Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-14-08

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries March 2014

A Review of Resource Management

Strategies for Protection of Seamounts
About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series

The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

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

more than 170,000 square miles of ocean and Great Lakes waters. The 13 national marine 

sanctuaries and one marine national monument within the National Marine Sanctuary System 

represent areas of America’s ocean and Great Lakes environment that are of special national 

significance. Within their waters, giant humpback whales breed and calve their young, coral 

colonies flourish, and shipwrecks tell stories of our maritime history. Habitats include beautiful 

coral reefs, lush kelp forests, whale migrations corridors, spectacular deep-sea canyons, and 

underwater archaeological sites. These special places also provide homes to thousands of 

unique or endangered species and are important to America’s cultural heritage. Sites range in 

size from one square mile to almost 140,000 square miles and serve as natural classrooms, 

cherished recreational spots, and are home to valuable commercial industries.

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. All publications are 

available on the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Web site 

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

A Review of Resource Management

Strategies for Protection of Seamounts

Oren T. Frey1and Andrew P. DeVogelaere1

1 Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 99 Pacific Street #455, Monterey, CA 93940 USA

Silver Spring, Maryland

March 2014

U.S. Department of Commerce

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration

Kathryn Sullivan, Ph.D.

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Ocean Service

Holly Bamford, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

Daniel J. Basta, Director
ii

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 http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov.

Cover

Black coral, primnoid coral, and feather stars flourish 2,669 m (8,757 ft) deep on the pristine 

Davidson Seamount off the coast of California. Photo credit: MBARI/MBNMS.

Suggested Citation

Frey, Oren, and A.P. DeVogelaere. 2014. A Review of Resource Management Strategies for 

Protection of Seamounts. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-14-08. U.S. 

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

National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 52 pp. 

Contact

Andrew P. DeVogelaere, andrew.devogelaere@noaa.gov, Mailing address: 99 Pacific Street 

#455, Monterey, CA 93940. Phone: 831.647.4228
iii

Abstract

Seamounts are prominent undersea mountains characterized by complex topography that provide

a variety of habitat for rich and diverse communities. Of the world’s thousands of identified

seamounts, most are difficult to access and few have been studied in any detail. Yet there is 

growing awareness that seamounts are special undersea features hosting unique and highly 

productive ecosystems, and they are of great interest to researchers in many fields. Over the past 

decade, there has been a strong push to protect seamount communities from threats ranging from 

deep-sea fishing to harvesting of non-living marine resources. A number of resource protection 

mechanisms exist for seamounts, ranging from national legislation to multi-lateral agreements to 

conserve seamounts on the high seas, using the authority of international instruments. Several 

prominent seamounts off the U.S. west coast have been protected, with Davidson Seamount in 

the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary having the highest level of protection. While there 

are a number of other examples of seamount protection successes in both U.S. and foreign 

waters, as well as in waters beyond the jurisdiction of any nation, there is a wide range in both 

the scope of protective measures and in the designating governments’ resource management 

capacities.

Key Words

Seamount, marine protected area, conservation, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 

MBNMS, threats, deep-sea, resource protection
iv

Table of Contents

Topic Page

Abstract..........................................................................................................................................iii

Key Words.....................................................................................................................................iii

What are Seamounts?...................................................................................................................... 1

Distribution of Seamounts .............................................................................................................. 1

Why Are Seamounts Important?..................................................................................................... 4

Threats to Seamounts...................................................................................................................... 5

Prioritizing Seamounts for Protection............................................................................................. 9

Seamount Protection Mechanisms................................................................................................ 14

Review of Protections for Seamounts........................................................................................... 19

Offshore U.S. West Coast.......................................................................................................................19

Other Seamounts in or near U.S. Waters................................................................................................23

Examples of Other Seamount Conservation Measures...........................................................................29

Conclusions................................................................................................................................... 41

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 42
v

List of Figures and Tables

Figure/Table Number and Title ......................................................... Page

Figure 1. Estimated distribution of approximately 14,000 particularly well-defined (conical) large 

seamounts....................................................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Locations of 171 seamounts for which Seamounts Online has invertebrate data........................... 3

Figure 3. Examples of seamount organisms.................................................................................................. 4

Figure 4. The distribution of major fisheries on seamounts and ridges......................................................... 6

Figure 5. Destruction on the Corner Rise Seamounts of the Northwest Atlantic .......................................... 7

Figure 6. Number of MPAs worldwide containing different types of critical habitat ..................................10

Figure 7. Preliminary Seamount Ecosystem Evaluation Framework (SEEF) for 15 seamounts in the 

Atlantic and Pacific oceans............................................................................................................................11

Figure 8. Seamount Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) portfolio plot based on EBSA 

likelihood scores and threat scores for eight case studies..............................................................................13

Figure 9. Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs) that have competence to regulate deepsea fisheries ...................................................................................................................................................18

Figure 10. Location and protection status (if any) of seamount complexes off the U.S. west coast ............20

Figure 11. The New England Seamount Chain and the Corner Rise Seamounts .........................................24

Figure 12. The western New England Seamounts........................................................................................24

Figure 13. The Alaska Seamount Habitat Protection Area...........................................................................26

Figure 14. The Hancock Seamounts.............................................................................................................27

Figure 15. Bowie Seamount Marine Protected Area ....................................................................................30

Figure 16. Huon Commonwealth Marine Reserve, Australia.......................................................................32

Figure 17. Cover of Solenosmilia thicket on seamounts south of Tasmania with differing fishing histories

.......................................................................................................................................................................32

Figure 18. Location of benthic protection areas (BPAs) and seamount closures in New Zealand’s EEZ .....34

Figure 19. Seamounts and hydrothermal vents in the OSPAR Convention Area / Northeast Atlantic 

Fisheries Convention (NEAFC) Regulatory Area .........................................................................................35

Figure 20. The current network of OSPAR MPAs and fishery closures implemented by the North East 

Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC).....................................................................................................37

Figure 21. Seamounts Marine Management Area, surrounding Cocos Island, Costa Rica ..........................39

Figure 22. The marine protected area around Chagos, British Indian Ocean Territory................................40

Table 1. Number of seamounts by U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) statistical regions. ...... 3

Table 2. International instruments and their application in managing and protecting seamounts ................16

Table 3. Activities related to seamount exploitation and protection, as well as relevant authorities.............17

Table 4. Comparison of protections for seamounts located within U.S. EEZ ..............................................28

Table 5. Allowed & prohibited activities in the Huon Commonwealth Marine Reserve, Australia.............33
1

What are Seamounts?

Seamounts are prominent undersea mountains that rise relatively steeply at least several hundred 

meters from the surrounding deep-sea floor. They are generally isolated and of volcanic and/or 

tectonic origin, and are typically cone-shaped features with a circular, elliptical or more 

elongated base (Santos et al. 2010; CBD 2008a; Davis et al. 2002). Although seamounts can be 

very large features in terms of their elevation and the footprint of their base, most definitions

specify that seamounts do not emerge above the sea surface (Epp & Smoot 1989). Traditionally, 

geologists have included height as a defining factor of seamounts, and seamounts have been 

widely classified as geomorphological features with elevations exceeding 1,000 meters above the 

seabed (CBD 2008a; Baker et al. 2001). Pitcher et al. (2007) proposed an alternative definition 

that classifies seamounts as topographically distinct seafloor features that: a) are at least 100 

meters high, b) do not break the sea surface, c) are not large banks and shoals, and d) are not 

situated on continental shelves. Satellite altimetry has been key in identifying large seamounts, 

which are considered those with heights exceeding 1,500 meters, regardless of depth (Santos et 

al. 2010). Smaller features, which are often older seamounts that have sunk under their own 

weight and the subsidence of the lithosphere, are referred to as knolls, mounds, or seamounds

(Kitchingman and Lai 2004). These formations must be identified through remote sensing and 

local acoustic mapping, and have generally been less described and sampled.

Seamounts are often characterized by a complex topography that includes terraces, pinnacles, 

ridges, crevices and craters. Seamounts thus provide a variety of living conditions and 

substrates, creating suitable habitat for rich and diverse communities (van den Hove and Moreau 

2007). As large features, seamounts also have a major effect on the physical structure of the 

water column (Rogers 2004). Oceanographic effects of seamounts include the formation of 

trapped waves, jets, eddies and closed circulations called Taylor Columns. These phenomena are 

usually associated with the upwelling of nutrient rich waters, which can lead to increased 

productivity in waters near the surface (Rogers 2004; Santos et al. 2010).

Distribution of Seamounts

Seamounts often, but not always, occur along mid-ocean ridges and the edges of tectonic plates, 

with more elongated seamounts occurring in areas of seafloor spreading (Davis et al. 2002). 

There is no agreed upon number of seamounts in the world, as multiple definitions have been 

used to distinguish between seamounts and seamounds. Additionally, many studies have relied 

on automatic (algorithmic) detection of potential seamounts by analysis of global gravity or 

bathymetric data obtained by satellite and direct ship tracks1(Allain et al. 2008). The use of 

 

1

In mapping seamounts and other sources of ocean-floor relief, ship track bathymetric data provide high resolution 

but only covers 10% of the world’s oceans. Features are identified by comparing feature height to that of the 

neighboring seafloor, the slope of the flanks, and the area of the summit. Satellite altimetry offers an alternative 

method, which provides continuous coverage although at a lower resolution. Altimetry data products use gravity 

anomalies to predict bathymetry. Over the ocean, anomalies in free-air gravity are mainly caused by lateral density 

variations caused by undulations of the seafloor. The gravity field over a seamount is locally enhanced because 

basalt is much denser than seawater. Thus, local gravity maxima, together with gravity anomalies caused by 

deformations to the surrounding seafloor, can be used to identify seamount locations (Wessel et al. 2010).
2

predictive datasets introduces additional variability since the bathymetric maps used have 

varying levels of resolution (Kitchingman and Lai 2004). Moreover, due to limited ground 

truthing, existing seamount databases have largely remained unvalidated and require crosschecking to remove features that are not actually seamounts (Allain et al. 2008).

