Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-09-04 

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 December 2009

Reconciling Ecosystem-Based Management and 

Focal Resource Conservation in the 

PapahānaumokuākeaMarine National Monument
About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean Service (NOS) administers the 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS). 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 sanctuary system. 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.
Reconciling Ecosystem-Based Management and Focal Resource 

Conservation in the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument

John N. Kittinger1, Derek J. Skillings2, Kimo K. Carvalho3, Lora L.N. Reeve4, Melanie Hutchinson5, 

Katherine Cullison6

, Janna Shackeroff7, Malia Chow8, Judith Lemus9

1. Department of Geography, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, National Science Foundation 

Graduate Fellow, Integrated Graduate Education, Research and Training (IGERT) Program in 

Ecology, Conservation and Pathogen Biology, 445 Saunders Hall, 2424 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI 

96822, Email: jkittinger@gmail.com

2. Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawai‘i, P.O. Box 1346, Kāne‘ohe, HI, 96744, 

Email: derek.skillings@gmail.com

3. Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, 6600 Kalaniana‘ole Hwy, #300, Honolulu, HI 

96825, Email: Kimo.Carvalho@noaa.gov

4. W.S. Richardson School of Law and Department of Zoology, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, 

2538 McCarthy Mall, Edmondson 152, Honolulu, HI 96822, Email: lreeve@hawaii.edu

5. Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawai‘i, Post Office Box 1346, Kāne‘ohe, 

Hawaii 96744, Email: melanier@hawaii.edu

6. Department of Botany, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, 3190 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI 96822, 

Email: kate1@hawaii.edu

7. At time of report preparation: Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, 6600 

Kalaniana‘ole Hwy, #300, Honolulu, HI 96825; Current: NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation 

Program, 1305 East West Hwy, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Email: Janna.Shackeroff@noaa.gov

8. Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, 6600 Kalaniana‘ole Hwy, #300, Honolulu, HI 

96825, Email: Malia.Chow@noaa.gov

9. Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, P.O. Box 1346, Kāne‘ohe, 

HI, 96744, Email: jlemus@hawaii.edu

Silver Spring, Maryland

December 2009

U.S. Department of Commerce

Gary Locke, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D.

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Ocean Service

John H. Dunnigan, 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 Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries 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 

Photos are the property of Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument 

SUGGESTED CITATION

Kittinger, J.N., D.J. Skillings, K.K. Carvalho, L.L.N. Reeve, M. Hutchinson, K. Cullison, J. 

Shackeroff, M. Chow, J. Lemus. 2010. Reconciling Ecosystem-Based Management and Focal 

Resource Conservation in the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. Marine 

Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-09-04. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 

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

36pp.

CONTACT

John N. (Jack) Kittinger

Department of Geography

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

445 Saunders, 2424 Maile Way

Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96822, USA

Telephone: (808) 956-8465

Fax: (808) 956-3512

Email: jkittinger@gmail.com
Table of Contents

Topic Page

Table of Contents................................................................................................................ 5

Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 7

Key Words.......................................................................................................................... 8

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 9

1.1 Ecosystem-Based Marine Management.................................................................... 9

1.2 Integrative Approaches to Ecosystem Management............................................... 10

2.0 Reconciling Conflicting Mandates in the Monument................................................. 11

2.1 Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument Ecosystem Protections............ 11

2.2 Reconciling Conflicting Resource Management Mandates in the Monument ....... 13

2.3 Resource Identification ........................................................................................... 16

2.3.1 Establishing a Preliminary Resource List........................................................ 17

2.3.2 Stakeholder Mechanisms for Resource Valuation and Prioritization.............. 19

2.4 Resource Vulnerability Determinations.................................................................. 21

2.5 Integration into Spatial Conservation Planning Applications................................. 22

3.0 Application to Planning and Management of the NWHI: Marine Spatial Planning... 23

3.1 Zoning in the NWHI............................................................................................... 24

3.2 Surveillance............................................................................................................. 24

4.0 Conclusions................................................................................................................. 25

5.0 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................... 26

6.0 References................................................................................................................... 27
List of Figures and Tables 

Figure/Table Number and Title Page

Figure 1: Map of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument.............................12

Figure 2: Flow chart showing the progressive steps in a conservation planning 

framework. .........................................................................................................................................16

Table 1: Resources of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. ....................................................13

Table 2: Example of an ecosystem-based resource list for the PMNM ................................18

Figure 3: Conceptualization of a resource prioritization index...............................................20
7

Executive Summary

In May 2008, the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) conducted a 

“Distributed Graduate Seminar” bringing graduate students and faculty from seven universities, 

Office of National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS) staff, and other interested parties to examine 

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as effective tools for Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM). 

Students, faculty, ONMS staff, and guest lecturers used NCEAS informatics tools to connect 

with each other via an online course website, video conferencing, and a chat bulletin board to 

discuss how ecosystem processes within MPAs can allow resource managers to manage MPAs 

as integral components of the ecosystems in which they reside. As a course product, students at 

each university were required to produce a case study of a MPA within their respective regions. 

Students addressed how their MPA can effectively implement EBM within its boundaries, 

contribute to broader EBM efforts within their region, and how their MPAs can meet local 

management objectives and simultaneously contribute to broader regional objectives. Students 

also discussed the legal and jurisdictional barriers and opportunities for EBM efforts at local and 

regional scales. 

Currently throughout the Pacific region, there is an increasing trend in protecting larger-scale 

marine areas, which includes managing many different stakeholder groups and multiple 

biological, socio-economic, ecological, and cultural resources. Additionally, with the 

establishment of new U.S. Marine National Monuments, co-managing agencies are mandated to 

work with each other to manage multiple resources via an EBM approach. This case study uses 

the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (monument) as an example of how comanagers currently implement EBM into large-scale MPA management. Through working with 

monument staff and discussing the challenges and obstacles of managing this large-scale MPA, 

University of Hawaii at Mānoa (UH-Mānoa) graduate students proposed a new planning and 

management approach to better integrate EBM and conservation of focal resources in monument

via a prioritization process that identifies the biological, cultural, and social resources through a 

stakeholder process that can aid protected area management. 

Following the Graduate Seminar, UH-Mānoa graduate students discussed their case study with 

monument managers. Results were positive in nature. The group encouraged the monument’s

three co-managing agencies to strategically implement EBM into future programs and activities 

using innovative EBM tools, such as the one described below. Additionally, graduate students 

from all participating universities, including UH-Mānoa, were able to come together at a 

working group meeting in Santa Barbara, California in April 2009 to exchange perspectives, 

experiences, and knowledge to develop scholarly products based on collective student work 

during their seminars. This information will help the ONMS effectively implement EBM 

management approaches within their boundaries and contribute to broader EBM efforts in the 

regions in which they occur. 
8

Key Words

Marine Spatial Planning, Ecosystem Based Management, Marine Protected Areas, Protected 

Resources, Focal Resources, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands, Ecosystem Vulnerability
9

1.0 Introduction

In the marine environment, protected areas have become one of the principal tools for conserving 

ecosystems. An increasing recognition of the threats to marine ecosystems has led to a focus on 

establishing protections at regional biogeographic scales, which has led to the establishment of 

MPA networks and large, regional-scale MPAs. Regional protections have been predicated on 

the need to match institutional management on the scales relevant to ecosystem processes (Folke 

et al. 2007, Galaz et al. 2007), and the need to protect larger percentages and representative 

habitat types within the marine environment for conservation efficacy and risk management 

(Bohnsack et al. 2002, Sherman 1991). Large-scale MPAs face different challenges in 

governance and management than small-scale or community-based MPAs, including multiple 

agency management, complex and overlapping legal mandates and authorities, expanded and 

more diverse stakeholder groups, and various resource use interests (Kittinger et al. 2009). This 

increased socio-political complexity presents many challenges to institutions responsible for the

planning and management of large-scale MPAs (Day 2008, Day 2002, Hughes et al. 2007,

Kittinger et al. 2009, Olsson et al. 2008). 

