co-management Strategies

Ecosystem-based management inherently engages numerous governing entities and many 

different stakeholder groups. As such, successful co-management is a significant element 

of EBM in practice. The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (TBNMS) and 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) case studies explored the status of 

co-management strategies and cross-jurisdictional management goals within these two 

Sanctuaries. 

Case Study: Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

The Great Lakes region offers a unique example of historical and current governance that 

encourages co-management within and outside sanctuary boundaries. This governance 

structure involves two nations, eight states, one province, several tribal territories, and a 

number of international, intergovernmental and interagency institutions. 

Figure 3: Map of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and surrounding environs.
12

A series of formal agreements in the Great Lakes region laid the foundation for more than 

one hundred years of inclusive, cooperative management that continues today. The 

Boundary Waters Treaty (‘Treaty’), signed in 1909, between the US and Canada 

conceptualized and institutionalized an early form of EBM by connecting industrial, 

agricultural, and municipal activities in tributaries to water quality and quantity in the 

Great Lakes. The Treaty also established the International Joint Commission (IJC) to 

resolve disputes between the two countries.

The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (TBNMS; Figure 3) in Lake Michigan is 

managed in the context of this larger cooperative governance structure. The sanctuary 

explicitly adopted a “joint-management” strategy of equal partnership, named the Joint 

Management Committee, where all key decisions are made collaboratively. This 

committee is determined by the State of Michigan and National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and consists of a representative appointed by the 

director of the Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries and the director of the 

ONMS. This committee is in addition to the Sanctuary Advisory Council, that provides 

advice to the TBNMS superintendent and which includes municipal, state, national, 

international, and tribal representatives. 

In addition to the history of co-management, the sanctuary facilitates, and education 

focusing on maritime heritage, including the 116 historic shipwrecks within its 

boundaries. Kayakers, snorkelers, divers, and researchers visit these shipwrecks. Natural 

and anthropogenic impacts, such as ice, waves, invasive mussels, anchoring, diving 

practices and looting, threaten these maritime heritage resources (TBNMS Draft 

Management Plan). “Interpretive enforcement” is a strategy for the sanctuary that seeks 

to enhance compliance to regulations through education. As part of this strategy, law 

enforcement officers interact with users on shore before sanctuary resources are 

adversely affected. The sanctuary thus relies on local law enforcement agencies’ 

assistance. This focus on preserving marine heritage resources combined with the need 

for co-management strategies exemplifies the broad definition of EBM. 

The history of collaborative management in TBNMS and the larger Great Lakes region 

serves as an excellent model for federal-state cooperation. Additionally, the managing 

framework in this region highlights the importance of communicating among government 

entities, management agencies, and other stakeholders about the diverse goals for 

ecosystems and marine resource preservation. The success of this system has stimulated 

the consideration of additional sanctuary sites within the Great Lakes ecosystem. Further 

the governance structure enforces the idea that groups and agencies must engage 

stakeholders and management institutions outside of their boundaries to effectively 

implement EBM within their boundaries. 

Case Study: Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 

The coastal border of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS; Figure 4) 

includes the lands of four tribes: the Makah, Quileute, Hoh and Quinault (hereinafter 

referred to as the “Tribes”). The Tribes have specific agreements with the US government 
13

that date back to 1855 (Makah Tribal Council 2008). These treaties reserve the Tribes’ 

rights to marine resources and are based on the Usual and Accustomed Areas (U&As) as 

delineated in the Boldt decision process (1974). The rights were reaffirmed by the Boldt 

(United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312; W.D. Wash. 1974) and Rafeedie 

decisions (Ruling by Federal Western Washington District Court Judge Edward Rafeedie 

1994). These treaties existed prior to the sanctuary’s designation. Tribal authorities 

manage tribal fishing within their U&As in cooperation with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WSDFW); however, they are still subject to federal policies (e.g., Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, Endangered Species Act). Within the OCNMS, the Tribes are exempt 

from most prohibitions regarding resource uses.

Figure 4: Map of Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary and surrounding environs.

The sanctuary is currently completing an update to its management plan. The first plan, 

created in 1994, provides an example of the challenges and opportunities involved in 

sanctuary management in consultation with Native American tribes with treaty rights to 

resources within the sanctuary. The case study explores evidence of cooperation and 

conflict concerning marine resource co-management within OCNMS boundaries, 

including various groups’ influence and authority. 

Given the Tribes’ rights and understanding of the local environment, their involvement as 

managers with the NMFS and WSDFW is essential to successful EBM implementation. 

Furthermore, the OCNMS faces the challenge of respecting tribal rights while 
14

simultaneously addressing other stakeholder interests. To this end, the Tribes, the State of 

Washington, and the ONMS established the Olympic Coast Intergovernmental Policy 

Council (IPC) to promote communication and exchange information and policy 

recommendations for the management of the sanctuary (IPC 2007). While the IPC 

recognize that the cooperative management approach has proven to be effective, they 

suggest that ever-changing resource and management needs required continued evolution 

of management schemes. Commentary arising from the sanctuary’s management plan 

review echoes this need for management refinement and calls for approaches that 

incorporate the Tribes’ ecological knowledge and honoring the sanctuary’s treaty trust 

responsibility.

Although the OCNMS case study provides an example of an emerging co-management 

strategy, it also identifies some shortcomings in the process. Discrepancies exist between 

tribal interpretation of the site designation documents and those realized in 

implementation. Not all stakeholder needs are being addressed, thus co-management is 

not adequately implemented, which limits the OCNMS’s ability to fully employ EBM 

principles. 

There is enormous potential for facilitating the initiation of EBM within and beyond 

sanctuary borders, not only through the use of ecosystem-based objectives within 

management plans but also by building frameworks for communication and cooperative 

action among agencies and stakeholder groups. The TBNMS and OCNMS case studies 

identified co-management examples that illustrate the importance of looking outside 

specific management boundaries to implement EBM. Although the language in the 

Sanctuaries’ policies strongly supports EBM, partners with additional authority are 

needed for successful implementation. In summary, the sanctuaries are not prerequisites 

for implementing EBM, but they facilitate comprehensive and coordinated conservation 

and management, especially in areas characterized by multiple use and complex 

governance structures. 

C. Stakeholder Involvement

Sanctuaries are mandated to utilize participatory governance through a stakeholder body 

called the Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC). Considering and integrating multiple 

interests of stakeholders within the community is critical for EBM. Additionally, public 

outreach and education are critical components for regional awareness and support. 