Using the traditional definition of seamounts as features with elevations greater than 1,000 

meters, researchers have typically estimated that there are between 33,000 – 39,000 isolated

large seamounts in the world (Yesson et al. 2011; Hillier and Watts 2007). A study by 

Kitchingman and Lai (2004) using a digital global elevation map distributed by the U.S. National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) found the number to be about 14,000. 

Including a wider range of seamount shapes or ridge peak and size could increase this number to 

100,000 (CBD 2008a). While many seamounts are situated within states’ exclusive economic 

zones (EEZs), an estimated 53% of the world’s known seamounts are located in areas beyond the 

limits of national jurisdiction (CBD 2008c; Alder and Woods 2004). Although seamounts are 

found in every ocean basin and at most latitudes, over half of the world’s known or inferred 

seamounts are located in the Pacific Ocean (CBD 2008c; Fig. 1). The U.N. Food and 

Agriculture Organization (FAO)’s division of the world’s oceans into 19 marine statistical 

regions allows for useful summary information that describes the global distribution of

seamounts by region. This regional summary is useful because it describes not only the quantity 

of seamount features, but also specifies the area they encompass and the extent to which they are 

included within marine protected areas (Table 1).

Figure 1. Estimated distribution of approximately 14,000 particularly well-defined (conical) large seamounts. 

Including a wider range of seamount shape or ridge peak and size could increase their number to 100,000. 

Figure from (CBD 2008c).

A very small proportion of the world’s seamounts have been the subject of scientific study

(Staudigel et al. 2010). Only about 350 seamounts have been sampled, and fewer than 200 have 

been studied in any detail (CBD 2008c). Just under 250 seamounts are listed on Seamounts 

Online (http://seamounts.sdsc.edu/), an online data portal that makes available data on species 

that have been observed or collected from seamounts (Fig. 2). Due to ease of access, most 

research has been conducted on seamounts in waters within national jurisdiction, and sampling 

has not been evenly distributed around the world (CBD 2008c).
3

Table 1. Number of seamounts by U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) statistical regions based 

on 30 arc-sec bathymetry data, filtered to exclude overlapping features, as estimated by Yesson et al. (2011). 

Areas are in km2. Productive seamounts are those with summit depths < 1,500 meters. “In MPA” refers to 

the number of seamounts with summits known to occur within marine protected areas listed on the World 

Database of Protected Areas, and “high seas” refers to seamounts in waters beyond the limits of national 

jurisdiction. Table from (Yesson et al. 2011).

Figure 2. Locations of 171 seamounts for which Seamounts Online has invertebrate data. Circles indicate 

seamounts outside any country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Triangles indicate seamounts within EEZs. 

Small dots indicate the predicted locations of the > 14,000 unsampled seamounts identified by Kitchingman 

and Lai (2004). Figure from (Stocks 2004).
4

Why Are Seamounts Important?

Seamounts remain little-understood environments. The geology, oceanography, biodiversity, 

and ecology of seamounts, as well as the effects of human activities on seamount environments, 

have only recently begun to be studied (Gubbay 2003; DeVogelaere et al. 2005). However, it 

has become clear that seamounts are special undersea features hosting unique and highly 

productive ecosystems, and they are of great interest to researchers in many fields (e.g., Lundsten 

et al. 2009b, Lundsten et al. 2012, Staudigel et al. 2010, Pitcher et al. 2007).

Figure 3. Examples of seamount organisms, including purple goiter sponge on Taney Seamount B (top left);

gorgonian soft corals (Paragorgia sp. and Metallogorgia sp.), a brisingid sea star perched on a dead coral 

skeleton, and two species of sponge at the New England Seamount complex (top right); vent communities of 

palm worms, tubeworms, and limpets near the top of Hulk chimney, Main Endeavour Field, near Axial 

Seamount (bottom right and bottom left). Photo credits: MBARI; NOAA 2003; Bobbitt 2007.

From a geological perspective, seamount abundance and distribution can be applied to inform 

research on the formation of the seafloor (Davis et al. 2007; Hillier and Watts 2007), and from an 

oceanographic point of view seamounts have considerable impact on the circulation of water 

masses and can affect large-scale events such as tsunami propagation (Mofjeld et al. 2001). The 

complex topography that often characterizes seamounts creates a variety of habitats that host rich 

and diverse ecological communities (Rogers 2004). Aggregations of open-ocean and deep-sea 

marine species, including fishes, sharks, sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds, are common 

around and above seamounts since food supplies and reproductive habitats tend to be more 
5

concentrated on seamounts than in the open ocean (Rogers 2004; Maxwell et al. 2012). When 

commercially valuable species are aggregated around seamounts, there can be strong incentives 

to develop fisheries for those species (Koslow 2001). Seamounts are also home to many deepwater coral reefs, which add further environmental complexity and can provide spectacular 

biogenic habitats (DeVogelaere et al. 2005).

Seamounts are thus widely recognized as biodiversity hotspots, and due to physical isolation taxa 

on some seamounts exhibit high levels of endemism (de Forges et al. 2000; Allain et al. 2008); 

though there is growing debate on endemism associated with seamounts (McClain et al. 2009). 

In addition to having the potential capacity to act as centers of endemism and speciation, some 

seamounts may act as “stepping stones” for the dispersal of coastal species (Brewin et al. 2007; 

Stocks 2009). Some species of fishes associated with seamounts are very slow growing and slow 

to mature, and exhibit extreme longevity (Koslow et al. 2000; Rogers 2004). The prevalence of 

large, slow-growing species such as cold-water corals, which are easily damaged by threats to 

seamounts, makes many seamount communities highly fragile. These dynamics, require careful 

management based on available scientific information and the precautionary principle in order to 

prevent overharvesting and habitat damage. Seamounts offer excellent case studies for 

understanding marine biodiversity patterns, and offer ecosystems for study that have not yet 

received scientific attention consistent with their biological and ecological value (Stocks 2009; 

CBD 2008c).

Threats to Seamounts

Seamounts worldwide face a number of threats. A variety of factors, such as seamount size and 

depth, accessibility, the types of resources present, and existing regulations and protections, 

cause the severity of these threats to vary highly from one seamount to another. However, most 

seamount communities are likely to be affected by some combination of these threats, which 

have been described in detail as they pertain to Davidson Seamount in the Monterey Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS 2012a).

Harvest of living marine resources

Seamounts are home to at least 70 species of commercially valuable fish and shellfish, and 

overexploitation of seamount fisheries (Fig. 4) is thought to pose the greatest risk to seamount 

habitats worldwide (Rogers 1994; Morato et al. 2010). Fishes targeted by deep-sea fisheries 

include orange roughy and oreos in the temperate South Pacific, toothfish in the Southern Ocean, 

pelagic armourhead in the North Pacific, several species of Sebastes along the continental slope 

of the North Pacific and North Atlantic, and alfonsino (Beryx spp.) in the tropics and subtropics 

(Koslow et al. 2001). Longline and trawl fisheries can operate at depths of more than 1,500 m, 

and can deplete stocks of long-lived, slow-growing, low-fecund species quickly, leading to 

commercial extinction if not well regulated (Koslow 2001; Gubbay 2003; CBD 2008b). The 

benthic environment can also be severely impacted by seamount trawl fisheries, which can 

remove deep-water reefs and associated fauna from heavily fished areas (Koslow 2001; Van den 

Hove and Moreau 2007). The Corner Rise Seamounts of the Northwest Atlantic are an example 

of the type of damage that seamount trawl fisheries can cause (Fig. 5). Recovery from these 

impacts may be very difficult, as a study by Williams et al. (2010) showed no change in the 
6

megabenthic assemblage consistent with recovery over a 5–10 year timeframe on seamounts 

where trawling had ceased.

Fisheries also exist in the waters above seamounts, and as fishing pressures increase in less 

regulated high seas areas, the loss of pelagic predators may cause impacts to deep-sea 

communities. Fishing pressure might be extended into deeper waters, and community 

composition could be altered if predation pressure were reduced due to fishing. Additionally, 

fragile, slow-growing precious corals (e.g. Corallium spp.) have been harvested in significant

quantities in the North Pacific, often on seamounts (Andrews et al. 2002; Andrews et al. 2005). 

These corals continue to fetch very high prices on the market, and only some have been included 

in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Appendix III (UNEPWCMC 2012).

Figure 4. The distribution of major fisheries on seamounts and ridges, including those in the high seas and in 

national waters. Figure from (Rogers et al. 2008).
7

Figure 5. Destruction on the Corner Rise Seamounts of the Northwest Atlantic. Yakutat Seamount (1,430 

m), with more than five species of coral and other species including brittle stars, starfish, crabs and mollusks 

(top left) and in 2005 with a dead coral bank showing extensive linear scars from trawling (top right); and 

Kükenthal Peak (725 m; Corner Seamount) with a community of whip corals, sea fans, and bamboo corals on 

a plateau that avoided trawling damage (bottom left) and with trawling scar marks that scientists say 

“effectively denuded" the seamount (bottom right). Figures adapted from (Kusek 2007; Waller et al. 2007).

Exploitation of non-living resources

An emerging threat to seamounts is the possibility that deep-sea mining companies may target 

seamount areas for new extractive activities. Some firms have investigated the potential to 

extract cobalt-rich ferromanganese oxide (Fe-Mn) crusts and polymetallic sulphides from 

seamounts (Stocks 2009). If such activities were to occur, the potential for impacts would 

include the loss of fossil records due to physical damage, the release of metals that affect benthic 

fauna, high levels of dissolved nutrients in the water column, damage to living resources using 

extracted resources as habitat or substrate, and the creation of sediment plumes and debris buildup at the base of the seamount (Sarma et al. 1998; CBD 2008b).

Offshore oil and gas exploration can also threaten seamount communities through the use of 

high-decibel seismic surveys, the release of “drilling muds” containing toxic contaminants (zinc, 

benzene, arsenic, radioactive materials) that are used to lubricate drill bits and maintain pressure, 

and the potential for spills and leaks (Patin and Cascio 1999).