Principal among these challenges is reconciling the somewhat conflicting mandates of holistic 

ecosystem protection and conservation of focal resources (Noss et al. 2002). Focal resources, 

defined here, include resources such as species or sites that are protected by legal statute and 

require special management. In contrast, ecosystem-based management requires consideration 

of the broader ecosystem, including the elements, processes, and functions that comprise a 

functional ecosystem together with human influences on ecosystem condition (Arkema et al. 

2006, Browman et al. 2004, Crowder and Norse 2008, Olsson et al. 2008). EBM is now 

becoming the accepted approach in environmental management (Leslie and McLeod 2007,

Olsson et al. 2008), but few operative frameworks have been advanced to address the statutory 

mandates that require agencies to specially manage key focal resources. Such conflicts in 

management are typically addressed in the planning and spatial management of activities (“use”) 

within protected areas, which is typically addressed in the iterative updating of management 

plans (Kittinger et al. 2009, Salafsky et al. 2001). 

This paper presents a proposed methodology for the integration of ecosystem-based management 

and conservation of focal resources in protected areas via a prioritization process for resource 

conservation. The proposed methodology relies upon a prioritization of resources, determination 

of resource vulnerability, and integration into a spatial conservation planning tool. First, the 

origins and scientific basis for ecosystem-based marine management are reviewed. Next, the 

concept of ecosystem vulnerability as a method for integrating ecosystem and focal resource 

protections is proposed. A comprehensive planning process and three-step method are then 

described for quantifying vulnerability for use in marine spatial planning (MSP) tools. Finally, 

specific applications to management of protected areas are articulated.

1.1 Ecosystem-Based Marine Management

The integration of the principles and concepts of natural resource management, conservation 

biology, and ecosystem sustainability is now referred to as an “ecosystem” or “ecosystem-based”

approach, and is a primary focus in conventional marine resource management (Arkema et al. 
10

2006, Grumbine 1994, Gunderson et al. 1995, Leslie and McLeod 2007, Ruckelshaus et al. 

2008). In the marine realm, EBM emerged within the development of the integrative discipline 

of marine conservation biology, which included concepts and principles of protected area design 

and management. Its first general texts (Norse and Crowder 2005a, Sobel and Dahlgren 2004) 

and compendium of articles (Ecological Applications 2003) appeared more than two decades 

after the publication of the first conservation biology text, which drew from and focused on 

terrestrial biodiversity (Soule and Wilcox 1980). This time lag has been attributed to the greater 

amenability of the latter to research and conservation (Norse and Crowder 2005b).

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) has evolved from initial establishment of its scientific 

basis, to articulation of guiding principles and concepts, and finally to operational 

implementation by management institutions (McLeod and Leslie 2009). The scientific basis and 

general principles of ecosystem based management have been established (Browman et al. 2004,

Christensen et al. 1996, Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel 1999), and general guiding 

principles have been proposed. In marine conservation, general principles include recognition of 

the importance of spatial and temporal scale, the interconnectivity of ecosystems, engagement 

with stakeholders, adaptive management, and consideration of society as an intrinsic component 

of ecological systems (Brodziak and Link 2002, Crowder and Norse 2008, Leslie and McLeod 

2007, Link 2002, Ruckelshaus et al. 2008). Though EBM principles have yet to be integrated 

into most governance mechanisms and statutes in the US (Parenteau et al. 2008), agencies 

involved in ecosystem management have begun to implement EBM concepts into ‘soft law’ 

policy and practice. In the literature, operative approaches to marine EBM are now being 

proposed (Arkema et al. 2006, Barnes and McFadden 2008, Gaichas 2008); additionally, 

international agencies have begun to explore the adoption of EBM principles into management 

actions (FAO 2003, Garcia et al. 2003).

The ecosystem-based approach for natural resource management planning on federal lands 

became policy in the U.S. over a decade ago (Council on Environmental Quality et al. 1995), and 

articulation of its scientific basis has been proposed specifically to address the problem of 

sustaining marine fisheries (Ecological Applications 1998, NRC 1999). The policy mechanisms 

for applying the ecosystem approach in the U.S. primarily include the iterative updating and 

implementing of resource and habitat management plans for federal lands of conservation 

significance (including submerged lands), fishery management plans (Kittinger 2008), and 

protected area management plans (Parenteau et al. 2008). 

1.2 Integrative Approaches to Ecosystem Management

The development of integrative, transdisciplinary theory and research has been spurred by a 

general recognition that traditional disciplinary approaches are inadequate to confront problems 

of society and environment (Berkes et al. 2003, Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008). Integrative research 

efforts have applied concepts from varying fields of social and natural sciences and other 

disciplines to environmental management (e.g., Gunderson et al. 1995). In particular, the 

application of concepts of health derived from the biomedical sciences has emerged in the 

context of ecosystem management (Costanza et al. 1992). The ecosystem health concept has 

been utilized in integrated assessment and protection of conjoint social and ecological systems 

through explicit recognition and characterization of social-ecological linkages (Costanza and
11

Mageau 1999, Epstein et al. 1994, Lebel 2003, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). 

Within the context of ecosystem health and management, the concept of vulnerability has arisen 

as an effective assessment method for characterizing and prioritizing the linkages between social 

and ecological systems, particularly in the context of environmental services relied upon by 

human societies (Adger 2006). 

In the marine realm, ecological vulnerability first arose in the context of planning for and 

responding to natural hazards, including potential oil spills (Gundlach and Hayes 1978, Michel et 

al. 1978). Further development of the vulnerability concept has been promulgated in the 

literature of systematic conservation planning (Margules and Pressey 2000, Wilson et al. 2005). 

The primary purpose in determining ecological vulnerability is to prioritize conservation actions 

for specific resources, which often takes place in the process of spatial planning for protected 

areas. A synthesis of the vulnerability concept as applied to ecological systems is presented 

below. In the following section, a method is introduced for prioritizing conservation of resources 

in protected area planning and management of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National 

Monument (monument). 

2.0 Reconciling Conflicting Mandates in the Papahānaumokuākea Marine 

National Monument

2.1 Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument Ecosystem Protections

The Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (monument) comprises the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) – a chain of islands, atolls, and shoals spanning approximately 2,000 

kilometers beyond the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), both of which make up the Hawaiian 

Archipelago in the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1). Legal protections for the natural resources in the 

monument date to 1909 (Executive Order 199A) when President Theodore Roosevelt established 

what is now known as the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge (Executive Order 1019,

Presidential Proclamation 2416). The unique values, global significance, and ecological 

vulnerability of the NWHI were again recognized by the federal government in Executive Order 

13178 (2000) (Executive Order 13178), and finalized by Executive Order 13196 (2001) 

(Executive Order 13196), establishing the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve (Reserve) and 

initiating a process to designate a National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary). Additionally, the 

State of Hawai‘i recognized the significance of the NWHI by establishing the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands State Marine Refuge (DLNR 2005). The biological and cultural significance 

of the monument has been documented by expeditions to the NWHI (Grigg et al. 2008), multiple 

research symposia (DiNardo and Parrish 2006, Grigg and Pfund 1980, Grigg and Tanoue 1984), 

and its recent nomination for recognition as a UNESCO World Heritage Site (State of Hawaii et 

al. 2009).
12

Figure 1: Map of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. Courtesy of NOAA, Papahānaumokuākea 

Marine National Monument Office

On June 15, 2006, President Bush issued Presidential Proclamation 8031 (Proclamation) 

(Department of Commerce et al. 2006, Presidential Proclamation 8031), creating the NWHI 

Marine National Monument under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (American Antiquities Act of 

1906). Later renamed the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (monument) 

(Presidential Proclamation 8112), the Proclamation recognizes the global biological and sociocultural significance of the NWHI and the need for strong environmental protection. The 

proclamation preserved the existing management responsibilities of two federal agencies and the 

State of Hawaii (Table 1), as well as pre-existing ecosystem protections. The National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the 

State of Hawai‘i have been designated as monument “Co-Trustees,” with the mandate to work 

cooperatively in the management of the monument. Specific management protocols were 

outlined for implementation in an interagency memorandum of agreement (Memorandum of 