Involving the wider community in steps of the management process fosters bottom-up 

support and regulatory compliance.

Case Study: Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whales National Marine Sanctuary 

Although co-management addresses the jurisdictional entities that should be involved in 

EBM, additional stakeholder groups exist. It is important to engage groups that are not 

directly involved in management to understand and include their concerns. The Hawaiian 

Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS; Figure 5) case study 

provides an example of education and outreach to effectively engage the public and 
15

scientific communities using a charismatic species: the humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae). Despite the fact that EBM emphasizes moving from a single-species to an 

ecosystem focus, a large marine mammal species can engage additional stakeholder 

groups and raise public awareness to protect the valuable ecosystem upon which this 

species relies. Since humpback whales have such a large geographic range and farreaching ecological significance, this single-species focus maintains important aspects of 

EBM, as the protection of this single species’ habitat and resources will also protect a 

broad ecosystem. 

This case study describes two approaches underway at the sanctuary. The first approach 

focuses solely on educational activities within the Hawaiian Islands. The second 

approach includes an examination of whale populations within the sanctuary, as well as a 

larger region within the Pacific.

Figure 5: Map of Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary and 

surrounding environs.

In public and stakeholder education, the sanctuary offers a variety of educational 

opportunities, from in-school visits, reaching 15,000 students, and field experiences 

introducing students to marine-related careers, to educator workshops on incorporating 

ocean literacy into the classroom. The sanctuary also provides monthly lectures on 
16

various aspects of the sanctuary, informational signs at popular whale-viewing sites and 

educational materials on protecting Hawai’i’s marine resources through informational 

newspaper inserts. In addition the HIHWNMS has trained over 2,000 volunteers in 

humpback whale research and monitoring. These are a few of the many examples of how 

the sanctuary endeavors to educate all of Hawai’i’s residents and visitors on both the 

biology and ecology of humpback whales, as well as the importance of the overall 

ecosystem present within the sanctuary. 

In addition to local outreach, HIHWNMS is involved in a project called The Structure of 

Populations, Levels of Abundance, and Status of Humpback whales (SPLASH). The 

SPLASH collaboration involves over 400 researchers from 50 different research groups 

in 10 different countries. It was established to determine the population structure of 

humpback whales throughout the North Pacific Ocean. The study uses both photo IDs 

and tissue samples (used to conduct genetic analysis of individual whales) to investigate 

population sizes, movement patterns, and connectivity between feeding and calving 

grounds. Initial analyses have already provided insights into population size and 

migration between specific feeding and calving grounds (Calambokidis et al. 2007). This 

information is important for managing humpback whale populations and for evaluating 

changes within the various ecosystems where the whales are found. 

Although both projects focus on whales, they have implications for EBM. As charismatic 

megafauna, whales engage the public and additional stakeholders and are the focus of 

large-scale management and research. As such, they are a useful avenue to begin raising 

awareness and research focus on ecosystem-level issues and resources. Further, they 

engage additional stakeholder groups in the process of implementing EBM by 

demonstrating the effects of ecosystem change on a particular species and the need to 

mitigate detrimental effects. In summary, single-species concentration does not 

necessarily need to be abandoned when it provides a valuable avenue for connecting with 

stakeholders and the greater scientific community, and for initiating long-term research 

and monitoring of ecosystems on a large-scale. Instead of forsaking single-species 

management prospects altogether, EBM can be implemented in this realm, especially if 

there is a broad ecosystem focus and a diverse stakeholder involvement. 

D. Marine Zoning

In an EBM context, marine zoning divides the marine environment and designates “areas 

for particular allowable uses in both space and time, including networks of fully protected 

marine reserves and other types of marine protected areas” (McLeod et al. 2005). The 

COMPASS Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine EBM highlights marine zoning as 

one of the important actions consistent with EBM. Zoning has particular promise for 

successful EBM implementation as it directly addresses multiple uses, stakeholders, and 

strives to minimize conflict. The two case studies that follow, the Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

(FKNMS) address aspects of zoning in the sanctuaries. In the CINMS, an extensive 

review process resulted in clear zoning to help implement EBM. The FKNMS is 

currently reviewing re-zoning to further incorporate EBM into their management plan. 
17

Case Study: The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

The marine reserve network within the CINMS (Figure 6) protects biodiversity and 

habitats by encompassing diverse oceanographic and habitat regimes across three main 

bioregions: The Oregonian Province, the Californian Province, and the Transition Zone 

(Airamé et al. 2003). The western Oregonian Province, including San Miguel Island and 

northern Santa Rosa Island, contains colder, nutrient rich, upwelling waters. 

Consequently, this area has high productivity and hosts assemblages typical of central 

California, Oregon, and Washington. The eastern Californian Province, including 

Anacapa Island and the eastern tip of Santa Cruz Island, contains temperate waters and 

hosts a species assemblage characteristic of southern California. In the Transition Zone, 

including Santa Barbara Island and southern Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands, the 

water mixes from surrounding regions and supports an assortment of southern and 

northern species (Airamé et al. 2003). 

Figure 6: Map of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and surrounding environs, 

including the network of State Marine Reserves and Conservation Areas.

In 1998, a diverse group of stakeholders began discussing the development of marine 

reserves within the sanctuary. Goals included protecting ecosystem biodiversity, 

achieving sustainable fisheries, maintaining short and long-term economic viability, 

preserving natural and cultural heritage, and promoting education and stewardship of the 

marine environment (CINMS 2002, Airamé et al. 2003). In addition to implementing 

marine zoning, these goals represent an ambitious process to reconcile conflicting and 

cross-jurisdictional management goals. 

CINMS created scientific and socio-economic panels and conducted a series of 

community meetings to provide input during the design process (Leeworthy and Wiley 

2002). This joint federal and state process was organized to be comprehensive in 

involving the community during the three phases of planning: (1) information gathering, 
18

data synthesis and criteria development, (2) applying criteria and developing reserve 

proposal, and (3) decision making (see Figure 7). The scientific panel, after careful 

consideration of habitats, species life histories and model inputs, determined the 

recommended size and spacing guidelines that would be needed to optimize larval export 

and adult spillover. Scientists recommended implementing one to four reserves in each 

bioregion with an overall goal of 30-50% of all habitats being represented (Airamé et al. 