Bioprospecting

The search for substances and genetic materials with potential industrial or commercial uses is 

termed bioprospecting, or sometimes bio-discovery (Van den Hove and Moreau 2007). Global 

sales of marine biotechnology products, including antivirals, antibiotics and anti-cancer 
8

compounds, were estimated at about US$2.4 billion for the year 2002 alone (Arico and Salpin

2006). The industry is poised for rapid growth, and unregulated harvesting is most likely on 

seamounts on the high seas, where a regulatory vacuum exists and overexploitation of 

commercially important species has already occurred. Although extensive harvesting may be 

restricted in some cases by difficult access and high costs, more likely scenarios involve the

retrieval of small numbers of specimens for testing, screening, and further study (Van den Hove 

and Moreau 2007). The collection of sensitive species at any scale could damage fragile 

seamount ecosystems.

Unmanaged research collection

Studies have suggested that the number of undiscovered seamount species far exceeds the 

number of species already discovered, and research efforts will continue to intensify as resources 

allow (Arico and Salpin 2005). Research interest is particularly high for deep-sea corals such as 

gorgonians since they can live for centuries and have a worldwide distribution, thereby providing 

a source of isotopic and geochemical data that can help reconstruct historical changes in 

oceanographic conditions and ocean climate (Tsounis et al. 2010). Over time, unmanaged 

research activities can pose a variety of threats to seamount ecosystems including unsustainable 

collection rates, habitat destruction by vessels and equipment, alteration of local hydrological 

and environmental conditions, unintended introduction of pollutants, and light and noise impacts 

(Arico and Salpin 2005).

Sea temperature rise

Any changes in seawater temperatures as a result of anthropogenic global climate change may 

adversely affect the biological functioning of corals and other seamount organisms. Cold-water 

corals, such as Lophelia pertusa, have been shown to be extremely sensitive to the physical 

characteristics of overlying seawater (Rogers 2004). Changing sea temperatures will likely be 

the cause of associated changes in ocean currents – a phenomenon with potentially severe 

impacts on productivity patterns and the functioning of seamount ecosystems, which often 

benefit from upwellings of nutrient-rich waters and eddies of water around their summit (Santos 

et al. 2010). Warmer seawater could also reduce the ocean’s overall primary productivity, 

thereby limiting the amount of organic matter that eventually falls to the seafloor and supplies 

deep-sea species with nutrients.

Ocean acidification

Currently, our oceans and marine organisms are experiencing the greatest increase in 

acidification of the past 300 million years, and mean ocean pH is predicted to be at its lowest 

level in 20 million years by 2050 (CBD 2008b; Turley et al. 2007). Although the full range of 

impacts that this drop in pH will have on deep-sea organisms remains unknown, the most 

profound effect involves acidic seawater de-saturating aragonite in water, limiting the ability of 

marine calcifying organisms that build their external skeletal material out of calcium carbonate

(Hofmann et al. 2010). Since deeper waters at higher latitudes already experience a lowered 

carbonate saturation state, cold-water calcifying organisms like the corals and invertebrates 

found at many seamounts may be among the species most vulnerable to acidification.

Though ocean acidification poses the threat of extinction before the scientific community has 

begun to fully understand deep-sea ecosystems, the problem could be compounded should 
9

incentives increase for commercial interests to develop CO2 sequestration schemes in the ocean 

(Santos et al. 2010). Ocean CO2 sequestration could take the form of storing carbon in 

geological formations under the seabed, on the seafloor, and in the water column of the deep 

ocean. Seafloor storage would form deep-water lakes of liquefied CO2, which is denser than 

surrounding seawater at depths over 3,000 meters (Hood et al. 2014). Though the time-delayed 

release of CO2 from these lakes would slow the release of CO2 into the atmosphere over the 

course of hundreds or thousands of years, the impact on deep-sea species and ecosystems that are 

unaccustomed to rapid environmental changes is largely unknown. Technological advances, 

market forces, and regulation of areas adjacent to seamounts will determine the extent to which

CO2 sequestration will exacerbate ocean acidification impacts on seamount communities.

Vessel Traffic

Although the risk of vessel groundings and sinkings are lower above seamounts than in coastal 

waters, spills can potentially occur from any transiting vessel carrying crude oil, bunker fuel, or 

other hazardous materials. Although petroleum products tend to float, heavier chemical 

compounds are more likely to sink and would introduce toxic substances to seamount

environments. Another class of threat related to vessel traffic is the possibility for cargo from 

container ships to be lost at sea. Impacts of lost cargo can include the threat of benthic habitat 

crushing or smothering, the introduction of foreign habitat structure, entrapment of organisms, 

ingestion of foreign materials by marine life, and the introduction of chemical pollutants (Frey 

and DeVogelaere, In review.). Finally, shipwrecks and submerged vessels may contain fuel oil, 

hydraulic fluid, and other chemicals and fluids that may leach out into the marine environment, 

posing an environmental contamination threat to seamount communities.

Other Threats

Seamount environments are also threatened by additional human activities that impact all ocean 

areas. These include dumping of waste at sea, the accumulation of marine debris, military 

activities, the installation of underwater cables, and diminished water quality (NOAA 2008).

Prioritizing Seamounts for Protection

As some of the world’s last wilderness areas, seamounts are considered vulnerable marine 

ecosystems (VMEs) by the FAO because they are often places that have both unique biodiversity

and resources of commercial interest. When unregulated exploitation of those resources occurs, 

the results can be severe, both ecologically and economically. Due to their vulnerability to a 

wide range of threats, seamounts are of high interest for conservation. The lack of existing 

management in many areas where seamounts are found makes them ideal candidates for 

protection in the form of offshore and high-seas marine protected areas (MPAs; Alder and 

Woods 2004; Davies et al. 2007). However, seamounts are only beginning to attract the level of 

conservation attention that other classes of VMEs such as seagrasses and coral reefs have 

attracted (Fig. 6). Seamount MPAs can focus on both undisturbed and disturbed seamount 

communities. Although there is no single management model that can be applied to all 

seamounts, limiting certain activities on and around seamount areas, in the form of seamount 

MPAs may provide opportunities for research and monitoring (as sentinel sites), or as baselines 

for recovery (Morato et al. 2010). One of the main challenges to protecting more seamount areas 
10

is the large data gap that persists in seamount science; it can be difficult for management 

authorities to decide which seamounts should be prioritized for protection when seamount 

community structure and the effects human activities have on seamount ecology are only 

beginning to be understood (Morato et al. 2010).

Figure 6. Number of MPAs worldwide containing different types of critical habitat. Figure from (Alder and 

Woods 2004).

Pitcher and colleagues (2010) have introduced a framework to standardize the parameters by 

which seamounts are characterized. The Seamount Ecosystem Evaluation Framework (SEEF) is 

a multidisciplinary tool developed to standardize the parameters by which seamounts are 

characterized. Part A of SEEF scores the extent of our knowledge about a range of attributes of 

individual seamounts, while Part B scores the relative severity of threats posed by human 

activities to the abundance and diversity of seamount resources. An initial SEEF has been 

produced for 15 seamounts in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, including Davidson Seamount in 

the MBNMS (Fig. 7). While the method used in developing the SEEF is useful, the authors 

suggest modifying the contents of the table given the availability of more recent information on 

resource management at Davidson Seamount and other sites.
11

Figure 7. Preliminary Seamount Ecosystem Evaluation Framework (SEEF) for 15 seamounts in the Atlantic 

and Pacific oceans. Figure from (Pitcher et al. 2010).
12

Another framework for evaluating seamounts for protection has been developed in response to 

the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) goal of preserving 10% of all marine biomes by 

2020 (Taranto et al. 2012). Achieving this goal requires the identification of ecologically or 

biologically significant marine areas (EBSA), including seamounts, in all biogeographic regions. 

There are seven selection criteria for nominating EBSA, including 1) uniqueness or rarity; 2) 

special importance for life-history stages of species; 3) importance for threatened, endangered or 

declining species and/or habitats; 4) vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity, or slow recovery; 5) 

biological productivity; 6) biological diversity; and 7) naturalness (Ardron et al. 2009). The 

ecosystem evaluation framework for seamounts developed by Taranto and colleagues (2012) 

combines the likelihood of a seamount constituting an EBSA and its level of human impact, with 

the result being the classification of individual seamounts into four major portfolio conservation 

categories. Application of the framework to eight case study seamounts classified half as

deserving of protection (high EBSA likelihood and high threats exposure; Fig. 8). The sheer 

number of seamounts in the world, most of which have not been the subject of scientific study, 

makes comprehensive, global application of these tools a major undertaking.

Clark and colleagues (2011) attempted a global seamount classification by using “biologically 

meaningful” physical variables for which global-scale data are available. Four key 

environmental variables (potential species richness and abundance of a community, summit 

depth, oxygen levels, and seamount proximity to continents) were applied to the bathyal zone for 

seamounts in the Kitchingman and Lai (2004) dataset (Clark et al. 2011). The study identified 

194 classes of seamounts with similar characteristics throughout the world’s oceans. These types 

of classification systems can be applied at any geographic scale, and action can most usefully be 

directed at regions, clusters of seamounts within reach of exploitative activities, and seamounts 

that have been studied in detail (Santos et al. 2010). Grouping seamounts by their general 

characteristics can thus assist resource managers in identifying which seamounts and seamount 

chains would offer the most “bang for the buck” if afforded protections.
13

Figure 8. Seamount Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) portfolio plot based on EBSA

likelihood scores and threat scores for eight case studies. Four portfolio categories include Blue (low EBSA

likelihood and low threats exposure), Yellow (low EBSA likelihood and high threats exposure), Green (high 

EBSA likelihood and low threats exposure), and Red (high EBSA likelihood and high threats exposure). 

Error bars represent the data uncertainty index proportional to data availability and quality. Figure from 

(Taranto et al. 2012).
14

Seamount Protection Mechanisms

Possible conservation measures for seamounts range from MPAs to activity-based restrictions, 

and also include regulation of activities beyond the immediate vicinity of seamounts (Probert et 

al. 2007). MPAs have been defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature 

(IUCN) as: “Any area of inter-tidal or sub-tidal terrain, together with its overlying water and 

associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other 

effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment” (CBD 2003). MPAs are 

managed to achieve different conservation objectives and have varying degrees of protection, 

ranging from fully protected reserve areas to areas that permit various user activities (CBD 

2003).