Agreement 2006). A suite of policies and regulations exist associated with the Co-Trustee 

agencies, along with applicable state and Federal laws, (e.g. Endangered Species Act, Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act), to which management of the protected area 

is to conform. 
13

Resource Example Category

Coral Poritidea, Pocilloporidea, Acroporidea, deepwater 

‘precious’ corals Habitat, species

Algae Chlorophyta, Rhodophyta, Phaeophyta, Cyanophyta, 

Halimeda, coralline Habitat, species

Misc. Benthic Shallow 

Water Invertebrates Mollusca, Porifea, Anthropoda Species

Lobster Palinuridae, Scyllaridae Species

Reef fish Apex predators, herbivores, Species

Bottomfish Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Carangidae, Lethrinidae Species

Pelagic Marine Life Scombroidae, Carcharhinidae, Species

Reptiles

Caretta carretta, Chelonia mydas, Lepidochelys 

olivacae, Dermochelys coriacea, Eretmochelys 

imbricata

Species

Land Birds Passerines (3), Laysan Duck Species

Shore Birds Pluvialis fulva, Numenius tahitiensis, Tringa incana,

Arenaria interpres

Species

Sea Birds Albatross, shearwaters, petrel, terns, boobys Species

Marine Mammals Monachus schauinslandi, Cetaceans (20+) Species

Terrestrial Invertebrates Arachnida, Insecta, Chilopoda, Gastropoda Species

Terrestrial Plants Achyranthes atollensis, Phyloostegia variabilis, 

Pritchardia spp.

Habitat, species

Endangered and 

Threatened Species

Marine mammals, marine turtles, terrestrial birds, 

seabirds, terrestrial plants

Species

Native Hawaiian 

Ancestral Sites Socio-Cultural

Native Hawaiian 

Ceremonial Foundations

Ceremonial terraces and platform foundations 

(Nihoa, Mokumanamana) Socio-Cultural

Maritime Heritage Ship wrecks, military WWII sites Socio-Cultural

Table 1: Resources of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, as identified by the Papahānaumokuākea Marine 

National Monument Management Plan (MMP) (USFWS et al. 2008). ‘Misc benthic shallow water invertebrates’ is 

substituted for ‘crustaceans,’ because crustaceans include lobsters, which are disaggregated in the MMP.

2.2 Reconciling Conflicting Resource Management Mandates in the Monument

The monument is the largest protected area in the United States, and one of the largest MPAs in 

the world. Like many protected areas, the monument contains focal resources (e.g. the 

endangered Hawaiian monk seal, Native Hawaiian cultural sites) requiring special management 

actions, as well as the mandate to manage the protected area via an ecosystem approach. For 

managing institutions, the legal mandates that require special protection of focal resources can 

result in significant investment of agency resources to a disproportionately small element of the 

ecosystem. For example, in the monument a suite of management actions have been directed 

toward conservation of the endangered monk seal. The significant investment of management 

effort in the Hawaiian monk seal is a consequence of the monk seal’s protected status under the 

Endangered Species Act, which prescribes specific actions to which managing agencies are 
14

required to conform. Conservation strategies employed by managing agencies have included 

exhaustive monitoring programs, relocation of males to reduce deleterious male-mobbing 

behaviors, catch-and-release programs to revitalize malnourished pups, and the removal of 

Galapagos sharks that prey on juvenile pups. The focus on saving the endangered monk seal 

takes place within a broader effort by co-trustees to manage the entire ecosystem of the 

monument. From an ecosystem function perspective, the monk seal is a critical component of 

the functional group of apex predators in the monument. The diversity of functional groups has 

been recognized as a key feature of maintaining ecological resilience (Bengtsson et al. 2003,

Hughes et al. 2003, Nyström and Folke 2001, Nyström et al. 2000), although there are emerging 

arguments against this assertion (e.g. Bellwood et al. 2003). Loss of functional group diversity 

and intact populations can result in phase shifts to undesired states, as has been observed in the 

Caribbean region (Box 1) (Nyström et al. 2000). For the Hawaiian monk seal, the critical 

question from the whole ecosystem perspective then becomes at what population level does the 

monk seal become ecologically extinct, and how would the resilience of the monument

ecosystem be impacted if the monk seal was to go extinct? From a broader ecosystem 

perspective, the goals should be to preserve the diversity of functional groups in the monument

in order to maximize ecological resilience and prevent shifts to undesirable ecosystem states that 

can be caused by human and environmental disturbances acting synergistically. Notably, both 

approaches require an understanding of the historical baseline of ecological states, population 

densities and species’ roles in the ecosystem, as well as disturbance regimes (human and natural) 

in managed ecosystem.

The above example (Box 1) illustrates the difference in management approaches to the 

conservation of focal resources versus broader, ecosystem-based management. To reconcile 

Box 1. Phase shift in Caribbean coral reefs (adapted from Nyström et al. 2000)

In the past three decades, coral reef ecosystems in the Caribbean region have undergone a dramatic 

transition from hard coral to fleshy algae dominance. The factors behind this change include a 

combination of natural (hurricanes and disease) and anthropogenic (overfishing and nutrient increase) 

disturbances acting in synergy. Due to overfishing, by the late 1960-70s fish biomass had been heavily 

reduced, and the reefs around Jamaica were extensively damaged. Because large predatory fish were 

continuously overfished, herbivorous fish became the new target species. The loss of herbivorous fish 

resulted in the competitive release of the sea urchin Diadema antillarium which increased significantly 

in abundance and became the keystone herbivore. In 1981, a hurricane killed or damaged most of the 

branching coral species, resulting in new open substratum becoming available for colonization by fast 

growing algae. Despite high levels of nutrients, algal densities were kept low by the efficient grazing 

Diadema, and coral recolonization took place. However, in 1982 and 1983, the sea urchin population 

suffered from a species-specific pathogen that reduced the population by 99% in some areas. It is 

speculated that the high host density of Diadema enabled efficient transmission of the pathogen, to 

which Diadema exhibited an extremely low resistance. Additionally, the loss of host diversity in the 

coral reef ecosystem probably reduced the natural capacity of the ecosystem to dilute the pathogen and 

therefore buffer populations from epidemic disease. Because all major grazers were then low in 

numbers, they were not able to prevent the establishment of algae, resulting in a dramatic change in the 

abundance ratio between coral and benthic algae. Brown fleshy algae became overwhelmingly 

abundant and prevented coral larvae settlement. This case demonstrates how the loss of diversity within 

the functional group of herbivores resulted in reduced resilience of the coral reef ecosystem. A 

disturbance that could previously be buffered by a diverse functional group of herbivores, became the 

trigger that caused an ecosystem with reduced resilience to shift from a coral-dominated state to one 

dominated by algae. The extent to which this phase shift is irreversible is still unclear.
15

these approaches, we propose a prioritization process for resource conservation (Figure 2). This 

integrative planning and management process includes three primary steps: 

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

2) Resource vulnerability determinations through an expert interview method, and;

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

conservation priority index that can be integrated into marine spatial planning tools to aid 

in ecosystem planning and management. 

The first step is a value-driven process whereby stakeholders identify the resources and attributes 

of the protected area and subsequently prioritize the resources for management actions. The 

second step is an expert opinion survey method which assigns vulnerability determinations to 

resources. A third and final step is the integration of stakeholder resource prioritization data 

(established in step 1) with vulnerability determinations (step 2), which results in a resourcespecific conservation prioritization index. Conservation priority indices for specific resources 

can be then be integrated via geospatial information tools for ecosystem-based analysis and 

decision-making by managing agencies. Each step in this process is described in more detail 

below.
16

Figure 2: Flow chart showing the progressive steps in a conservation planning framework for resource 

identification, prioritization, vulnerability determination, and integration via spatial planning tools. 

2.3 Step 1: Resource Identification

In protected areas, resources have variably been defined as habitats, areas, species, processes, or 

artifacts that have societal value (Zacharias and Gregr 2005). In an ecosystem context, the term 

‘resource’ does not necessarily imply resources expressly targeted for extraction by human uses, 

but also includes elements and processes critical to ecosystem function, such as habitat, 

interspecies connections, and processes. Additionally, based on the EBM thinking which 
17

emphasizes the interconnectedness of economic, political, social, and ecological dimensions, 

‘resources’ also include place-specific features that hold particular cultural or aesthetic value. 