2003). The optimal reserve design was contentious, with some stakeholders’ perception 

being that conservation values took precedence over minimizing socioeconomic impacts 

(Davis 2002). 

Given the diversity of human uses within the CINMS, it is not surprising that reaching a 

consensus for the network of marine reserves was a challenge. Although the stakeholders 

did not reach consensus, 94% of the 9,161 comments received from the public were in 

support of the marine reserves. A stakeholder-based community group called the Marine 

Reserves Working Group (MRWG) addressed all legitimate concerns that arose from the 

public comments. In 2001, the MRWG concluded their meetings and presented the 

Sanctuary Advisory Council with a composite map of two proposals for the network of 

marine reserves, including areas of consensus and non-agreement. 

Figure 7: Diagram of the collaborative federal/state process for MPA design in the CINMS 

(http://channelislands.noaa.gov/marineres/cp.html).
19

In 2001, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) worked together with the CINMS to 

make a formal recommendation based on results from the community process, current 

legislation, regulations and jurisdictions to the California Fish and Game Commission 

(CFGC). The DFG and CINMS provided the CFGC with all records of the community 

process, including scientific recommendations, socioeconomic analyses, MRWG maps, 

and all public comments. In 2002 the CFGC established a network of Marine Protected 

Areas (MPAs) within the nearshore waters of the CINMS with eleven marine regions that 

completely prohibit harvest (one reserve has been in place on Anacapa Island since 1978) 

and two marine conservation areas that allow some commercial and recreational fishing 

of lobsters and pelagic fish. In 2006 and 2007, NOAA expanded the MPAs into federal 

waters. 

As reviewed in Airamé et al. (2003), the Channel Islands network of marine reserves 

design maximizes ecological benefits while minimizing economic impacts to local 

fisheries. Complementary to EBM goals, the CINMS reserves produce large-bodied 

individuals of several important species which contribute disproportionately to 

reproductive output. In a recent evaluation (First Five Years of Monitoring the Channel 

Islands Marine Protected Area Network, February 2008), studies revealed that targeted 

species of fish (e.g., lingcod, sheephead, kelp bass, rockfishes) were significantly more 

abundant and had significantly higher biomass inside reserves, while non-targeted species 

did not show significant differences (CDFG 2008). Ongoing surveys investigating habitat 

and species assemblages inside and outside of reserves will provide additional 

information about the efficacy of marine reserves, as well as provide insurance against 

management uncertainties. Zoning was achieved via a cross-jurisdictional process that 

involved the input of many stakeholders in the planning process. This case study 

highlights the successful implementation of marine zoning as a part of EBM. However, a 

more comprehensive approach to ocean zoning, in the form of altering the governance 

structure, would likely be a more challenging process as it would involve at least 20 

federal agencies and 140 marine statutes (Crowder et al. 2006). 

Case Study: The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS; Figure 8) utilizes marine zoning 

to protect local coral species which serve as important ecosystem engineers that have 

been sensitive to climate change and disease in recent years. Declining populations of 

two primary reef-building corals, Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis, created 

the need for an ecosystem-based approach to resource protection and the development of 

tools to visualize the complex socioeconomic, ecological, and jurisdictional parameters. 

This case study describes how marine zoning within FKNMS achieved these goals. 
20

Figure 8: Map of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and surrounding environs, 

including elements of marine zoning.

Widespread declines in Acroporids have been documented over the last three decades in 

the Florida Keys (Porter and Meier 1992, Jaap et al. 1998, Miller et al. 2002) and the 

greater Caribbean (Aronson and Precht 2001). The decline of Acroporids severely altered 

the FKNMS reefs’ condition and resulted in a loss of reef structure and ecological 

functions (Jackson 1994, Miller et al. 2002). In May 2006, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) listed A. palmata and A. cervicornis as threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). This listing brought about a renewed sense of urgency to identify and 

protect remnant populations. It also provided an impetus for coordinating efforts among 

the numerous jurisdictions in the FKNMS, using marine zoning, and expansion of 

existing protected areas (e.g., Sanctuary Protection Areas and Ecological Reserves). 

Previously, the FKNMS implemented marine zoning under a supplemental statutory 

authority. The case study here addressed the need to expand these areas. An important 

step in coordinating Acroporid habitat protection and restoration efforts is visualization 

of existing populations, ecological parameters, and jurisdictional boundaries. This case 

study engaged managers and research coordinators to develop a product that could meet 

their current habitat visualization needs and be useful in future re-zoning efforts within 

the FKNMS. This spatial visualization product, known as a GeoPDF is a combination of 

GIS and mapping data compatible with Adobe Systems PDF. A GeoPDF is intuitive to 

use, easily interpreted, and adaptive. 

The lessons learned from the process of creating and implementing marine zoning can be 

used to effectively implement EBM throughout the system of sanctuaries. The CINMS 

case study provides an example of successful implementation of zoning that involves 

multiple groups and input. To support such goals, the FKNMS case study developed a 

useful tool for development of appropriate marine zones to effectively move toward 

EBM. 
21

II. Emerging Tools for EBM implementation 

The previous case studies focused on current examples of EBM. The following studies 

provide specific tools and methods for the planning, evaluation and implementation of 

EBM. These tools support EBM by allowing for inclusion of numerous stakeholders, 

addressing multiple uses, and providing guidance on how to protect habitat and 

biodiversity while minimizing conflict. The PMNM tool lends itself to determining 

possible zonation or other EBM strategies through stakeholder resource prioritization and 

the assessment of possible threats. The CINMS example provides a cumulative impacts 

tool for aiding in the zoning process. The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

(MBNMS) tool provides managers with an evaluation methods for EBM implementation 

and effective resource allocation. 

Case Study: Papahanumokuakea Marine National Monument 

The Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (PMNM; Figure 9) case study 

proposed a new planning and management approach to better integrate stakeholder input 

for the identification and conservation of focal resources. The approach addresses crosssector purposes and stakeholders by explicitly involving many users in identifying critical 

ecosystem benefits (both resources and services) and cumulative impacts. This process 

used stakeholder involvement to prioritize resources, determine resource vulnerability, 

and integrate these aspects into a spatial conservation planning tool. The three primary 

steps involved are: 

1) Resource identification and prioritization via a participatory stakeholder process; 

2) Resource vulnerability determinations through an expert interview method; 

3) Integration of vulnerability determination and prioritization of resources through a 

site-based algorithm for marine spatial planning. 