A seamount’s location plays an important part in its management effectiveness. Both territorial 

waters and EEZs comprise waters under national jurisdiction, and affording legal protection to 

seamounts in these settings is relatively straightforward since most countries already have a legal 

and administrative basis for designating and implementing MPA programs (Gubbay 2003). 

National policy instruments that may apply to seamounts include ocean and coastal planning 

efforts, fisheries management, minerals management, and legislation related to hazardous waste 

disposal, transportation and navigation, protected area designations or expansions, and 

biodiversity protection (Alder and Woods 2004). Once established, various tools can be used to 

manage seamount MPAs, including spatial zoning and closures, size considerations, mapping, 

enforcement, and policing (Santos et al. 2010). Although an estimated 155 countries have

seamounts within their maritime jurisdictions, by 2004 only 22 had applied protected area 

legislation to all or a portion of them, and in some cases legislation did not result in meaningful 

protection (Alder and Woods 2004). Australia, New Zealand, Norway and the United States

were among the first countries to protect seamounts in waters within national jurisdiction (Thiel 

and Koslow 2001).

In waters outside of EEZs, considered ‘areas beyond national jurisdiction’ (ABNJ) or the ‘high 

seas,’ there is often no specific legal mechanism for the designation of protected areas despite a 

mandate from the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to protect and 

preserve the marine environment, to conserve natural resources, and to cooperate with other 

States in this regard (Gubbay 2003). Additionally, a 2007 UN General Assembly resolution on 

sustainable fisheries specifically mentions the needs to protect seamounts, calling upon states “to 

take action immediately, individually and through regional fisheries management organizations 

and arrangements, and consistent with the precautionary approach and ecosystem approaches, to 

sustainably manage fish stocks and protect vulnerable marine ecosystems, including seamounts, 

hydrothermal vents and cold water corals, from destructive fishing practices, recognizing the 

immense importance and value of deep-sea ecosystems and the biodiversity they contain” 

(UNGA 2007). The legal and geopolitical challenges associated with protecting seamounts and 

other habitats in ABNJ make high seas seamount MPAs a very recent phenomenon. Creating 

these areas requires a high degree of interdisciplinary cooperation between States working under 

the authority of a variety of binding and non-binding international legal instruments (Table 2). 

Several of these legal instruments and conventions may apply to some of the many activities 

related to regulating seamount exploitation (Table 3).
15

In settings where high seas MPAs are unlikely to be created, activity-based regulations offer an 

alternative means of providing protections for seamounts. Strategies are most likely to focus on 

fishing, as biologists and resource managers usually perceive deep-sea fisheries as the largest 

threat to seamounts. When their member countries have shared goals, the stronger regional 

fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) have the ability to regulate deep-sea fisheries in 

international waters, including gear restrictions and closed areas. Of the more than 30 RFMOs in 

existence, those that have been most engaged in regulating seamount fisheries – usually bottom 

trawling – are located in the North Atlantic, although there is also potential for RFMOs in other 

regions to take similar actions (Fig. 9; Probert et al. 2007). The management objectives of any 

institutional arrangement that is used should focus on a) managing seamounts on an ecosystem 

basis; b) taking a highly precautionary approach, given the limited knowledge of seamount 

ecosystems and their vulnerability to overexploitation; c) incorporating natural variability by 

taking an adaptive management approach; d) targeting recovery and restoration as well as 

prevention of degradation; and e) working within and across a wider management framework

(Alder and Woods 2004; Santos et al. 2010).
16

Table 2. International instruments and their application in managing and protecting seamounts. UNCLOS, 

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; IMO, International Maritime Organization; IUU, Illegal, 

Unreported and Unregulated (fishing). Table from (Alder and Woods 2004)

.

Page 70, T. Morato and D. Pauly (eds.), Seamounts: Biodiversity and Fisheries

Table 1: International Instruments and their Application in Managing and Protecting Seamounts

Instrument Potential for Seamount Management and Protection

Binding

UNCLOS-Mining Agreement Under Article 162.2.x of UNCLOS the International Seabed Authority may

disapprove an area for exploitation where substantial evidence exists that mining

activities pose a serious risk to the marine environment. Article 145 provides for the

protection and conservation of the natural resources of the Area and the prevention

of damage to the flora and fauna in the marine environment.

UNCLOS – Pollution Under Part XII of UNCLOS States are obliged to protect and preserve the marine

environment, especially ‘rare or fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat of depleted

threatened or endangered species’ and to take measures individually or collectively

to not cause pollution within and beyond their jurisdictions.

UNCLOS - Fisheries UNCLOS obliges States to cooperate and conserve the living resource of the high

seas. The States that are party to the Convention can take whatever measures are

necessary to ‘maintain or restore populations of harvested species at levels which

can produce the maximum sustainable yield’ and measures such as marine

protected areas are not prohibited.

Fish Stocks Agreement This Agreement addresses the shortcomings of UNCLOS in dealing with straddling

and highly migratory stocks and is very relevant to fish on seamounts. The

Agreement requires States to adopt compatible management measures without

specifying which measures prevail in the case of disagreements (de Fontaubert,

2001). The Precautionary Principle also features prominently in the agreement and

obliges States to be more cautious when information is inferior and not to use a

lack of information as justification to avoid taking appropriate conservation and

management measures

Regional Fisheries

Agreements/Conventions

Most agreements contain provisions to undertake a range of fisheries management

options that could be used to protect and manage seamount resources including

closing areas to fishing, restricting the use of specific gear (e.g. trawls) and the size

of species caught. Agreements, which restrict the range of species they can manage

may need to be amended to include seamount species.

Convention on Biological

Diversity and Jakarta Mandate

Article 4 extends the Convention beyond national jurisdictions for processes and

activities undertaken by member States while the Jakarta Mandate includes calls

for the establishment of MPAs.

Convention on the

International Trade of

Endangered Species (CITES)

CITES could be used to the management and protection of selected seamount

species. Currently there are no seamount species listed, however, there have been

calls to add the Patagonian toothfish to the list (Willock, 2002).

London Convention and IMO

Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas

Waste disposal at sea is managed through this convention. The activities of ships,

including discharges in the vicinity of seamounts can also be managed using

Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs).

World Heritage Area

Convention

The Convention stipulates that World Heritage Areas must be contained within

national boundaries and therefore of limited use in managing and protecting

seamounts in international waters.

Regional Seas Programs Some of the treaties that establish specific Regional Seas Programmes extend into

the high seas. In additional some treaties have provisions and protocols to protect

areas and wildlife.

Non Binding

FAO Code of Conduct The Code can be used to manage fisheries on seamounts.

Agenda 21 and World Summit

on Sustainable Development

(WSSD)

The international initiatives have called for the establishment of marine protected

areas on the high seas. The WSSD called for a network of Marine and Coastal

Protected Areas within and beyond national jurisdiction by 2012.

FAO International Plan of

Action to Prevent, Deter and

Eliminate Illegal, Unreported

and Unregulated Fishing

Seamounts are considered major centres of IUU fishing and therefore addressing

the issue of IUU will contribute to managing and protecting seamounts (Rigg,

2004).
17

Table 3. Activities related to seamount exploitation and protection, as well as relevant authorities. CBD, 

Convention on Biological Diversity; COP, Conference of the Parties; MOP, Meeting of the Parties; UNCLOS, 

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; RFMO, Regional Fishery Management Organization; 

UNFSA, United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations; IPOA, International Plan of Action; IUU, Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (fishing); ICCAT, 

International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas; CMS, Convention on Migratory Species; 

UNFCCC, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; IMO, International Maritime 

Organization; MEPC, Maritime Environment Protection Committee; MSC, Maritime Safety Committee.

Table adapted from (Santos et al. 2010).

Activities Legal basis Relevant authority 

Designation of MPAs 

(within EEZs) National legislation National ministries/agencies 

Designation of MPAs 

(High Seas) 

CBD CBD COP 

Regional Seas Conventions Regional Seas Conventions MOPs 

UNCLOS International Sea Bed Authority 

Fishing

(within EEZs) National or regional legislation National ministries/agencies

Fishing (High Seas) 

RFMOs RFMOs 

National legislation National ministries/agencies

UNCLOS, UNFSA and other 

associated agreements 

Informal consultations of the Parties to the 

UNFSA 

Fishing (general) 

FAO Code of Conduct for 

Responsible Fisheries, FAO 

Compliance Agreement 

FAO 

IPOA-IUU FAO 

IPOA-Sharks FAO 

Tuna and billfish 

fisheries ICCAT (Atlantic region only) ICCAT (Atlantic region only)

Bycatch of migratory 

species CMS CMS COP 

Mineral, petroleum, 

gas and oil extraction UNCLOS 

National ministries/agencies for the legal 

continental shelf, International Sea Bed 

Authority for areas beyond 

Bioprospecting UNCLOS 

National ministries/agencies for the legal 

continental shelf, International Sea Bed 

Authority for areas beyond

CBD CBD COP 

Pollution Regional Seas Conventions Regional Seas Conventions Secretariats and 

MOPs 

Climate change UNFCCC UNFCCC COP 

Shipping UNCLOS & IMO instruments IMO’s MEPC, MSC and Assembly 
18

Figure 9. Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs) that have competence to regulate deep-sea 

fisheries. Dark blue, areas that lack coverage by an RFMO with the competence to manage deep-water 

fisheries on the high seas. Colored areas (in light blue, purple, green yellow, and orange), where RFMOs have 

a mandate to regulate deep-water fisheries. CCAMLR, Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine 

Living Resources; GFCM, General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean; NAFO, North West 

Atlantic Fisheries Organization; SEAFO, South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization; NEAFC, North East 

Atlantic Fisheries Commission. Figure from (Probert et al. 2007).
19

Review of Protections for Seamounts

Here we describe some of the better-known seamounts and seamount chains, focusing on 

particularly notable characteristics and the status of implementing protective conservation 

measures, if any. This section is broken into sections of increasing geographic scale, starting 

with seamounts offshore of the U.S. West Coast, and then expanding to seamounts in or 

relatively near other parts of the U.S. EEZ. The protections afforded to seamounts located within 

the U.S. EEZ are then summarized (Table 4). Finally, we conclude by highlighting several 

examples of successful seamount protection that have been undertaken globally.