A critical first step in the conservation planning process is to build a consensus on what 

resources in the protected area are valued by different stakeholders. This includes identification 

of the resources that are valued in the managed ecosystem by stakeholders and constituents. 

Subsequently, resources are ranked or prioritized for management actions based on their 

perceived value to stakeholders. Identifying and prioritizing resources should optimally be 

accomplished in a systematic, participatory stakeholder process (Berghöfer et al. 2008, Noss et 

al. 2002) that attempts to reach a consensus or agreement amongst stakeholders. As part of this 

process, managing agencies may generate a preliminary resource list as a basic framework to 

facilitate discussions by stakeholders. Subsequently, stakeholder discussions and results from 

expert opinion surveys may be integrated to form a more comprehensive resource list. 

2.3.1 Establishing a Preliminary Resource List

A preliminary resource list was derived from the Monument Management Plan (MMP) (USFWS 

et al. 2008) (Table 1 in section 2.1). Specific resources were initially identified in the MMP 

section entitled ‘Status and Condition of the Natural Resources and Environmental and 

Anthropogenic Stressors;’ this list includes all resources given a subheading in this section of the 

MMP. Subsequently each subsection of the action plans within the MMP as well as the 

Environmental Assessment was reviewed and considered while developing the Preliminary 

Resource List. We modified an approach from (Zacharias and Gregr 2005), where resources 

were grouped and placed into categories, including: Habitat, Species, Socio-Cultural, and 

Ecosystem Processes (Table 1 in section 2.1). These categories may be subject to change based 

on expert opinion surveys and data gathered by stakeholders during the valuation process in 

order to develop a more comprehensive list. 

The preliminary resource list was subsequently expanded by adding resources identified in a 

survey of related literature in academic journals (Table 2). The following key words were used to 

search academic journals available through online databases from the University of Hawai’i at 

Mānoa: MPA, EBM, Protected Resources, Focal Resources, PMNM, NWHI, Ecosystem Threats, 

Ecosystem Vulnerability, and Ecosystem Risk. Databases were searched by graduate students at 

the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. The resultant list represents an expanded array of resources 

identified as integral to ecosystem function as well as socio-cultural value (Hiddink et al. 2007,

Hiscock and Tyler-Walters 2006, Noss et al. 2002, Selkoe et al. 2008, Zacharias and Gregr 

2005). Notably, this resource list includes not only biological elements (e.g., habitats, species), 

but also biotic and abiotic processes which are critical attributes of ecosystem function. Finally, 

a preliminary list of socio-cultural resources is included, with an express caveat: it is expected 

that engagement with Native Hawaiian stakeholders in the process would substantially expand 

and further define the resources identified here as having cultural significance in the NWHI. 
18

Resource Code Source Description

Ecozones & 

Habitats E1 Pelagic

E2 MMP Deep Reef

E3 MMP Outer Reef

E4 MMP Inner Reef

E5 Pavement

E6 Sand / Mud

E7 MMP 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

H5

Areas of High Biodiversity (Spp. Richness, 

Diversity)

Biological 

Resources B1 MMP

Threatened, Endangered and Protected 

Species

B2 Endemic Species

B3 MMP Biogenic Reefs

B4 MMP Seabirds, Shorebirds

B5 MMP Marine Mammals 

B6 Migratory Species

B7 MMP Benthic Shallow Water Invertebrates 

B8 MMP Crustaceans 

B9 MMP Reef Fish

B10 MMP Bottom Fish

B11 MMP Pelagic Marine Life

B12 MMP Reptiles

B13 Long-lived, Low Reproductive Species

Socio-Cultural 

Resources SCR1 MMP Native Hawaiian Ancestral Sites 

SCR2 MMP Native Hawaiian Ceremonial Foundations 

SCR3 MMP Maritime Heritage Sites

Processes P1 Seasonal Spawning/Reproduction Events

P2

Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Geostrophic 

Fronts

P3 Ecological-Evolutionary Connectivity 

Table 2: Example of an ecosystem-based resource list for the monument. A species or group of species was 

categorized as ‘Habitat’ if it provides critical habitat for other species (e.g. biogenic corals). The ‘Species’ category 

was assigned to species or groups of species that are considered an important resource, either for extractive or 

aesthetic values, or if the species plays a critical role in ecosystem function. The ’Socio-Cultural’ category 
19

represents resources that have special significance in terms of military or seafaring history or Native Hawaiian 

culture. Lastly, ‘Processes’ were identified for specific abiotic and biotic events that have broad-reaching effects 

across the NWHI coral reef ecosystem. MMP indicates this resource was identified in the Monument Management 

Plan (USFWS et al. 2008).

2.3.2 Stakeholder Mechanisms for Resource Valuation and Prioritization

Once generated, the preliminary resource list can then be evaluated by a group of experts and 

stakeholders in order for them to add, alter, and prioritize the resources. Ideally, stakeholders 

and experts should reach a consensus, but consensus building amongst competing interest groups 

may be difficult. Indeed, different stakeholder groups hold different definitions of what 

constitutes a resource as well as different valuations for different resources. Inherent in these 

differing resource valuations are the varying motives, interests, worldviews and belief systems 

that comprise stakeholder groups in protected areas and elsewhere. 

Within the disciplines of decision science and conservation planning there are many methods 

that are commonly used for consensus building amongst interested parties. We will highlight a

technique referred to as the modified Delphi Method, an accepted method in the field of 

conservation biology and social sciences utilized to reach consensus among competing interest 

groups (Crance 1987, Linstone and Turoff 2002). We selected the Delphi Method because the 

technique allows participants to remain anonymous to each other and thus minimizes bias and 

conflict. Alternative methods include focus groups, public comment and meetings, or facilitated 

workshops with stakeholder groups. The Delphi Method is an iterative systematic survey 

technique that is used to build towards a consensus or agreement among pre-determined 

participants. Survey questions are distributed amongst participants who are anonymous to each 

other. Answers are consolidated and redistributed back to the participants by the investigators 

along with the original question list and/or additional questions. Survey participants are then 

allowed to change their answers based on previous answers and justifications by others in the 

group. Because participants are anonymous to each other, this method is able to circumvent 

problems that may arise from face-to-face and group interactions. The iterative survey process 

allows competing participants to convince each other and change their answers without “losing 

face.” This structured process of collecting and disseminating all available data continues until 

consensus, stasis, or a predetermined number of rounds has been reached. For MPA

management and planning, a modified Delphi Method should include: 1) reaching consensus on 

a final resource list; and, 2) determination of quantitative prioritization (valuation metrics) for 

individual resources. 

A quantitative valuation metric specific to each resource must be derived from the survey 

process. This quantitative metric would be a function of individual scores from survey 

participants rating the importance of individual resources according to biological, ecological, 

cultural, legal, and economic importance. These ranked values are incorporated with 

vulnerability determinations to arrive at what can be viewed as a conservation priority index for 

each resource in the protected area (Figure 3).
20

Figure 3: Conceptualization of a resource conservation prioritization index, which is a function of vulnerability and 

resource value (prioritization ranking). Vulnerability is a function of risk and sensitivity. Risk is a probabilistic 

function of the spatial and temporal scale of anthropogenic threats. Resource sensitivity is a function of the 

functional impact of a stressor to a resource, as well as the resilience of a resource, defined as its resistance to a 

stressor, and recovery time after the occurrence of a stressor. 

The results obtained from using the Delphi Method are only as robust as the expertise of the 

group of individuals chosen to participate in the process as well as the questions that are used in 

the survey. If participants are not an adequate representation of their chosen field of expertise, or 

not enough participants are included to capture the field, then the results may not be an accurate 

representation and therefore not repeatable. It is critical that survey participants include 

stakeholders and experts with knowledge of the protected area. We define stakeholders as any 

group that has a direct or indirect stake in the decision-making process. Stakeholders include 

individuals, groups, or institutions that can be affected by the results of the decision-making 

process. Experts include individuals with academic training in a topic germane to the ecosystem, 

those with tenured knowledge of the ecosystem, indigenous cultural experts, or others with 

similar qualifications (Grimble and Wellard 1997, Pomeroy and Douvere 2008). 