The first step was a value-driven process whereby stakeholders used a modified Delphi 

technique (Crance 1987). This process helped identify important resources and attributes 

of the PMNM (Table 3) and prioritized the resources for management actions using 

stakeholder perspectives. The second step determined environmental vulnerability and 

used expert opinion surveys to minimize bias. Vulnerability arose as a key concept for 

prioritizing management strategies, particularly in conservation planning (Wilson et al. 

2005, Wilson et al. 2006). Once established, vulnerabilities were overlaid with threats 

previously identified in the Monument. Doing so allowed vulnerable areas to be viewed 

in tandem with potential threats. 
22

Figure 9: Map of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and surrounding 

environs.

This approach informs managers on the resources most threatened and those most 

valuable to stakeholders. Data on specific resources could then be integrated via 

geospatial information tools for ecosystem-based analysis and decision-making by 

managing agencies. 

This approach is important for moving from evaluating regulations and documents to 

implementing ecosystem-level planning for EBM including stakeholder involvement, 

cumulative impacts and long-term research. Initially, this tool’s application requires the 

identification and involvement of a diverse array of stakeholders to carry out the 

preliminary interview process. From there, managers can better visualize cumulative 

impacts, potentially vulnerable areas, and possible threats across sectors and use 

stakeholder advice. Such an approach could be seen as a second step following the 

review of a management plan, to allow this process to take place in the context of current 

management. 
23

Table 3: Example of an ecosystem-based resource list for the Papahanaumokuakea Marine 

National Monument. 

Resource Code Description

E1 Pelagic

E2 Deep Reef

E3 Outer Reef

E4 Inner Reef

E5 Pavement

E6 Sand / Mud

E7 Algal Beds

E8 Sandy Beach

E9 Rocky Intertidal

E10 Interior Terrestrial

E11 Unclassified Habitat (Other)

H1 Seamounts

H2 Lagoons

H3 Tidal Passages

H4 Spawning Sites

Ecozones & Habitats

H5 Areas of High Biodiversity (Spp. Richness, 

Diversity)

B1 Threatened, Endangered and Protected Species

B2 Endemic Species

B3 Biogenic Reefs

B4 Seabirds, Shorebirds

B5 Marine Mammals

B6 Migratory Species

B7 Benthic Shallow Water Invertebrates

B8 Crustaceans

B9 Reef Fish

B10 Bottom Fish

B11 Pelagic Marine Life

B12 Reptiles

Biological Resources

B13 Long-lived, Low Reproductive Species

SCR1 Native Hawaiian Ancestral Sites

SCR2 Native Hawaiian Ceremonial Foundations

Socio-Cultural 

Resources

SCR3 Maritime Heritage

P1 Seasonal Spawning/Reproduction Events

P2 Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Geostrophic Fronts

Processes

P3 Ecological-Evolutionary Connectivity
24

Case Study: The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) 

While the PMNM case study provided a method for implementing EBM via stakeholder 

involvement, additional guiding tools are necessary to design or alter new and existing 

management strategies. To this end, the CINMS case study presented a tool for 

understanding cumulative and multiple impacts across a system from various stressors. 

Such a tool can assist stakeholders and managers in decision-making, consensus building, 

and prioritization. Doing so will aid in the development of spatial management or the 

alteration of existing regulations to address cumulative impacts. 

Using the Halpern et al. (2008) “ecosystem-specific multi-scale spatial model” or 

Cumulative Impacts Tool (CIT), the CINMS case study examined ways in which 

sanctuary managers might understand the cumulative impacts of multiple stressors on 

various habitats within their boundaries and prioritize mitigation actions accordingly. The 

tool incorporates spatial information on marine habitats and the intensity of stressors 

associated with human activities (in this case a total of 25 stressors), and calculates the 

impact of those stressors on marine ecosystems based on the unique vulnerability of each 

ecosystem to each stressor. Ecosystem vulnerability is estimated via expert judgment, 

based on a structured survey that asks experts to quantify ecosystem vulnerability along 

five different criteria (scale and intensity of stressors, and the number of species affected, 

the degree to which they are affected, and their recovery time after removal of the 

stressor). Using the tool, the case study identified the top three threats to CINMS (ocean 

acidification, Ultra Violet radiation, and atmospheric deposition) as issues that must be 

addressed on an international level. Commercial shipping was identified as the fourth 

largest ecosystem stressor in this area, and related impacts such as air quality, water 

quality, noise pollution, and invasive species all ranked in the top ten. An additional 

effect associated with shipping was the threat of large cetacean mortality by a ship strike. 

As shipping increases to meet global trade demands, shipping-related pollution is 

predicted to rise, especially in congested areas around the nation’s major ports. 

Approximately 70% of all international shipping occurs within 240 nautical miles (nm) of 

land (IMO 2000), and there is growing awareness of negative impacts on both near-shore 

marine ecosystems and human health. 

The UCSB group analyzed two possible management schemes to examine how they 

might alter the effect of commercial shipping on shipping-related pollution and 

associated impacts. 
25

Figure 10: Map of percent change in impact per pixel for Management Option 2. Change in 

impact is measured as a percentage change from the original impact to impacts 

recalculated with a reduction in vessel speed and low sulfur fuel use. Blue = 0-2%, 

yellow = 2-4%, orange = 4-6%, red = 6-8%.

Management Option 1 removes all shipping outside of the channel through a relocation 

of the traffic separation scheme (TSS). Management Option 2 examines a vessel speed 

reduction (VSR) to 10 knots in conjunction with a switch to low sulfur fuel inside the 

Santa Barbara Channel. At lower speeds, ocean-going vessels burn fuel more efficiently 

which reduces emissions. Low sulfur fuel contains only a fraction of the sulfur content of 

residual oil and has been shown to reduce SOx emissions (CARB 2008). 

After examination of results, Option 1 was considered a stressor “displacement” rather 

than a cumulative impacts reduction. Vessels operating at high speeds outside the channel 

still emit air pollutants at high levels, and studies indicate that pollutants produced 

offshore continue to impact air quality on land due to prevailing onshore winds (CARB 

2008). Also, vessels operating at high speeds outside the channel still provide a threat to 

marine mammals through increased chance of ship strikes (Vanderlaan and Taggart 

2007). Option 2 results in an average 5% overall decrease in shipping and shippingrelated stressors across the sanctuary. Interestingly, the findings indicate that the greatest 

impacts from commercial shipping occur in the sensitive habitat surrounding the islands 

and not in the TSS. A VSR would also reduce risk of ship strikes. These results allow 

CINMS managers to view shipping impacts on the sanctuary’s entire spatial area. 