Offshore U.S. West Coast

Several seamounts are found off the U.S. West Coast, including several complexes off of central 

California, defined as extending from Point Conception in the south to San Francisco Bay in the 

north (Fig. 10). Of the seamount complexes listed here that are located within the U.S. EEZ,

most have been designated as habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) by the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (PFMC; PFMC 2005). HAPCs are a subset of essential fish habitat (EFH) 

designations. Five types of HAPC have been defined by NOAA Fisheries for the Pacific 

groundfish fishery on the west coast: estuaries, canopy kelp, seagrass, rocky reefs, and “areas of 

interest,” which may encompass a variety of submarine features, such as banks, seamounts, and 

canyons (PFMC 2005). As prominent features in the underwater landscape, these seamounts are 

considered important to Pacific groundfish management, of which the rockfish complex is part 

of, since currents generated by seamounts retain rockfish larvae and zooplankton, a principal 

food source for rockfish (PFMC 2005).

HAPCs are defined as areas that are rare, particularly susceptible to human-induced degradation, 

especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area (NMFS 2011). 

Although designation as HAPC does not automatically afford any additional regulatory 

protection under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, federal actions with potential adverse impacts to 

HAPC are more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process and are subject to more 

stringent EFH conservation recommendations (NMFS 2011). Thus, designation of HAPC helps 

to prioritize and focus conservation efforts. In order to protect or minimize impacts from fishing 

on EFH or HAPCs of Pacific coast groundfish, EFH Conservation Areas have been designated 

along the west coast of the U.S., including over select seamounts. The extent to which activities 

are prohibited or restricted by an EFH Conservation Area varies from no use of bottom trawl 

gear, no use of bottom trawl gear other than demersal seine, no use of any bottom contact gear, 

to no use of bottom contact gear or other gear deployed deeper than 500 fathoms (Fig. 10).
20

Figure 10. Location and protection status (if any) of seamount complexes off the U.S. west coast. The 

Davidson Seamount Management Zone is part of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and shares 

the same boundaries as the EFH designation shown for Davidson Seamount. Map credit: Chad King, 

MBNMS.
21

President Jackson Seamounts

The President Jackson Seamounts are a series of eight linearly arranged seamounts, located just 

west of the northern Gorda Ridge, off the coast of southern Oregon and within the U.S. EEZ. 

The PFMC has designated the President Jackson Seamounts as a HAPC Area of Interest. 

Additionally, the President Jackson Seamounts EFH Conservation Area has been created, with

an area of 986.753 km2 (MCI and WF 2012) that is closed to all bottom contact gear.

Thompson Seamount

Thompson Seamount is located off the coast of Washington, near the limit of the U.S. EEZ. The 

PFMC has designated Thompson Seamount as a HAPC Area of Interest. Additionally, the 

Thompson Seamount EFH Conservation Area has been created, with an area of 428.122 km2 

(MCI and WF 2012) that is closed to all bottom contact gear.

Axial Seamount and Cobb-Eickelberg Seamount Chain

The seamounts of the Cobb-Eickelberg Seamount Chain have been primarily created by the

Cobb hotspot, which currently underlies Axial Seamount, the southern-most volcano of the 

seamount chain. Other seamounts in the southeastern part of the chain include Brown Bear 

Seamount, connected to the larger Axial Seamount by a small ridge, Cobb Seamount, and 

Eickelberg Seamount. The chain extends to the northwest as far as 1,800 km, to Marchand and 

Chirikof Seamounts in the Gulf of Alaska to the south of Kodiak Island (Chadwick et al. 2005). 

With the exception of its far northwestern extent, most of the seamounts in the chain fall outside 

the U.S. and Canadian EEZs and are thus not eligible for any kind of protection under national 

legislation.

Vance Seamounts

The Vance Seamounts are a chain of seamounts just south of Axial Seamount that erupted at 

another point in time along the Juan de Fuca Ridge and have since moved westward of the ridge

(MBARI 2012f). These seamounts, with deep summits that barely crest 2000 m, are located

outside the U.S. EEZ and are not protected by any national or international mechanisms.

Gumdrop, Pioneer, and Guide Seamounts

Gumdrop, Pioneer, and Guide Seamounts are located about 120 km offshore, north of Monterey 

Bay and just outside the western boundary of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The 

volume of each of these seamount complexes is estimated to be at least 100 km3(MBARI 

2012a). These seamounts have been classified as HAPC Areas of Interest and are protected from 

bottom trawl gear as they lie within the EFH Conservation Area westward of the 700 fathom 

depth contour.

Taney Seamounts

The Taney Seamounts are further offshore, and consist of five aligned volcanoes ranging in 

volume from 11 to 187 km3, with an average volume of 86±64 km3(MBARI 2012b). The Taney 

Seamounts are not protected from exploitation. They have been designated by the PFMC as 

HAPC Areas of Interest and have been designated as an EFH Conservation Area in which 

bottom trawl gear is prohibited.
22

Davidson Seamount

Davidson Seamount stands approximately 130 km to the southwest of Monterey, and with an 

estimated volume of 320 km3is almost as large as Guide, Pioneer, and Gumdrop Seamounts 

combined (MBARI 2012c). At 26 miles long and 8 miles wide, it is one of the largest known 

seamounts in U.S. waters (MBNMS 2012b). Although its summit is 1,250 m below the sea 

surface (DeVogelaere et al. 2005), Davidson is also one of the better-studied seamounts in the 

world (MBNMS 2012b). Since 2006, Davidson Seamount has been classified as a HAPC Area 

of Interest and has received an elevated level of protection with an EFH Conservation Area 

where all fishing below 3,000 feet prohibited.

Because Davidson Seamount has special national significance relative to ocean conservation, 

ecological, scientific, educational, aesthetic, and historical qualities, in 2009 the waters 

surrounding it were added to the MBNMS as the Davidson Seamount Management Zone 

(DSMZ; MBNMS 2009). The DSMZ is a protected area bounded by a square approximately 30 

nautical miles (nm) per side, centered on the crest of the Davidson Seamount. The zone’s 

surface area is approximately 585 square nm, and the submerged lands there under are included 

within the DSMZ (NMSP 2008). Federal regulations governing the DSMZ include (NMSP 

2008) the prohibition of:

 Moving, removing, taking, collecting, catching, harvesting, disturbing, breaking, cutting, 

or otherwise injuring, or attempting to move, remove, take, collect, catch, harvest, 

disturb, break, cut, or otherwise injure, any Sanctuary resource located more that 3,000 

feet below the sea surface within the Davidson Seamount Management Zone. This 

prohibition does not apply to fishing below 3000 feet within the Davidson Seamount 

Management Zone, which is prohibited pursuant to 50 CFR part 660 (Fisheries off West 

Coast States). 

 Possessing any Sanctuary resource the source of which is more than 3,000 feet below the 

sea surface within the Davidson Seamount Management Zone. This prohibition does not 

apply to possession of fish resulting from fishing below 3000 feet within the Davidson 

Seamount Management Zone, which is prohibited pursuant to 50 CFR part 660 (Fisheries 

off West Coast States).

Rodriguez Seamount

Rodriguez Seamount, also referred to as Rodriguez Guyot, is 250 km south of Davidson 

Seamount and is located about halfway up the continental rise, about 60 km offshore of Point 

Conception (MBARI 2012d; Lundsten et al. 2009b). It rises about 1,675 m from the surrounding 

seafloor to reach a minimum water depth of 650 m, and has a calculated volume of at least 205 

km3(MBARI 2012d). A remotely operated vehicle dive at Rodriguez Seamount detected 

evidence of previous bottom trawling activity (Lundsten et al. 2009a). Currently, an EFH 

Conservation Area protects Rodriguez Seamount from bottom trawl gear other than demersal 

seine gear.
23

San Juan Seamount

San Juan Seamount is located south of Rodriguez Seamount in southern California. Although 

the summit of San Juan Seamount is presently 560 m below sea level, there is evidence that it 

was a volcanic island between 10-14 MYBP (Paduan et al. 2009; MBARI 2012e). The seamount

has been designated by the PFMC as a HAPC Area of Interest, and it is within an EFH 

Conservation Area that prohibits the use of bottom trawl gear.

Jasper Seamount

Jasper Seamount is located about 500 km west-southwest of San Diego. It is a component of the 

Fieberling-Guadalupe seamount trail, with a height of 3,500 m and a summit depth of 700 m 

(Genin et al. 1986). Jasper Seamount does not lie within the U.S. or Mexican EEZs and is not 

currently protected by any national or international mechanisms.

Other Seamounts in or near U.S. Waters

New England Seamounts

The New England Seamount Chain consists of over 30 major volcanic peaks and extends over 

1,200 km in length, from Georges Bank to the eastern end of the Bermuda Rise, making it the 

longest seamount chain the North Atlantic (NOAA 2003). Bear Seamount, rising from the 

continental slope at depths of 2,000-3,000 m to a generally flat summit at 1,100 m depth, is the 

oldest and most inshore of the chain, while Nashville Seamount is the youngest and furthest from 

shore (Fig. 11). The summits of all the New England Seamounts are over 1,000 m depth. The 

chain includes Allegheny Seamount, Asterias Seamount, Balanus Seamount, Bear Seamount, 

Buell Seamount, Gerda Seamount, Gilliss Seamount, Gosnold Seamount, Gregg Seamount, 

Hodgson Seamount, Kelvin Seamount, Kiwi Seamount, Manning Seamount, Michael Seamount, 

Mytilus Seamount, Nashville Seamount, Panulirus Seamount, Picket Seamount, Physalia 

Seamount, Rehoboth Seamount, Retriever Seamount, San Pablo Seamount, Sheldrake Seamount, 

and Vogel Seamount.