For the monument, stakeholders and experts include, but are not limited to: Native Hawaiian 

cultural practitioners, managers from the Co-Trustee agencies, academic and research scientists 
21

(biophysical and social scientists), extractive resource users (recreational and commercial), 

members of non-governmental organizations, and members of the public. These expert groups 

comprise the stakeholders identified as critical to inclusion in the planning process, based on the 

identified metrics of power, legitimacy, and urgency (Mitchell et al. 1997, Scott and Lane 2000). 

It is important to note that experts and stakeholders tend to be viewed as distinct groups, though 

in some cases they may overlap. Finally, it is critical that qualified social scientists or 

professional facilitators are engaged in the design, execution, and analysis of the survey process. 

2.4 Step 2: Resource Vulnerability Determinations

Vulnerability has arisen as a key concept for prioritizing management strategies, particularly in 

conservation planning, and various definitions and methods for determining vulnerability have 

been proposed (Wilson et al. 2005, Wilson et al. 2006). As used here, vulnerability is defined as 

a function of the sensitivity of a resource to a stressor or disturbance, combined with the risk of 

the stressor or disturbance occurring (Figure 3). Sensitivity is defined as the degree to which 

resources respond to stresses, where stresses are deviations of environmental conditions beyond 

the expected range (Zacharias and Gregr 2005). Risk is a probability function for the occurrence 

of a specific event, such as a stressor or disturbance (Saaty 1987). Vulnerability is therefore the 

probability that a resource will be exposed to a stressor to which it is sensitive (FAO 2007,

Halpern et al. 2007, Hiddink et al. 2007, Zacharias and Gregr 2005). 

Various methods have been proposed for determining quantitative measures of vulnerability, but 

most studies have focused on a single species approach (e.g. Garthe and Huppop 2004). The 

three primary methods proposed in the literature include: 1) ranking data obtained in a literature 

review, 2) expert opinion survey, and 3) site-based algorithms. A repeatable, quantitative survey 

method is the most appropriate and tractable method by which to assess, from an ecosystem 

level, environmental vulnerability (Halpern et al. 2007). The methods presented in Halpern et 

al. (2007) and applied to identifying and ranking threats in the NWHI by Selkoe et al. (2008b) 

can be used in a comprehensive survey of expert opinions to determine quantitatively the 

vulnerability of resources in the monument and bring focal and ecosystem-level resources into a 

common framework. As defined above, experts include academically-trained or similarly 

qualified individuals with deep knowledge and experience, including those intimately familiar 

with the protected area.

Halpern et al. (2007) present five criteria for determining vulnerability, which can be grouped 

under the two primary concepts underlying vulnerability, that of risk and sensitivity (Figure 3). 

These metrics include the (1) spatial scale and (2) temporal frequency of a stressor, which 

together comprise the probabilistic function of risk. For sensitivity, metrics include the (3) 

functional impact (number of trophic levels affected), (4) the resistance to impact, and, (5) the 

recovery time required to return to a pre-impact conditions. 

Resource sensitivity therefore includes considerations of both the likelihood that a resource will 

experience substantial alteration from short-term or chronic disturbance, and the length of time 

required to recover to its prior state after a disturbance (FAO 2007, Halpern et al. 2007,

Zacharias and Gregr 2005). The most sensitive resources are therefore those that are both easily 

disturbed and are slow to recover, or may never recover. Sensitive ecosystem features may be 
22

physically fragile, but some may be functionally fragile even if physically robust. Therefore, a 

resource is defined as sensitive to a threat or stressor if it would be harmed, diminished, or 

altered due to the stressor or threat. A resource is vulnerable if it is likely that it would be 

exposed to a stressor in a frequency or duration that causes the stressor to affect it.

For individual resources, a quantitative determination of vulnerability requires identification of 

the stressors or threats to the resources in a protected area. For protected areas, the stressors of 

concern are direct anthropogenic stressors (e.g., marine debris, ship groundings), or indirect 

anthropogenic stressors, which are those stressors that have been exacerbated via human actions 

(e.g., sea level rise due to human-induced climate change). For the monument, the threats have 

been determined in previous work by (Selkoe et al. 2008b) and mapped spatially (Selkoe et al. 

2008a).

2.5 Step 3: Integration into Spatial Conservation Planning Applications

A key benefit of the vulnerability concept is the prioritization of resources for conservation 

actions. In order for the vulnerability concept to be useful to managers and the decision-making 

process the vulnerability determinations and prioritization/valuation ranking must be mapped 

spatially. Using spatial mapping tools, areas that contain resources of special significance can be 

overlayed by layers of sensitivity and risk analyses. The result is a geospatial model of 

vulnerability. Spatial mapping also allows managers to integrate disparate information sets into 

a matrix that can inform decision-makers on a time scale relevant to management. Integration 

of various datasets into a marine spatial planning process provides a mechanism for data from 

research and monitoring to be incorporated into the management of the ecosystem. 

Several software applications exist for integrating data into geospatial systems for eco-regional 

conservation planning. A suite of site-based algorithms have been developed into software for 

conservation planning and configuration. Marxan is among the most sophisticated and 

appropriate for marine spatial planning, because it allows users to analyze and resolve multiple 

layers of data, including conservation targets (e.g. focal resources) and spatial management goals

(e.g. 60% of spawning habitats protected) (Leslie et al. 2003, Possingham et al. 2000, Ball and 

Possingham 2000). 

Marxan provides a mechanism to determine a hierarchical set of decision rules in spatial 

analyses. It assigns values to spatial planning units based on ecological and social criteria, which 

are then selected from among potential planning sites for the creation of a spatially cohesive 

reserve system that meets the goals set for protection of biodiversity or other conservation 

targets. It also includes tools for setting priorities, objectives, and budgets. Thus Marxan can be 

used for re-zoning considerations but also has an irreplaceability function which maps outputs 

and gives an indicative measure of the importance of individual planning units for meeting 

conservation objectives. Currently, researchers at The Ecology Centre and Centre for Applied 

Environmental Decision Analysis at the University of Queensland are developing new 

applications for Marxan to depict probabilistic information such as the probability of 

catastrophes occurring into the conservation planning process 

(http://www.uq.edu.au/MARXAN/index.html?page=77644&p=1.1.2.2).
23

The Marxan algorithm contains an objective function with which it runs all possible scenarios. 

In our proposed methodology, the objective function would be optimized for a vulnerability 

determination. To depict the vulnerability determinations using Marxan the planning region must 

be defined, in this case it will be the boundary of the monument. Next, conservation features are 

chosen that reflect regional ecology, availability of data, and relevance to desired planning 

objectives. The resource list shown in Table 1 (in section 2.1) summarizes the conservation 

features (and some of the subdivisions for the planning units) of monument. Data on resources 

(conservation feature) sensitivity and risk can then be manipulated to create spatial 

representations of vulnerability. 

Information from the stakeholder resource identification and prioritization process (step 1) and 

expert surveys for vulnerability determinations (step 2) can be integrated with other spatial 

information through spatial mapping tools (e.g. GIS). Once a prioritized resource list is 

established (see Table 1 in section 2.1) each resource can be mapped spatially based on existing 

information on the distribution and spatial characterization of the managed ecosystem using 

Arcview, ArcGIS or other GIS software. Information on the risk of a stressor occurring can be 

mapped both spatially and by temporal frequency; e.g. for the NWHI, this information has been 

determined (Selkoe et al. 2008a, 2008b). The conservation priority index values for each 

resource , as determined by results of Steps 1-2 (sections 2.3-2.4), can be further integrated with 

biological and abiotic data available from research and monitoring activities.

The solutions or outputs from a Marxan analysis are a timely and useful means of incorporating 

large datasets with a huge area and complex questions. It allows for the integration of datasets 

generated in ongoing research and monitoring efforts. For the monument, large monitoring data 

sets exist, and research activities are consistently generating new data streams and information 

useful to management. Since the available information and the issues will constantly change, 

Marxan can be run many times with revised conservation targets to give up-to-date overlays of 

the most vulnerable areas within the monument. Spatial vulnerability determinations are also 

useful for more effective enforcement and monitoring of a reserve system (Leslie et al. 2003). 