Managers can then make better-informed choices that address more than one effect, 

species, or location. 

This case study exemplifies how the CIT can be used to realize EBM in practice. The 

ecosystem-based nature of the tool promotes EBM through a greater understanding of the 

larger impacts due to multiple stressors in a given area. In more complicated scenarios, 

the CIT allows managers to prioritize actions across multiple stressors and multiple 

scales. In addition to the case studies presented in this section, the CINMS case study 
26

provides a tool that can help implement EBM initiatives and examine how changes in 

management may affect the system.

Case Study: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

In the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS; Figure 11) Draft 

Management Plan, Action Plans are sets of strategies and goals to address the most 

pressing issues facing the sanctuary, as determined through a public comment process. 

The Action Plans list hundreds of partners including federal, state, regional, and local 

agencies, academic and educational institutes, and non-specific groups. This case study 

used four pieces of information to assess the relevance, or magnitude, of EBM within 

sanctuary boundaries: (1) number of regulations, (2) number of action plans, (3) number 

of governing agencies, and (4) amount of management effort per governing agency. The 

case study defined nine zones within the sanctuary based on jurisdictional and geographic 

boundaries (Figure 12, inset). Jurisdictional boundaries were coastal, state, and federal, 

and the geographical boundaries were north, central, and south. Relevance is defined as 

the individual and interactive influence of specific EBM characteristics within the 

sanctuary. The spatial extent of EBM characteristics and geographical zones were used to 

create cartograms to visually represent the relevance of EBM within the sanctuary 

boundaries; the estimate of the extent of EBM is substituted for the spatial area per

designated zone. 

In the coastal and state zones, many local agencies manage small areas while the larger 

federal zones are managed by a few wide reaching federal agencies. Further, the 

proximity of human populations to coastal and state zones increases the need for 

interagency cooperation within those zones. Essentially, coastal, state, and federal zones 

require co-management and cross-jurisdictional cooperation, but interagency cooperation 

is greater in coastal and state zones.
27

Figure 11: Map of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and surrounding environs. 

Based on the analysis of all four measures, the sanctuary had a higher relevance in the 

central coast and state zones. These results make intuitive sense as human-induced 

impacts occur more frequently close to populated areas (e.g., the central coast and state 

zones). It is clear that Action Plans and agencies play an important role in determining 

the relevance of EBM within sanctuary boundaries. Additionally, ecological impacts 

radiate from population centers and seem to result in a higher EBM relevance in these 

locations. Clearly, the sanctuary must facilitate and promote interactions between the 

federal, state, regional, and local agencies, academic and educational institutions and 

stakeholder groups to successfully implement EBM within its boundaries. 
28

Figure 12: Cartogram depicting the relative influence of “relevance factors” in the 

implementation of EBM in the MBNMS. Inset depicts zones prior to inclusion in the 

cartogram.

This case study compares sanctuary’s actions with stated priorities set forth by their 

guiding documents and produces a visual tool describing where the sanctuary is in fact 

focusing its resources. Further, the method can be modified to include additional 

management aspects or to look at specific activities and issues. 

CONCLUSIONS

Reports from two Commissions, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew 

Oceans Commission, provide us with a blueprint for ocean stewardship that has 

ecosystem-based management as its foundation (Watkins and Panetta 2006). The 

Commissions’ reports recommend specific actions necessary to drive advances in the 

ocean including employing marine protected areas (MPAs) as an ecosystem-based 

management tool. Ecosystem-based approaches to management are incremental and 

adaptive by nature. The critical question becomes whether we can overcome institutional 

and technical barriers to integrate MPAs into broader ecosystem-based management 

goals as an effective conservation tool (Cicin-Sain and Belfiore 2005).

Questions of scale and complexity further complicate our ability to understand the role of 

MPAs in the larger ecosystem context (Perry and Ommer 2003, Schneider 2001, Levin 

2002). As such, the utility of MPAs as effective ecosystem-based management tools is 

still highly debated. Crowder (2006) points out that MPAs alone do not resolve the 

problem of fragmented management responsibilities among multiple government 

jurisdictions or the mismatch between scales of government and functional ecosystem 

scales. Field (2006) identifies the challenges of reconciling traditional methods used to 
29

assess fisheries stocks for species-specific management practices with the effects of 

MPAs on those species. A similar tension between place- and species-based management 

approaches is evident in MPAs designated by the International Whaling Commission 

(Gerber 2005). Craig (2006) questions whether National Marine Sanctuaries, the central 

framework for managing MPAs in U.S. waters, are adequate for the job. The plan for the 

DGS was the simultaneous exploration of these issues at sanctuaries ranging from 

Hawai’i to the Gulf of Maine. 

The university participants in the DGS were chosen to bring a range of geographic, 

technical, and cultural perspectives to the seminar. The coupling of university partners 

with adjacent Sanctuaries proved to be illuminating for all parties involved. While the 

case studies yielded, and indeed continue to yield as they develop further, interesting 

insights into the specific EBM issues at the respective sanctuaries, the Sanctuary 

Program’s important role as a facilitator of management action was an emergent property 

of the case studies. While direct regulatory involvement of sanctuaries in EBM was 

limited, it is clear that by facilitating engagement among regulatory partners—federal, 

state, and local—the footprint of the ONMS in the implementation of EBM is 

considerable and is deserving of future attention. We hope that this DGS serves as a point 

of departure for the continuing exploration of the role that Sanctuaries can play in the 

implementation of EBM throughout US waters.
30

REFERENCES 

Airamé, S., J.E. Dugan, K.D. Lafferty, H. Leslie, D.A. McArdle, R.R. Warner. 2003. 

Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: a case study from the California 

Channel Islands. Ecological Applications 13(1):S170-S184. 