Of these only Bear, Physalia, Retriever, and Mytilus are within the U.S. EEZ and within the area 

of national jurisdiction (Fig 12). Exploratory commercial fishing has occurred on some of the 

more inshore seamounts in the chain (NOAA 2003). At this time, there are no EFH or other 

federal protections for any of the New England Seamounts. However, the New England Fishery 

Management Council is currently developing EFH Omnibus Amendment 2, and the process has 

recommended Bear, Physalia, Retriever, and Mytilus Seamounts as discrete coral zones

(NEFMC 2012). EFH protections seem likely to be designated on these seamounts when 

Omnibus Amendment 2 is adopted. Additionally, a large square area outside the U.S. EEZ 

(bound by 35°N, 39°N, 57°W, and 64°W) is currently closed to bottom fishing by the Northwest 

Atlantic Fisheries Organization as a seamount protection zone (NAFO 2012). This protection is 

temporary and currently extends until December 31, 2014 (NAFO 2012).
24

Figure 11. The New England Seamount Chain and the Corner Rise Seamounts. Map from:

http://www.gulfofmaine-census.org/.

Figure 12. The western New England Seamounts. Bear Seamount, Physalia Seamount, Retriever Seamount, 

and Mytilus Seamount fall within the U.S. EEZ. Map from: http://www.gulfofmaine-census.org/.
25

Corner Rise Seamounts

The Corner Rise Seamounts are found significantly further offshore than the New England 

Seamounts, well beyond the U.S. EEZ (Fig. 11). They are a large chain with more than 50 major 

peaks and complex coral ecosystems (Shank 2010). Approximately 20,000 tons of fish 

(including 175 species, but predominantly Alfonsino) were removed from the Corner Rise 

Seamounts by Soviet fishing vessels from 1976–1996 (Shank 2010). An August 2005 research 

expedition aboard NOAA ship Ronald H. Brown documented the first visual verification of 

trawling damage to this remote area. The summits of Yakutat and Kükenthal Seamounts were 

effectively denuded of large sessile fauna and no longer support habitat forming corals in any 

significant numbers (Fig. 5; Kusek 2008; Waller et al. 2007). Other observations included wide 

scars, broken crusts, displaced boulders and upturned corals presumably from trawl doors or 

ground gear, and narrow scars and cuts through sponges either from trawl weights or long-line 

components (Waller et al. 2007). Currently, the Corner Rise chain is closed to bottom fishing by 

the NAFO as a seamount protection zone bound by 35°N, 36°N, 48°W, and 52°W (NAFO 

2012). This protection is temporary and extends until December 31, 2014 (NAFO 2012).

Alaska Seamount Habitat Protection Area

The Alaska Seamount Habitat Protection Area (ASHPA) consists of 15 individual Habitat Areas 

of Particular Concern within the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska 

(GOA) Management Areas (Fig. 13; NMFS 2006). The ASHPA restricts fishing with bottom 

contact gear in these distinct seamount areas, with a protected area totaling approximately 5,300 

nm

2

(NMFS 2012). Bottom contact gear is defined as nonpelagic trawl, dredge, dinglebar, pot, or 

hook-and-line gear. Protected seamounts include Dickens Seamount, Denson Seamount, Brown 

Seamount, Welker Seamount, Dall Seamount, Quinn Seamount, Giacomini Seamount, Kodiak 

Seamount, Odessey Seamount, Patton Seamount, Chirikof & Marchand Seamounts, Sirius 

Seamount, Derickson Seamount, Unimak Seamount, and Bowers Seamount (NMFS 2006).
26

Figure 13. The Alaska Seamount Habitat Protection Area restricts fishing with bottom contact gear in 15

distinct seamount areas within the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) 

Management Areas. Figure from http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/efh/ashpa.pdf.

Lō`ihi Seamount

The newest creation of the Hawaii hotspot, Lō`ihi Seamount is an active underwater volcano in 

the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain, located 34 km southeast of the island of Hawaii, with its 

summit approximately 1000 m below the ocean surface (Malahoff 2000). Although marine life 

around Lō`ihi is not believed to be as diverse as at less active seamounts, Lō`ihi’s sustained 

hydrothermal vents support unique biological communities such as jelly-like microbial mats and 

other extremophiles (Malahoff 2000). While Lō`ihi serves as a research hub given its proximity 

to Hawaii, it is not currently afforded any protections.

Hancock Seamounts

The Hancock Seamounts are within the U.S. EEZ at the far northwestern end of the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, and are principally comprised of two guyots (WPRFMC 2010). 

The Hancock Seamounts are the only known habitat for armorhead (Pseudopentaceros wheeleri) 

within the U.S. EEZ. While there has never been a U.S. fishery targeting this fish, continued 

exploitation outside the U.S. EEZ by foreign fleets has kept the stock in an overfished condition 

(NMFS 2010). From 1986-2010, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 

(WPRFMC) and NMFS instituted a series of 6-year domestic fishing moratoria at the Hancock 

Seamounts (NMFS 2010). In 2010, as the most recent moratorium was expiring, NMFS created 

the Hancock Seamounts Ecosystem Management Area (Fig. 14), which prohibits fishing for and 
27

possession of bottomfish and seamount groundfish at the seamounts until the armorhead stock is 

rebuilt (NMFS 2010). A minimum rebuilding time of 35 years for the U.S. portion of the 

armorhead stock was established (WPRFMC 2010), meaning that these seamount communities 

are protected from bottomfishing pressure in the near to medium term.

Figure 14. The Hancock Seamounts are depicted in relation to the U.S. EEZ (dashed line) and Northwestern 

and Main Hawaiian Islands (right). The Hancock Seamounts Ecosystem Management Area (solid line) is 

currently defined as waters within the EEZ that are west of 180o W and north of 28o N. The Hancock 

Seamounts are near the southern portion of the Emperor Seamount Chain and Colahan and C-H Seamounts 

(inset at left). Figure adapted from: (WPRFMC 2010).

1
28

Table 4. Comparison of protections for seamounts located within U.S. EEZ.

Seamount

Complex

Designated 

Habitat 

Area of 

Particular 

Concern

Designated 

Essential 

Fish 

Habitat

Other 

MPA

Closed to

all bottom 

contact

gear

Seamount Specific 

Management Plan Key References

Gumdrop Yes Yes No No No MBARI 2012a; Davis et al. 2002

Pioneer Yes Yes No No No MBARI 2012a; Kogan et al. 2006; Davis et al. 

2007; Lundsten et al. 2009b

Guide Yes Yes No No No MBARI 2012a; Davis et al. 2002

Taney Yes Yes No No No MBARI 2012b; Clague et al. 2000

Davidson Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes DeVogelaere et al. 2005; McClain et al. 2009; 

Lundsten et al. 2009a; Lundsten et al. 2009b

Rodriguez No Yes No No No Davis et al. 2002; MBARI 2012d; Lundsten et 

al. 2009a; Lundsten et al. 2009b; Paduan et al. 

2009

San Juan Yes Yes No No No Paduan et al. 2009; MBARI 2012e

President 

Jackson

Yes Yes No Yes No Clague et al. 2000; MBARI 2012g

Thompson Yes Yes No Yes No Hourigan 2009

Bear No No No No No NEFMC 2012; Moore et al. 2003; Moore et al. 

2004

Physalia No No No No No NOAA 2003

Retriever No No No No No NEFMC 2012

Mytilus No No No No No

Alaska 

Seamounts 

HPA

Yes Yes No Yes No NMFS 2006

Lō`ihi No No No No No

Hancock 

Seamounts 

EMA

No No No No No NMFS 2010; WPRFMC 2010
29

Examples of Other Seamount Conservation Measures

Bowie Seamount, Canada

The Bowie Seamount complex encompasses the Bowie, Hodgkins, and Davidson2Seamounts 

and the surrounding abyssal plain and is located 180-230 km west of Haida Gwaii (Queen 

Charlotte Islands), British Columbia, within the Canadian EEZ (FOC 2012; Canessa et al. 2003). 

Bowie is the shallowest seamount in Canada, rising from a depth of 3,000 m to within 24 m of 

the surface (FOC 2012). The area, called Sgaan Kinghlas by the native Haida people, provides a

habitat that is rare in the northeast Pacific and is an area of high biological productivity (FOC 

2012). Though the area has not been extensively studied, researchers have documented the 

presence of more than 158 plant and animal taxa, including 50+ taxa of macroinvertebrates, 53+ 

taxa of fishes, and 16+ taxa of birds (Canessa et al. 2003). There have also been observations of 

a number of species listed under Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA), including the Ancient 

Murrelet, Steller Sea Lion, Orca, and Boccacio rockfish (FOC 2012).

In December 1998, the Bowie Seamount Pilot Marine Protected Area was created, and the Bowie 

complex was designated as Canada’s seventh MPA on April 17, 2008 (Fig. 15). The 

conservation objective of the Bowie Seamount MPA is to conserve and protect the unique 

biodiversity and biological productivity of the area’s marine ecosystem, which includes the 

Bowie, Hodgkins and Davidson seamounts and the surrounding waters, seabed and subsoil (FOC 

2012). As the Bowie Seamount complex has longstanding cultural significance, management 

and planning of the MPA has been a close collaboration between Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

and the Council of the Haida Nations (FOC 2012).

 

2

The Davidson Seamount referenced here is not the same Davidson Seamount as the one in the MBNMS discussed 

above.
30

Figure 15. Bowie Seamount Marine Protected Area, offshore Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands), British 

Columbia, Canada. Map credit: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Regulations for the MPA include prohibitions against disturbing, damaging or destroying, or 

removing, any living marine organism, any part of an organism’s habitat, and any part of the 

seabed. Additionally, activities that are likely to harm marine organisms or their habitats are 
31

prohibited, including depositing, discharging or dumping any substance. However, commercial

and recreational fishing that are carried out in accordance with Canada’s Fisheries Act are 

allowed (Oceans Act 2008, SOR 2008-124).