Considering the large area of the monument, this would be of particular importance to identify 

areas that are critical areas to zone for special biodiversity protections, or monitor for violations. 

3.0 Application to Planning and Management of the NWHI: Marine Spatial 

Planning

Various applications and tools that comprise marine spatial planning (MSP) approaches have 

been applied in marine ecosystem management. Ehler and Douvere (2007) define MSP as 

“analyzing and allocating parts of three-dimensional marine spaces to specific uses, to achieve 

ecological, economic, and social objectives that are usually specified through the political 

process.” In MPAs, MSP focuses on a spatial approach to managing ocean-space, including 

zoning for multiple use, special ecosystem protections, surveillance, and other human uses 

(Crowder and Norse 2008, Douvere 2008, Douvere and Ehler 2008, Ehler and Douvere 2007). 

The adoption of spatial approaches is the result of an increased recognition, primarily among 

ecologists and resource managers, of the efficacy of spatial management in managing socialecological complexity, including negativisms (“externalities”) associated with common property

regimes (Berkes et al. 2006, Crowder et al. 2006, Day 2002, Dietz et al. 2003, Lubchenco et al. 
24

2003). Additionally, MSP is now recognized as a viable method for implementing ecosystembased management (Crowder and Norse 2008, Friedlander et al. 2007, Ruckelshaus et al. 2008). 

We address two primary MSP approaches for our vulnerability determination process that can be 

used in planning and management of the NWHI, including zoning and surveillance.

3.1 Zoning in the NWHI

Currently, the NWHI has been spatially zoned into three areas: Special Preservation Areas 

(SPAs), Ecological Reserves, and the Midway Atoll Special Management Area. The purpose of 

this zonation is to protect sensitive habitats and preserve ecological services. The existing 

zonation scheme was arrived at by using bathymetric curves to delineate SPAs and areas outside 

of the existing bottom fishing areas were classified as Ecological Reserves. The current zoning 

system was based on a ‘blanket’ approach to set aside large areas, rather than a systematic, 

ecosystem-based approach recommended here.

The proposed methodology provides an ecosystem-based approach for integrating information 

into spatial management of the monument. Rather than being based on bathymetry alone, this 

methodology will allow for meaningful identification of vulnerable areas for relevant zoning 

schemes. Greater certainty will be provided because zones will be delineated by physical 

habitat, species distribution, physical and biological processes, or locations of high human value 

(e.g. native Hawaiian and marine archeology sites). Under this type of zoning scheme, human 

activities within the monument could be evaluated based on informed criteria and spatial 

vulnerability. 

Additionally, this work will build on existing research efforts in the NWHI. In particular, the 

existing characterization of anthropogenic threats (Selkoe et al. 2008b) has been mapped 

spatially (Selkoe et al. 2008a), identifying areas that are most susceptible to threats. The spatial 

characterization of the vulnerability of resources in the NWHI, in conjunction with threat 

mapping (Selkoe et al. 2008a), monitoring data, and spatial data on cumulative impacts of human 

activities (Halpern et al. 2008) will allow managers to effectively plan and manage the NWHI 

protected ecosystem. Such planning and management can more effectively address permitted or 

allowed activities in the monument. These activities include commercial vessel traffic, 

recreation, siting of cables and pipelines, anchoring, military activities, and prioritization of 

research needs for management. For example, dedicated commercial shipping lanes and ocean 

cables could be relocated to areas away from identified vulnerable areas, and within a bank scale, 

specific anchoring locations could be identified. While the US military is not restricted in any 

way within the monument, the identification of vulnerable areas could be used by the military to 

voluntarily conduct exercises in less-vulnerable areas.

3.2 Surveillance

Effective MSP also requires enforcement of existing statutes and regulations, in effect, 

monitoring illegal activities through surveillance. Human activities in the monument that are 

targets for surveillance include three user categories:
25

1) permitted users that violate the conditions of their permits (e.g. bottomfish vessels 

fishing in restricted areas),

2) non-permitted legal activities (e.g. vessels engaged in passive transit through the 

NWHI), and,

3) non-permitted users engaged in illegal activities (e.g. illegal foreign-flagged vessels). 

The threats associated with these different users may impact monument resources at different 

scales, and are part of surveillance and threat assessment being conducted by the monument.

Enforcement concerns in monument center on ensuring compliance with monument regulations. 

Currently, surveillance of the monument includes monthly flights by the United States Coast 

Guard (USCG). During these flyovers a crew can survey a swath of approximately 50 nm given 

the altitude and variety of tools (USCG 2008). While monthly flights could conceivably cover 

the entire width of the monument, the planes are instructed to avoid areas with large 

concentrations of birds in order to minimize impacts, therefore, flights must offset the islands, 

potentially leaving important ecological areas essentially unmonitored. This current surveillance 

scheme attempts to cover the maximum area without specific focus areas. USCG personnel have 

expressed a certain degree of frustration with the current scheme, stating that “we could do a 

much better job if we knew where to look” (USCG 2008).

Identification of vulnerable areas in the monument would allow surveillance flights to focus 

specifically on these areas. For instance, if illegal fishing vessels were thought to be exploiting 

monument resources at specific banks or specific habitats within banks (vulnerable areas as 

identified by this methodology) flights could be adjusted to target those areas. Identification of 

vulnerable areas will also allow monument managers to use other resources for surveillance. 

The primary permitted activity in the monument is research. Informing researchers working in 

zones deemed vulnerable (see above) about the zone-specific threats adds ‘eyes and ears’ with 

communication abilities to the managers. Coastal and land-based vulnerable areas could be 

monitored via remote surveillance cameras and off-shore areas could be monitored via satellite. 

Scientific research has and continues to play a critical role in defining the biological value of the 

resources and ecosystems of the monument (DiNardo and Parrish 2006, Grigg and Pfund 1980, 

Grigg and Tanoue 1984). A prioritization scheme can help to direct resources and monitoring to 

fill particular management needs, particularly on those areas deemed vulnerable and high 

conservation priorities.

1

 For surveillance, informing researchers working in zones deemed 

priority areas about the threats specific to that area adds surveillance capacity to the NWHI.

4.0 Conclusions 

 1 The analysis presented here supports, unequivocally, the importance of research, including biophysical, sociocultural, indigenous, and other, as integral to informing effective management of the NWHI. As such, it is believed 

by the authors that the spatial prioritization of resources in the NWHI would help identify critical areas where 

research needs can inform management. The authors do not support the restriction of research critical to 

understanding resources in the NWHI.
26

This paper proposes a comprehensive planning process for ecosystem-based management in 

protected areas. The process includes multiple steps, and engages with stakeholders, experts, 

and managing institutions in a participatory process. The proposed framework integrates 

concepts from social and biophysical sciences and thus espouses a transdisciplinary approach to 

these issues in ecosystem planning and management. Ideally, the proposed process would be 

conducted on a recurring timescale to inform the iterative updating of the management plan for 

the marine protected area. This would add an adaptive management approach to the 

management plan review process. Significantly, this proposed method would help to resolve the 

conflicting mandates of focal resource management and an ecosystem-based approach to 

management. It does so by prioritizing resources through various surveying methods, and 

integrating the resultant information into geospatial planning platforms that can become dynamic 

tools for use by managers. 

5. 0 Acknowledgements

This manuscript was prepared as a case study for a distributed course on the role of marine 

protected areas in ecosystem-based management, coordinated jointly by the National Center for 

Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, the Hawaii Institute for Marine Biology, and the 

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. The authors thank Kim Selkoe and Joseph 

O’Malley for their help in preparing this manuscript and their comments on early drafts, which 

greatly improved the quality of the work. The authors also thank the natural resource managers, 

professors, and experts who participated in the class.
27

6.0 References

Adger, W. N. 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16:268-281.

American Antiquities Act of 1906. 16 U.S.C. 431-433.

Arkema, K. K., S. C. Abramson, and B. M. Dewsbury. 2006. Marine ecosystem-based 

management: from characterization to implementation. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment 4:525-532.

Barnes, C., and K. W. McFadden. 2008. Marine ecosystem approaches to management: 

challenges and lessons in the United States. Marine Policy 32:387-392.