Aronson, R.B. and Precht, W.F. 2001. Evolutionary paleoecology of Caribbean coral 

reefs. In: Allmon, W.D, Bottjer, D.J. (eds). Evolutionary paleoecology: the ecological 

context of macroevolutionary change. Columbia University Press, New York: pp 171–

233 

Benson, Catherine S. 2007. Appropriation, Conceptions, Conservation: The Interaction of 

NGOs, Protected Areas, People, and Place in Papua New Guinea Yale University 

Master’s Thesis. 

Calambokidis J., Falcone, E.A., Quinn, T.J., Burdin, A.M., Clapham, P.J., Ford, J.K.B., 

Gabriele, C.M., LeDuc, R., Mattila, D., Rojas-Bracho, L., Straley, J.M,, Taylor, B.L., 

Urban, J., Weller, D., Witteveen, B.H., Yamaguchi, M., Bendlin, A., Camacho, D., 

Flynn, K., Havron, A., Huggins, J., Maloney, N. (2008). SPLASH: Structure of 

populations, levels of abundance and status of humpback whales in the North Pacific. 

Final report for Contract AB133F-03-RP-00078 to U.S. Dept of Commerce, WASC, 

Seattle, WA. 57 pp.

California Air Resources Board. “California’s ocean-going vessel clean air plan”. 

Accessed online November 17, 2008. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/presentations/091206/091206plan.pdf. 

Carden, Kristin (Unpublished) Legal and Jurisdictional Barriers and Opportunities to the 

Integration of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary into Ecosystem-Based 

Management Efforts at Local and Regional scales. University of California, Santa 

Barbara. 

CDFG. 2008. Channel Islands Marine Protected Areas: First 5 years of monitoring: 2003-

2008. S. Airamé and J. Ugoretz, editors. California Department of Fish and Game, 

Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans, Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary, and Channels Islands National Park. www.dfg.ca.gov/marine.

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. (2002). History of community-based process 

on marine reserves at the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 1999-2001. 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, Santa Barbara, California. 

http://channelislands.noaa.gov/marineres/PDF/mpa_history%20of%20process.pdf

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. (2009.) Mission Statement. 

http://channelislands.noaa.gov/focus/about.html (accessed April 2, 2009). 
31

Christensen, Norman L., Bartuska, Ann M., Brown, James H., Carpenter, Stephen, Carla, 

and Crance, J. H. 1987. Guidelines for using the Delphi technique to develop habitat 

suitability index curves. Biological Report No. 82 (10.134). National Ecology Center, 

Division of Wildlife and Contaminant Research, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Dept. of 

the Interior, Washington, DC.

Cicin-Sain, B. and S. Belfiore (2005). "Linking marine protected areas to integrated 

coastal and ocean management: A review of theory and practice." Ocean & Coastal 

Management 48(11-12): 847-868.

Crance, J. H. 1987. Guidelines for using the Delphi technique to develop habitat 

suitability index curves. Biological Report No. 82 (10.134). National Ecology Center, 

Division of Wildlife and Contaminant Research, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Dept. of 

the Interior, Washington, DC.

Crowder, L. B., Osherenko, G., Young, O. R., Airame, S., Norse, E. A., Baron, N., Day, 

J. C., Bouvere, F., Ehler, C. N., Halpern, B. S., Langdon, S. J., McLeod, K. L., Ogden, J. 

C., Peach, R. E., Rosenberg, A. A., Wilson, J. A. 2006. Resolving mismatches in US 

ocean governance. Science 313:617-618.

D'Antonio, R.F., Franklin, J.F., MacMahon, J.A., Noss, R.F., Parsons, D.J., Peterson,

C.H., Turner, M.G., Woodmansee, R.G. (1996) The Report of the Ecological Society of 

America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecological 

Applications: Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 665-691.

Davis, J. ed. 2002. Balancing ecology and economics: Lessons learned from the planning 

of a marine reserve network in the Channel Islands (US). MPANews 4(6): 1-4. 

FAO. 2007. Draft International Guidelines on the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in 

the High Seas. As adopted by the Expert Consultation on International Guidelines on the 

Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas (Bangkok, Thailand, 11-14 

September 2007). Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, 

Bangkok, Thailand.

Field, J. C., Punt, A. E., Method, R.D., Thomson, C.J. (2006). "Does MPA mean 'Major 

Problem for Assessments'? Considering the consequences of place-based management 

systems." Fish and Fisheries 7(4): 284-302.

Garthe, S., Huppop, O. 2004. Scaling possible adverse effects of marine wind farms on 

seabirds: developing and applying a vulnerability index. Journal of Applied Ecology 

41:724-734.

Gerber, L. R., Hyrenbach, K. D., Zacharias, M.A. (2005). "Ecology: Do the Largest 

Protected Areas Conserve Whales or Whalers?" Science 307(5709): 525-526.

Grumbine, R. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8:27-38. 

Halpern B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D’Agrosa, C.,
32

Bruno, J.F., Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H.S.,

Madin, E.M.P., Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R., Watson, R. 2008. A 

global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science, 319: 948-952. 

Halpern, B. S., Selkoe, K.A., Micheli, F., Kappel, C.V. 2007. Evaluating and ranking the 

vulnerability of global marine ecosystems to anthropogenic threats. Conservation Biology 

21:1301–1315.

Hiddink, J. G., S. Jennings, and M. J. Kaiser. 2007. Assessing and predicting the relative 

ecological impacts of disturbance on habitats with different sensitivities. Journal of 

Applied Ecology 44:405-413.

[HIHWNMS] Hawaiian Islands humpback Whales National Marine Sanctuary (2007) 

Assessment of Additional Marine Resources for Possible Inclusion in the Hawaiian 

Islands humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. Prepared for Governor Linda 

Lingle, State of Hawai‘i by the Hawaiian Islands humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary Program, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce and the Division of Aquatic Resources, 

Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai‘i. 58 pp.

International Maritime Organization. Study of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships. 

MEPC 45(8) (2000)

Jaap, W.C. 1998. Boom-bust cycles in Acropora. Reef Encounter 23, 12–13 

Jackson, J.B.C. 1994. Community unity. Science 264:1412–1413 

Jostes, J. C., Eng, M. 2001. Facilitators’ Report Regarding the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary Marine Reserves Working Group. Prepared for Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary Sanctuary Advisory Council. 

http://channelislands.noaa.gov/pdf2/MRWGfacilRpt2.pdf

Leeworthy, V.R., Wiley, P.C. 2002. Socioeconomic impact analysis of Marine Reserve 

Alternatives for the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA, NOS, Special 

Projects, Silver Spring, MD. 