Australian Commonwealth Marine Reserves

Australia has a massive EEZ, amounting to the third largest marine estate of any nation in the 

world (DSEWPC 2012a). In 1998, the Commonwealth of Australia, State, and Territorial 

governments committed to the establishment of a National Representative System of Marine 

Protected Areas (NRSMPA) by 2012. By late 2012, over 40 new Commonwealth marine 

reserves3have been announced, adding to the smaller existing network that had been in gradual 

development since 1982. Australia’s national MPA system will result in 3.1 million km2of 

ocean being managed primarily for biodiversity conservation (DSEWPC 2012a). Regional tenyear management plans are currently under development for the new marine reserves, and while 

some regions are on a faster track, in most cases transitional management is in place until July 

2014.

In the past, protection of seamount habitats in Australia was focused on the Tasmanian 

Seamounts Marine Reserve, off the southeast coast of Tasmania. This reserve, created in 1999, 

was revoked in July 2007 due to incorporation into the much larger Huon Commonwealth 

Marine Reserve (CMR; Fig. 16). Huon CMR protects primarily deeper waters of 3,000 m and 

more, which are home to a large complex of seamounts, many of which are believed to serve as 

“species dispersal stepping stones” between seamounts of the Tasman Sea and of the Indian 

Ocean (DSEWPC 2012b). Of the more than 70 seamounts in the reserve, many of which rise 

into the top 1,000 m of the water column, some have been extensively trawled, some are 

recovering from trawling, and others have never been trawled (Fig. 17). The Huon CMR

protects a total area 9,991 km2, of which 9,602 km2is a zoned for multiple use and a smaller 

segment of 389 km2is zoned as a benthic sanctuary, with stricter protections (Table 5; DSEWPC 

2012b).

Several other CMRs in the Australian NRSMPA also protect seamount habitats and 

communities, including Flinders CMR (27,043 km2), Freycinet CMR (57,942 km2), South 

Tasman Rise CMR (27,704 km2), Central Eastern CMR (70,054 km2), Gifford CMR (5,829 

km2), New Lord Howe CMR (110,139 km2), Norfolk CMR (188,443 km2), and the New Coral 

Sea CMR (989,842 km2). It should be noted that zoning varies greatly within and between these 

reserves, and that current interim management measures are subject to change in the near-term. 

Conservation value assessments completed over the past decade for many of the recently 

pronounced CMRs – such as Norfolk CMR, containing the Norfolk Seamounts – consolidate 

valuable information on the physical and biological environments of protected seamount 

communities and discuss how current and potential uses can be accommodated and balanced 

(Williams et al. 2006).

 

3 Marine reserves are a subset of marine protected areas (MPAs) that typically provide an elevated level of 

protection and feature no-extraction or no-take policies.
32

Figure 16. Huon Commonwealth Marine Reserve, Australia, including both the multiple use zone and the 

benthic sanctuary zone. Map credit: (DSEWPC 2012b).

Figure 17. (a) Graduated bubbles showing the percent cover of Solenosmilia thicket (3-dimensional 

framework built by live S. variabilis and its dead skeletons) on seamounts south of Tasmania with differing 

fishing histories (indicated by symbol and frame colour), and representative images of Tasmanian seamounts 

(b) that were never trawled, (c) where trawling ceased 5 to 10 yr ago and (d) where trawling is active. Figure 

from (Althaus et al. 2009).
33

Table 5. Allowed and prohibited activities in zones of the Huon Commonwealth Marine Reserve, Australia. 

Table from (DSEWPC 2012b).

New Zealand

New Zealand has taken a number of far-reaching measures to protect the seamounts found in its 

EEZ, which is one of the largest in the world. Two legal mechanisms have facilitated New 

Zealand’s conservation accomplishments. The 1996 Fisheries Act focuses on enabling 

sustainable use of fishery resources but also allows for the creation of benthic protection areas 

(BPAs) to limit fishing pressure, while the Biodiversity Strategy of 2000 calls for protection of

10 percent of New Zealand’s marine environment by 2010 and the establishment of an MPA 

Policy (Spear and Cannon 2012).

In November 2000, 18 seamount closures were established, preventing all dredging and bottom 

trawling around 25 underwater topographical features (including 19 seamounts) and their 

associated benthic ecosystems in an area that now amounts to 115,200 km2(MPI 2012; Helson et 

al. 2009). Together with the creation of a small network of no-take marine reserves, the 

seamount closures resulted in a protection level of about 2% of New Zealand’s EEZ in the mid 

2000s (MPI 2012). In 2007, the area under protection was dramatically increased when the 

Government of New Zealand accepted an industry proposal to close 17 additional areas as BPAs

(Fig. 18). Deepwater Group Ltd., a collective representing approximately 95% of the ITQs in 

New Zealand’s mid- and deep-water fisheries, was instrumental in pushing forward this proactive proposal (Helson et al. 2009). The BPAs, which went into effect in November 2007 and 

cover an additional 1,250,000 km2of habitat, prohibit dredging entirely and restrict trawling to 
34

waters at least 100 m above the seafloor (MPI 2012). This closed area is approximately four 

times the landmass of New Zealand and at the time was the largest marine protection initiative 

ever undertaken in a nation’s EEZ (MPI 2012). The seamount closures remain, with a slightly 

higher level of protection as trawling is not allowed in those areas at any depth. Additionally, 

the plan included a provision for the fishing industry to pay for a share – 33%, or up to 

NZ$330,000 per year – of deepwater benthic research (MPI 2012).

Figure 18. Location of benthic protection areas (BPAs) and seamount closures in New Zealand’s EEZ. Map 

credit: (Spear and Cannon 2012).

New Zealand has stricter forms of marine protection than the seamount closures and BPAs 

provide, such as ‘no-take’ marine reserves. Mining, other human disturbances, and, in BPAs, 

fishing 100 m or more above the seafloor are all activities that are not restricted in these areas. 

However, 52% of New Zealand’s seamount over 1,000 m in height are now protected in BPAs 
35

and seamount closures, as are 88% of active hydrothermal vents (MPI 2012). Presently, 

approximately 34% of New Zealand’s marine environment has management restrictions in place, 

of which seamount closures and BPAs account for 97% of the protected area (MFE 2012).

Northeast Atlantic

Nowhere in the world has more progress been made in the development of high seas seamountfocused MPAs than in the heavily impacted Northeast Atlantic (O’Leary et al. 2012). The 

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR), 

was created in 1992 to take the place of the Oslo and Paris Conventions for the prevention of 

environmental pollution by dumping and landbased sources, respectively (the first created in 

1972 and the latter in 1974; UNEP 2010). OSPAR, whose 16 contracting parties include all 

coastal states of the Northeast Atlantic, the European Community and three land-locked states 

connected via river catchments, has since been amended to cover non-polluting human activities 

that can adversely affect the biological diversity of its maritime area, which includes all waters of 

the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans north of 36oN and east of 42oW except the Mediterranean and 

Baltic Seas (UNEP 2010). OSPAR takes an ecosystem approach and has a mandate to conserve

and restore marine ecosystems through regional action. The OSPAR area contains many 

seamounts, including some at depths that have been accessible to deepwater bottom trawling 

(Fig. 19; WWF Germany 2012). Many of the region’s seamounts are little-explored and 

believed to be near-pristine and likely to contain unique species (MCI and WF 2012).

Figure 19. Seamounts and hydrothermal vents in the OSPAR Convention Area / Northeast Atlantic Fisheries 

Convention (NEAFC) Regulatory Area. Figure from (WWF Germany 2012).

As might be expected, seamount MPAs were first pursued within the national waters of each 

OSPAR Contracting Party, and several were implemented prior to the proposal of seamount 
36

MPAs in ABNJ (O’Leary et al. 2012). These include the Formigas Islets & Dollabarat Bank 

Nature eserve (Azores Portugal), D. Jo o de Castro Seamount (Azores Portugal), Sedlo 

Seamount (Azores/Portugal), and El Cachucho (Spain; Santos et al. 2010). Additionally, in 2006 

the Spanish fisheries administration prohibited the use of gears equipped with rockhoppers to 

restrict the access of trawlers to hard bottom areas in Spanish waters containing biogenic habitats 

(such as Galicia Bank and Le Danois Bank seamounts). The Le Danois Bank was also declared 

an MPA in 2008, and all bottom contact gear was prohibited (Santos et al. 2010). Additionally, 

in 2004 the region’s FMO, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), which has 

the competence to regulate fisheries through various mechanisms, adopted extensive spatial

conservation measures to protect areas identified as VMEs from bottom trawling (Fig. 20; 

O’Leary et al. 2012). These temporary closures, which include seamounts on the Mid-Atlantic 

Ridge, in the ocean basins to the east and west, and on Reykjanes Ridge have since been 

extended, and others have been introduced (Santos et al. 2010).

OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3, adopted at the 2003 Ministerial Meeting of the OSPAR 

Commission, paved the way for the development of a network of high seas MPAs, with WWF, 

the Netherlands, Portugal, and France being some of the key early actors (UNEP 2010; O’Leary 

et al. 2012). As the scientific case for protection was made and site selection began, the signing 

of memoranda of understanding with other key authorities, including the IMO, the International 

Seabed Authority, and the NEAFC were key as work progressed. Although an early proposal for 

a Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone MPA (including Faraday and Hecate Seamounts), advanced the 

fastest, in September 2010 OSPA designated the world’s first high seas MPAs, totaling six 

protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction, with a total area of 286,200 km2(O’Leary 

et al. 2012). These included Altair Seamount MPA (4,408.71 km2), Antialtair Seamount MPA 

(2,207.68 km2), Milne Seamount MPA (20,913 km2), Josephine Seamount MPA (19,370 km2), 

Mid-Atlantic Ridge North of the Azores MPA (93,568 km2), and Charlie-Gibbs South MPA 

(145,249 km2). Many of these areas overlap with existing NEAFC closures (Fig. 20). Josephine 

Seamount was the first seamount to be discovered as a direct result of oceanic exploration, and in 

February 2012 became the first case added to the international repository of marine Ecologically 

or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs; OSPAR Commission 2012).
37

Figure 20. The current network of OSPAR MPAs and fishery closures implemented by the North East 

Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC). The Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone MPA was originally proposed in 

2010 as a single MPA, including both the Charlie-Gibbs South MPA (in red, fully in ABNJ) and the area 

outlined in white (within the area claimed as Iceland’s extended continental shelf). In June 2012, after two 

years of international negotiations, the Charlie-Gibbs North MPA (white outline, not labeled) was added as 

the 7th high seas MPA in the region. Figure from (O’Leary et al. 2012).