Bellwood, D. R., A. S. Hoey, and J. H. Choat. 2003. Limited functional redundancy in high 

diversity systems: resilience and ecosystem function on coral reefs. Ecology Letters 

6:281-285.

Bengtsson, J., P. Angelstam, T. Elmqvist, U. Emanuelsson, C. Folke, M. Ihse, F. Moberg, and 

M. Nyström. 2003. Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio 32:389-396.

Berghöfer, A., H. Wittmer, and F. Rauschmayer. 2008. Stakeholder participation in ecosystembased approaches to fisheries management: A synthesis from European research projects. 

Marine Policy 32:243-253.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: building 

resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Berkes, F., T. P. Hughes, R. S. Steneck, J. A. Wilson, D. R. Bellwood, B. Crona, C. Folke, L. H. 

Gunderson, H. M. Leslie, J. Norberg, M. Nystrom, P. Olsson, H. Osterblom, M. Scheffer, 

and B. Worm. 2006. Globalization, roving bandits, and marine resources. Science 

311:1557-1558.

Bohnsack, J. A., B. Causey, M. P. Crosby, R. B. Griffis, M. A. Hixon, T. F. Hourigan, K. H. 

Koltes, J. E. Maragos, A. Simons, and J. T. Tilmant. 2002. A rationale for minimum 20-

30% no-take protection. Pages 615-619. Proceedings of the Ninth International Coral 

Reef Symposium, Bali, 23-27 October 2000.

Brodziak, J., and J. Link. 2002. Ecosystem-based fishery management: What is it and how can 

we do it? Bulletin of Marine Science 70:589-611.

Browman, H. I., K. I. Stergiou, P. M. Cury, R. Hilborn, S. Jennings, H. K. Lotze, P. M. Mace, S. 

Murawski, D. Pauly, M. Sissenwine, K. I. Stergiou, and D. Zeller. 2004. Perspectives on 

ecosystem-based approaches to the management of marine resources. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 274:269-303.

Christensen, N. L., A. M. Bartuska, J. H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D'Antonio, R. Francis, J. F. 

Franklin, J. A. MacMahon, R. F. Noss, D. J. Parsons, C. H. Peterson, M. G. Turner, and 

R. G. Woodmansee. 1996. The report of the ecological society of America committee on 

the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6:665-691.

Costanza, R., B. G. Norton, and B. D. Haskell, editors. 1992. Ecosystem health: New goals for 

environmental management. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Costanza, R., and M. Mageau. 1999. What is a healthy ecosystem? Aquatic Ecology 33:105-115.

Council on Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, Department of the Army, 

Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, 

Department of Labor, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Environmental 

Protection Agency, and Office of Science and Technology Policy. 1995. Memorandum of 
28

understanding to foster the ecosystem approach. United States Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, 

Washington, DC.

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., and E. Norse. 2008. Essential ecological insights for marine ecosystem-based 

management and marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 32:772-778.

Crowder, L. B., G. Osherenko, O. R. Young, S. Airamé, E. A. Norse, N. Baron, J. C. Day, F. 

Douvere, C. N. Ehler, B. S. Halpern, S. J. Langdon, K. L. McLeod, J. C. Ogden, R. E. 

Peach, A. A. Rosenberg, and J. A. Wilson. 2006. Resolving mismatches in U.S. ocean 

governance. Science 313:617-618.

Day, J. 2008. The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating and adapting marine planning and 

management--lessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Policy 32:823-831.

Day, J. C. 2002. Zoning–lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean and Coastal 

Management 45:139-156.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of 

Interior, and Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Final Rule, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

Marine National Monument. 71 Fed. Reg. 51134, (Aug. 29, 2006), Washington, D.C.

Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. C. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 

302:1907-1912.

DiNardo, G. T., and F. A. Parrish. 2006. Northwestern Hawaiian Islands third scientific 

symposium, November 2-4, 2004. The Atoll Research Bulletin, No. 543, Washington, 

D.C.

DLNR. 2005. Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine Refuge. Department of Land and Natural 

Resources (DLNR). Hawaii Administration Rules, Title 13, Ch. 60.5. State of Hawaii, 

Honolulu, HI.

Douvere, F. 2008. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea 

use management. Marine Policy 32:762-771.

Douvere, F., and C. Ehler. 2008. The role of marine spatial planning in implementing ecosystembased, sea use management. Marine Policy 32:759-844.

Ecological Applications 1998. Ecosystem management for sustainable fisheries, Ecological 

Applications 8(1), Supplement.

Ecological Applications 2003. The science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13(1), 

Supplement.

Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel. 1999. Ecosystem-based fishery management. A report to 

Congress by the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel, as mandated by the Sustainable 

Fisheries Act amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act 1996. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.

Ehler, C. N., and F. Douvere. 2007. Visions for a sea change. Report of the first international 

workshop on marine spatial planning. Intergovernmental oceanographic commission and 

man and the biosphere programme. IOC manual and guides no. 48. IOCAM Dossier no. 

4. UNESCO, Paris.
29

Epstein, P. R., T. E. Ford, C. Puccia, and C. D. A. Possas. 1994. Marine ecosystem health 

implications for public health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 740:13-23.

Executive Order 199A. Placing Midway Atoll under control of the U.S. Navy. 1903, 

Washington, D.C.

Executive Order 1019. Establishing the Hawaiian Islands Reservation. February 3, 1909, 

Washington, D.C.

Executive Order 13178. Northwestern Hawaiian Islands coral reef ecosystem reserve. 65 Fed. 

Reg. 76903-76910, December 4, 2000, Washington, D.C.

Executive Order 13196. Final Northwestern Hawaiian Islands coral reef ecosystem reserve. 66 

Fed. Reg. 7395-7397, January 18, 2001, Washington, D.C.

FAO. 2003. Fisheries management - 2. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Food and 

Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.

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.

Fernandes, L., J. O. N. Day, A. Lewis, S. Slegers, B. Kerrigan, D. A. N. Breen, D. Cameron, B. 

Jago, J. Hall, D. Lowe, J. Innes, J. Tanzer, V. Chadwick, L. Thompson, K. Gorman, M. 

Simmons, B. Barnett, K. Sampson, G. De'Ath, B. Mapstone, H. Marsh, H. Possingham, I. 

A. N. Ball, T. Ward, K. Dobbs, J. Aumend, D. E. B. Slater, and K. Stapleton. 2005. 

Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: Large-scale 

implementation of theory on marine protected areas. Conservation Biology 19:1733-

1744.

Folke, C., L. Pritchard Jr, F. Berkes, J. Colding, and U. Svedin. 2007. The problem of fit 

between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later. Ecology and Society 12:30.

Friedlander, A. M., E. K. Brown, and M. E. Monaco. 2007. Coupling ecology and GIS to 

evaluate efficacy of marine protected areas in Hawaii. Ecological Applications 17:715-

730.

Gaichas, S. K. 2008. A context for ecosystem-based fishery management: Developing concepts 

of ecosystems and sustainability. Marine Policy 32:393-401.

Galaz, V., P. Olsson, T. Hahn, C. Folke, and U. Svedin. 2007. The problem of fit among 

biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance 

systems: insights and emerging challenges. Pages 147-182 in O. R. Young, L. A. King, 

and H. Schroder, editors. Institutions and environmental change: principal findings, 

applications and research frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Garcia, S. M., A. Zerbi, C. Aliaume, T. Do Chi, and G. Lassarre. 2003. The ecosystem approach 

to fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 443. Food and Agricultural Organization 

of the United Nations., Rome.

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

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

41:724-734.

Grigg, R. W., and R. T. Pfund. 1980. Proceedings of the symposium on status of resource 

investigations in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR-80-04, 

Honolulu, HI.
30

Grigg, R. W., J. J. Polovina, A. M. Friedlander, and S. O. Rohmann. 2008. Biology of the coral 

reefs of the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Pages 573-594 in B. M. Riegl, and R. E. 

Dodge, editors. Coral reefs of the USA. Springer, Berlin.

Grigg, R. W., and K. Y. Tanoue. 1984. Proceedings of the second symposium on resource 

investigations in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01, 

Honolulu, HI.