Levin, S. A. (2002). "Complex adaptive systems: Exploring the known, the unknown, 

and the unknowable." American Mathematical Society 40(1): 2-19.

Linstone, H. A., Turoff, M. (Editors). 2002. The Delphi Method: Techniques and 

Applications. New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ.

LSNMCA, 2007. Memorandum of Understanding between Queen of England, Minister 

of the Environment, and Minister of Natural Resources. Lake Superior National Marine 

Conservation Area. October 25, 2007. 
33

Lubchenko, J., Palumbi, S.R., Gaines, S.D., Andelman, S. (2003). Plugging a hole in the 

ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications, 13(1): S3-S7.

McLeod, K. L., Lubchenco, J., Palumbi, S. R., Rosenberg, A. A. 2005. Scientific 

Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. Signed by 221 

academic scientists and policy experts with relevant expertise and published by the 

Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea at 

http://compassonline.org/?q=EBM. 

Miller M.W., Bourque, A.S., Bohnsack, J. 2002. An analysis of the loss of acroporid 

corals at Looe Key, Fl, USA: 1983-2000. Coral Reefs 21: 179-182 

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., Wood, D.J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder 

identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. The 

Academy of Management Review 22:853-886.

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Regulations. 18 September 1992. Federal 

Register 57(182):43310-43330. 

NMSA 2000. “National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Title 16, Chapter 32, Sections 1431 et 

seq. United States Code as amended by Public Law 106-513, November 2000. Available 

from: http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/National/NMSA.pdf 

[NMSP] National Marine Sanctuary Program Regulations, Title 15 part 922 (2008). 

United States Code of Federal Regulations. [cited 2008 December 2008]. Available from: 

http://montereybay.noaa.gov/intro/mp/archive/regulations.html#code 

[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, 

National Marine Sanctuary Program. 2006. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

Draft Management Plan, Volume III: October 2006.

NRC (National Research Council) (2000). Marine protected areas: tools for sustaining

ocean ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Parks Canada. 2009. Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area of Canada. 

Available from: http://www.pc.gc.ca/amnc-nmca/on/super/index_E.asp (Accessed on 4-

9-09).

Perry, I. R., Ommer, R.E. (2003). "Scale issues in marine ecosystems and human 

interactions." Fisheries Oceanography 12(4-5): 513-522.

Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea 

Change. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA. 

Porter, J.W., Meier, O.W. 1992. Quantification of loss and change in Floridian reef coral 

populations. American Zoologist 32:625–640 
34

Saaty, T. L. 1987. Risk—its priority and probability: the analytic hierarchy process. Risk 

Analysis 7:159-172.

Schneider, D. C. (2001). "The Rise of the Concept of Scale in Ecology." BioScience

51(7): 545-553.

Scott, S. G., Lane, V.R. 2000. A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. 

Academy of Management Review 25:43-62. 

Selkoe, K. A., Halpern, B.S., Toonen, R. J. 2008b. Evaluating anthropogenic threats to 

the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater 

Ecosystems [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aqc.961.

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21

st 

Century. Final 

Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to the President and Congress, 

Washington DC. 

Vanderlaanm, A., Taggartm C. 2007. Vessel collisions with whales: the probability of 

lethal injury based on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science, 23(1):144-156 

Wilson, K., R. L. Pressey, A. Newton, M. Burgman, H. Possingham, and C. Weston. 

2005. Measuring and incorporating vulnerability into conservation planning. 

Environmental Management 35:527-543.

Watkins, J. D., Panetta, L.E. From Sea to Shining Sea. Priorities for Ocean Policy 

Reform, Washington, D.C.: Meridian Institute, 2006.

Wilson, K. A., McBride, M. F., Bode, M., Possingham, H.P. 2006. Prioritizing global 

conservation efforts. Nature 440:337-340.

Wilson, K., Pressey, R. L., Newton, A., Burgman, M. Possingham, H., Weston, C. 2005. 

Measuring and incorporating vulnerability into conservation planning. Environmental 

Management 35:527-543. 

Zacharias, M. A., Gregr, E.J. 2005. Sensitivity and vulnerability in marine environments: 

An approach to identifying vulnerable marine areas. Conservation Biology 19:86-97.
35

APPENDIX A

Institutions and participants in the Distributed Graduate Seminar 

California State University, Monterey Bay

Faculty: James Lindholm

NOAA liaison: Andrew DeVogelaere and Erica Burton

Students: Shane Anderson, Nick Donlou, Meghan Frolli, Amanda Grant, Jeremy Kerr, 

Ashley Knight, Chelsea Parrish-Kuhn, Matthew Subia, Scott Toews, Jessica Watson

Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology

Faculty: Judy Lemus and Janna Shackeroff

NOAA liaison: Malia Chow

Students: Kimo Carvalho, Katherine Cullison, Matthew Dunlap, Erik Franklin, Melanie 

Hutchinson, Matthew Iacchei, Ashley Kerr, John N. Kittinger, Brandi Kokubun, 

Benjamin Laws, Joseph O'Malley, Lora L. N. Reeve, Derek J. Skillings, Toby Wood

University of California, Santa Barbara

Faculty: Robert Warner, Ben Halpern, Satie Airame

NOAA liaison: Steve Katz

Students: Leslie Abramson, Ashley Apel, Kristin Carden, Katherine Emery, Kristine 

Faloon, Skip Forest, Alicia Glassco, Shirley Han, Lauren Hess, Phil Johnson, Theresa 

Karasek, Peggy Lynch, Paul Matson, Becca Selden, Clare Shelton, Courtney 

Scarborough, Sarah Teck, Sarah Valencia

University of Connecticut

Faculty: Peter Auster

NOAA liaison: Brad Barr

Student: Ryan Patrylak

University of Michigan 

Faculty: Donald Scavia

NOAA liaison: Ellen Brody and Edward S. Rutherford

Students: Catherine Benson, Katharine Birkett, Evan Childress, Laura Colangelo, 

Michael Eggleston, Michael Fainter, Jennifer Johnson, Matthew Knittel, Shaw Lacy, 