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

Gunderson, L. H., C. S. Holling, and S. S. Light 1995. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of 

ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New York.

Gundlach, E. R., and M. Hayes. 1978. Classification of coastal environments in terms of 

potential vulnerability to oil spill damage. Marine Technology Society Journal 12:18-27.

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

vulnerability of global marine ecosystems to anthropogenic threats. Conservation Biology 

21:1301–1315.

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

K. S. Casey, C. Ebert, H. E. Fox, R. Fujita, D. Heinemann, H. S. Lenihan, E. M. P. 

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

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

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.

Hirsch Hadorn, G., H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye, 

C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann, and E. Zemp, editors. 2008. Handbook of Transdisciplinary 

Research. Springer, New York, NY.

Hiscock, K., and H. Tyler-Walters. 2006. Assessing the sensitivity of seabed species and 

biotopes–The marine life information network (MarLIN). Hydrobiologia 555:309-320.

Hughes, T. P., A. H. Baird, D. R. Bellwood, M. Card, S. R. Connolly, C. Folke, R. Grosberg, O. 

Hoegh-Guldberg, J. B. C. Jackson, J. Kleypas, J. M. Lough, P. Marshall, M. Nystrom, S. 

R. Palumbi, J. M. Pandolfi, B. Rosen, and J. Roughgarden. 2003. Climate change, human 

impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science 301:929-933.

Hughes, T. P., L. H. Gunderson, C. Folke, A. H. Baird, D. Bellwood, F. Berkes, B. Crona, A. 

Helfgott, H. Leslie, J. Norberg, M. Nyström, P. Olsson, H. Österblom, M. Scheffer, H. 

Schuttenberg, R. S. Steneck, M. Tengö, M. Troell, B. Walker, J. Wilson, and B. Worm. 

2007. Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef and the Grand Canyon World 

Heritage areas. Ambio 36:586–592.

Kittinger, J. N. 2008. The legal nexus in U.S. fisheries management: application in the Hawaiian 

longline fishery litigation. University of Hawai‘i Law Review 30:269-293 [online] 

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jkitt/Publications.html.

Kittinger, J. N., K. N. Duin, and B. A. Wilcox. 2009. Commercial fishing, conservation and 

compatibility in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Marine Policy 34:208-217.

Lebel, J. 2003. Health: An ecosystem approach. International Development Research Centre, 

Ottawa, Canada.

Leslie, H., M. Ruckelshaus, I. R. Ball, S. Andelman, and H. P. Possingham. 2003. Using siting 

algorithms in the design of marine reserve networks. Ecological Applications 13:185-

198.
31

Leslie, H. M., and K. L. McLeod. 2007. Confronting the challenges of implementing marine

ecosystem-based management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5:540-548.

Link, J. S. 2002. What does ecosystem-based fisheries management mean? Fisheries 27:18-21.

Linstone, H. A., and M. Turoff, editors. 2002. The Delphi Method: Techniques and 

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

Lubchenco, J., S. R. Palumbi, S. D. Gaines, and S. Andelman. 2003. Plugging a hole in the 

ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13:3-7.

Margules, C. R., and R. L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243-

253.

McLeod, K. and H. Leslie (eds.). 2009. Ecosystem-Based Management for the Oceans: 

Resilience Approaches. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Memorandum of Agreement. 2006. Memorandum of Agreement Among the State of Hawaii 

Department of Land and Natural Resources, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration for Promoting Coordinated Management of the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. Dec. 8, 2006, Honolulu, HI.

Michel, J., M. O. Hayes, and P. J. Brown. 1978. Application of the oil spill vulnerability index to 

the shorelines of Lower Cook Inlet, AK. Environmental Geology 1:107-117.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: health synthesis: a 

report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. World Health Organization and

Millenium Ecosystems Assessment, Geneva.

Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood. 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.

Norse, E. A., and L. B. Crowder, editors. 2005a. Marine conservation biology: the science of 

maintaining the sea's biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Norse, E. A., and L. B. Crowder. 2005b. Why marine conservation biology? Pages 1-18 in E. A. 

Norse, and L. B. Crowder, editors. Marine conservation biology: the science of 

maintaining the sea's biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Noss, R. F., C. Carroll, K. Vance-Borland, and G. Wuerthner. 2002. A multicriteria assessment 

of the irreplaceability and vulnerability of sites in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. 

Conservation Biology 16:895-908.

NRC 1999. Sustaining marine fisheries. Natural Resources Council. Committee on Ecosystem 

Management for Sustainable Marine Fisheries. National Academies Press, Washington 

DC.

Nyström, M., and C. Folke. 2001. Spatial resilience of coral reefs. Ecosystems 4:406-417.

Nyström, M., C. Folke, and F. Moberg. 2000. Coral reef disturbance and resilience in a humandominated environment. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15:413-417.

Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T. P. Hughes. 2008. Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based 

management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences 205:9489-9494.

Parenteau, P. A., D. C. Baur, and J. L. Schorr. 2008. Legal authorities for ecosystem based 

management in U.S. coastal and ocean areas. Pages 597-654 in D. C. Baur, T. 

Eichenberg, and M. Sutton, editors. Ocean and Coastal Law and Policy. Section of 

Environment, Energy and Resources, American Bar Association, Chicago.
32

Pomeroy, R., and F. Douvere. 2008. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial 

planning process. Marine Policy 32:816-822.

Possingham, H. P., I. R. Ball and S. Andelman 2000. Mathematical methods for identifying 

representative reserve networks. In: S. Ferson and M. Burgman (eds) Quantitative 

methods for conservation biology. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 291-305.

Presidential Proclamation 2416. Renaming the Hawaiian Islands Reservation as the Hawaiian 

Islands National Wildlife Refuge. July 25, 1940.

Presidential Proclamation 8031. Establishment of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine 

National Monument. 71 Fed. Reg. 36443, June 26, 2006, Washington, D.C.

Presidential Proclamation 8112. Amending Proclamation 8031 of June 15, 2006, To Read, 

‘‘Establishment of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument’’. 72 Fed. Reg. 

10031, February 28, 2007, Washington, D.C.

Ruckelshaus, M., T. Klinger, N. Knowlton, and D. P. DeMaster. 2008. Marine ecosystem-based 

management in practice: Scientific and governance challenges. BioScience 58:53-63.

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

Analysis 7:159-172.

Salafsky, N., R. Margoluis, and K. Redford. 2001. Adaptive management: A tool for 

conservation practitioners. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C.

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

of Management Review 25:43-62.

Selkoe, K. A., B. S. Halpern, C. M. Ebert, E. C. Franklin, E. R. Selig, K. S. Casey, J. Bruno, and 

R. J. Toonen. 2008a. A map of human impacts to a “pristine” coral reef ecosystem, the 

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. Coral Reefs in review. [Do not cite 

without authors’ permission: selkoe@nceas.ucsb.edu].

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

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater 

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

Sherman, K. 1991. The large marine ecosystem concept: Research and management strategy for 

living marine resources. Ecological Applications 1:349-360.

Sobel, J., and C. Dahlgren 2004. Marine reserves: a guide to science, design, and use. Island 

Press, Washington, D.C.

Soule, M. E., and B. A. Wilcox 1980. Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological 

perspective. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.

State of Hawai‘i, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Nomination of Papahānaumokuākea Marine 

National Monument for Inscription on the World Heritage List. Honolulu, Hawai‘i. 280 

pgs.

USCG. 2008. personal communication.n J. O'Malley, Honolulu, HI.

USFWS, NOAA, and State of Hawaii. 2008. Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. 

Monument Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), State of Hawai'i Department of Land 

and Natural Resources, Honolulu, HI.

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.
33

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

conservation efforts. Nature 440:337-340.

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

An approach to identifying vulnerable marine areas. Conservation Biology 19:86-97.
34

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 Web site.

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) 

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 (NMSP06-11) 
35

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 (ONMS06-04)

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) 

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) 
36

Distribution and Sighting Frequency of Reef Fishes in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (MSD-01-1) 

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 (MSD-00-1) 

Multi-species and Multi-interest Management: an Ecosystem Approach to Market Squid (Loligo opalescens) 

Harvest in California (MSD-99-1)