Julie Mida, James Roberts, Bryan Sederberg, Oneida Ana Watson

University of New Hampshire 

Faculty: Andrew Rosenberg

NOAA liaison: Brad Barr

Students: Daniel Bergeron, Jay Clausen, Angelic DeButts, Lindsey Fong, Jason 

Goldstein, Patricia Jarema, Emily Klein, Thomas Langley, Alesia Read, Lynn Rutter, 

Matthew Smith
36

University of South Florida 

Faculty: Mark Luther

NOAA liaison: Brian Keller

Students: Tanya Beck, Jennifer Dupont, Mark Hartman, Heather Havens, Mark Horwitz, 

Luke McEachron, Tiffany Roberts, Nekesha Williams

University of Washington

Faculty: Dave Fluharty

NOAA liaison: Robert Pavia

Students: Albert Arthur, Barbara Bennett, Diane Capps, Chelsea Combest-Friedman, 

Kirstin Csik, Brandon Fisher, Cirse Gonzales, Jamie Mooney, Amanda Murphy, 

Jongseong Ryu, Becky Skeele, Xintian Wang
37

ONMS CONSERVATION SERIES PUBLICATIONS

To date, the following reports have been published in the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series. All 

publications are available on the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries website 

(http://www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov/).

The Application Of Observing System Data In California Current Ecosystem Assessments (ONMS-10-01)

Reconciling Ecosystem-Based Management and Focal Resource Conservation in the Papahānaumokuākea 

Marine National Monument (ONMS-09-04)

Preliminary Comparison of Natural Versus Model-predicted Recovery of Vessel-generated Seagrass 

Injuries in Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-09-03) 

A Comparison of Seafloor Habitats and Associated Benthic Fauna in Areas Open and Closed to Bottom 

Trawling Along the Central California Continental Shelf (ONMS-09-02) 

Chemical Contaminants, Pathogen Exposure and General Health Status of Live and Beach-Cast 

Washington Sea Otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) (ONMS-09-01) 

Caribbean Connectivity: Implications for Marine Protected Area Management (ONMS-08-07) 

Knowledge, Attitudes and Perceptions of Management Strategies and Regulations of FKNMS by 

Commercial Fishers, Dive Operators, and Environmental Group Members: A Baseline Characterization and 

10-year Comparison (ONMS-08-06) 

First Biennial Ocean Climate Summit: Finding Solutions for San Francisco Bay Area's Coast and Ocean 

(ONMS-08-05) 

A Scientific Forum on the Gulf of Mexico: The Islands in the Stream Concept (NMSP-08-04) 

M/V ELPIS Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2007 Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-08-03)

CONNECTIVITY Science, People and Policy in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (NMSP-08-

02) 

M/V ALEC OWEN MAITLAND Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2007 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-08-01) 

Automated, objective texture segmentation of multibeam echosounder data - Seafloor survey and substrate 

maps from James Island to Ozette Lake, Washington Outer Coast. (NMSP-07-05) 

Observations of Deep Coral and Sponge Assemblages in Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, 

Washington (NMSP-07-04) 

A Bioregional Classification of the Continental Shelf of Northeastern North America for Conservation 

Analysis and Planning Based on Representation (NMSP-07-03) 

M/V WELLWOOD Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2006 Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-07-02) 

Survey report of NOAA Ship McArthur II cruises AR-04-04, AR-05-05 and AR-06-03: Habitat 

classification of side scan sonar imagery in support of deep-sea coral/sponge explorations at the Olympic 

Coast National Marine Sanctuary (NMSP-07-01) 
38

2002 - 03 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Science Report: An Ecosystem Report Card After Five 

Years of Marine Zoning (NMSP-06-12) 

Habitat Mapping Effort at the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary - Current Status and Future Needs 

(NMSP-06-11)

M/V CONNECTED Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2005 Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-06-010) 

M/V JACQUELYN L Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2005 Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-06-09) 

M/V WAVE WALKER Coral Reef Restoration Baseline Monitoring Report - 2004 Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-06-08) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Habitat Mapping: Survey report and classification of side scan 

sonar data from surveys HMPR-114-2004-02 and HMPR-116-2005-01 (NMSP-06-07) 

A Pilot Study of Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus Walbaum 1792) Movement in the Conch Reef Research 

Only Area (Northern Florida Keys) (NMSP-06-06) 

Comments on Hydrographic and Topographic LIDAR Acquisition and Merging with Multibeam Sounding 

Data Acquired in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-05) 

Conservation Science in NOAA's National Marine Sanctuaries: Description and Recent Accomplishments 

(ONMS-06-04) 

Normalization and characterization of multibeam backscatter: Koitlah Point to Point of the Arches, 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary - Survey HMPR-115-2004-03 (ONMS-06-03) 

Developing Alternatives for Optimal Representation of Seafloor Habitats and Associated Communities in 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-02) 

Benthic Habitat Mapping in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-01) 

Channel Islands Deep Water Monitoring Plan Development Workshop Report (ONMS-05-05) 

Movement of yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus Block 1790) and black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci

Poey 1860) in the northern Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as determined by acoustic telemetry 

(MSD-05-4) 

The Impacts of Coastal Protection Structures in California's Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

(MSD-05-3) 

An annotated bibliography of diet studies of fish of the southeast United States and Gray's Reef National 

Marine Sanctuary (MSD-05-2) 

Noise Levels and Sources in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and the St. Lawrence River 

Estuary (MSD-05-1) 

Biogeographic Analysis of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve (MSD-04-1) 

A Review of the Ecological Effectiveness of Subtidal Marine Reserves in Central California (MSD-04-2, 

MSD-04-3) 
39

Pre-Construction Coral Survey of the M/V Wellwood Grounding Site (MSD-03-1) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary: Proceedings of the 1998 Research Workshop, Seattle, 

Washington (MSD-01-04) 

Workshop on Marine Mammal Research & Monitoring in the National Marine Sanctuaries (MSD-01-03) 

A Review of Marine Zones in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MSD-01-2)

Distribution and Sighting Frequency of Reef Fishes in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (MSD01-1) 

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary: A Rapid Assessment of Coral, Fish, and Algae Using the 

AGRRA Protocol (MSD-00-3) 

The Economic Contribution of Whalewatching to Regional Economies: Perspectives From Two National 

Marine Sanctuaries (MSD-00-2) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Area to be Avoided Education and Monitoring Program (MSD00-1) 

Multi-species and Multi-interest Management: an Ecosystem Approach to Market Squid (Loligo 

opalescens) Harvest in California (MSD-99-1)