These designations were complicated by the 2009 submissions of several OSPAR Contracting 

Parties to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf to extend their continental 

shelves beyond their EEZs (UNEP 2010). Portugal’s new claims to an enlarged area of seabed 

meant that the following Seamount MPAs had water columns in ABNJ and seabeds belonging to 

Portugal: new Altair, Antialtair, Josephine, and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge North of the Azores. 

Fortunately, Portugal was highly supportive of these protected areas, and designations were 

made by both Portugal for the seabed and by OSPAR for overlying waters (O’Leary et al. 2012). 

In the case of the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone MPA, originally adopted “in principle” in 2008 as 

an area totaling 323,900 km2, Iceland claimed seabed rights for more than half of the proposed 

area. This political delay caused the MPA to be split into two, with only the southern portion 

that fell fully in ABNJ being designated in 2010. By mid-2012, negotiations with Iceland had 

progressed, allowing for the designation of the Charlie-Gibbs North MPA, adding the remaining 

178,651 km2 of fracture zone habitat and bringing the network’s total size to almost 465,000 km2
38

(WWF Germany 2012). It has been estimated that the north and south Charlie-Gibbs MPAs 

together encompass predicted 115 seamounts and 447 predicted knolls (Yesson et al. 2011). 

Owen (2010) explores the possible frictions associated with managing a “hybrid” MPA with 

integrated dual legislation and management of composite MPAs on the extended continental 

shelf of a coastal State. Also, in cooperation with OSPAR and other partners, in June 2012 

WWF Germany launched a media outreach website titled “Charlie-Gibbs Marine Protected Area 

– Preserving Diversity in the High Seas” (WWF Germany 2012). The site consolidates 

resources on all of the OSPAR high seas seamount MPAs.

The designations of the OSPAR high seas MPAs represent a first step. OSPAR is now 

continuing discussions with other international authorities and bodies to develop management 

plans. Although NEAFC bottom trawl closures are in place over much of the newly designated 

areas, they are not permanent in nature. OSPAR background documents for each of the OSPAR 

high seas MPAs, which served as nominations for protection proforma, list a number of human 

activities that “will or might need regulation via management plans.” These include: deep sea 

and high seas fishing using fixed and mobile gears (both at the seabed and in the water column), 

vessel traffic, seabed mining or other resource exploitation, bioprospecting, cable laying, 

underwater noise, and military sonar (OSPAR Commission 2010). The background documents 

for each seamount complex also list habitats and species that are either threatened, declining, or 

of special concern (OSPAR Commission 2010).

Costa Rica

The Las Gemelas Seamounts are located in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) about 55 km 

southwest of Coco Island, Costa Rica, and are believed to act as stepping-stones for long 

distance migratory species while also forming a marine corridor of key breeding and feeding 

waters for tuna and sharks (Alvarado et al. 2012; Fundácion MarViva 2011). A 2009 scientific 

expedition led by National Geographic found large numbers of encrusting and structure-forming 

invertebrates at Las Gemelas, including glass sponges, octocorals, black corals, stony corals, and 

calcified hydroids (Starr and Green 2010). Additionally, each dive at Las Gemelas Seamounts 

revealed different intact habitats, suggesting high habitat diversity and number of species (Starr 

and Green 2010). Several previously undescribed fish species were found, and there are likely 

additional fish and invertebrate species that are new to science (Fundácion MarViva 2011; Starr 

and Green 2010). This expedition was important in highlighting the seamount’s ecological 

significance at a regional and global level.

On March 2, 2011, the Government of Costa Rica announced the creation of the Seamounts Marine 

Management Area (SMMA; 9,640 km2), which includes the Las Gemelas Seamounts and 

surrounds the existing 1,989 km2 Coco Island Marine Reserve (Fig. 21; MINAET 2011; 

Alvarado et al. 2012). The SMMA triples Costa ica’s MPA coverage, represents 1.6% of Costa 

 ica’s jurisdictional waters, and together with the marine reserve it buffers is second in size only 

to Galapagos National Park in terms of marine protected areas in the ETP (Miliani 2012; 

Fundácion MarViva 2011). Management measures for the SMMA will not be as strict as for the 

Coco Island Marine Reserve, which is a fully protected non-fishing zone and a UNESCO World 

Heritage Site. The SMMA is closed to trawl nets, purse seine nets, oil exploration, and oil 

exploitation, but will allow regulated tourism, sport fishing, some commercial fishing, and scientific 

research (MINAET 2011; Miliani 2012).
39

Figure 21. Seamounts Marine Management Area, surrounding Cocos Island, Costa Rica. Map credit: 

MarViva.

Several international NGOs were instrumental in the designation of the SMMA, including Fundácion 

MarViva, Conservation International, and the Nature Conservancy. Although Costa Rica was not 

able to provide any funding, it created the SMMA with the understanding that these groups were 

committed to providing funding and coordinating monitoring and enforcement in the face of the 

government’s limited resources (Téllez 2011). As the SMMA’s designation prohibits foreign 

fishing vessels within its bounds but allows for local fishing effort, involved NGOs are planning 

to actively engage local fishermen in monitoring any illegal activities (Téllez 2011).

British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)

The entirety of the Chagos Archipelago, extending to the boundaries of the BIOT EEZ, was 

designated by the British government as a no-take marine protected area (MPA) on April 1, 2010

(Sheppard et al. 2012a). The new Chagos MPA covers 639,661 km2, and its creation effectively 

doubled the global cover of no-take MPAs (Sheppard et al. 2012b). The MPA creation built on 

existing protections in a much smaller spatial area, as an Environmental Preservation and

Protection Zone had already been declared to regulate activities in some of the most important 

habitats (NSMC 2012). Yesson et al. (2011) determined that 86 seamounts (>1000m elevation) 

and 243 knolls (200–999m elevation) are predicted to occur within the Chagos MPA (Fig. 22). 

Globally, this designation increased the world’s protection of seamounts by 17% and knolls by 

40%, based on the estimate by Yesson et al. (2011) that only 506 seamounts and 606 knolls lay

in protected areas as of 2009 (Sheppard et al. 2012a).

While attention has focused on the Chagos MPA’s protection of shallow-water ecosystems, the 

reserve contains more than 10% of all Indian Ocean seamounts and is thus significant for its 

protection of deep-water ecosystems as well (Sheppard et al. 2012a). Almost no biological data 

exists on the benthic communities of the Chagos-Laccadives Ridge, and that which has been 
40

collected from deeper habitats of the MPA is mainly from exploratory or commercial fishing

(Sheppard et al. 2012a). Although many other Indian Ocean ridges and seamounts have been 

fished or are subject to continuing or expanding fisheries, it is believed that there has never been 

deep-water fishing or trawling on seamounts in the Chagos MPA and that associated 

communities of invertebrates and fish are still largely intact (Sheppard et al. 2012a). The Chagos 

MPA’s lack of disturbance due to its remote location and low levels of human activities make it

particularly important on a regional level.

Figure 22. The marine protected area around Chagos, British Indian Ocean Territory (left). This new MPA 

covers 86 seamounts and 243 knolls. Seamounts of the Chagos MPA are shown with bathymetry data from 

shuttle radar topography mission 30 arc-second grid (upper right; http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/). Figures 

from: (Yesson et al. 2011) and (Sheppard et al. 2012).

The BIOT Administration is currently working on the development of a management plan for the 

Chagos MPA, and there is not currently a plan in place (Dunne 2012). An independent team of 

scientists and conservationists has prepared a list of science needs for consideration in a 

management plan, and funding of seamount exploration through the U.K. Natural Environment 

Research Council is discussed (Sheppard et al. 2012b). A number of concerns have been raised 

surrounding the adequacy of available resources to patrol and enforce the Chagos MPA (NSMC 

2012; Dunne 2012; Sheppard et al. 2012b). There is only one patrol vessel for the BIOT, which 

takes up to two days to transit from one side of the MPA to the other and which is capable of 

being outrun by large modern fishing vessels (Dunne 2012; NSMC 2012). Revenue from the 

sale of fishing licenses that previously offset the costs of operating the patrol vessel will now 

have to come from other sources as all fishing licenses expired in 2010 with the creation of the 

MPA (Dunne 2012). A charitable donation of £3.5 million over a five-year period to fund MPA 
41

enforcement from the Swiss-based Bertarelli Foundation offers a short-term solution, but 

increasing funding levels will be key to the MPA’s success (NSMC 2012). One option is 

collecting contributions from international scientific bodies for the maintenance of the MPA in 

exchange for research access (NSMC 2012).

Conclusions

Seamounts are found in all of the world’s oceans, yet due to their location in deep-sea 

environments they are often not readily accessible to scientific investigation. Thus, we have only 

begun to understand the biological communities that seamount complexes support. Where 

ecological research has occurred, such as at Davidson Seamount in the Monterey Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary, seamount habitats have been found to host spectacular species assemblages. 

Although seamounts and the waters surrounding them are widely recognized as biodiversity 

hotspots, these environments are also threatened by a variety of human activities. Threats to 

seamounts range from deep-sea fishing and mining to bioprospecting and ocean acidification.

Only in recent years have there have been efforts by marine resource managers to focus on 

seamounts when considering habitats for protection. While national legislation offers the easiest 

means of protecting seamount resources, the majority of seamounts are located in waters beyond 

the limits of any nation’s jurisdiction. NOAA Fisheries has prioritized a number of prominent 

seamounts off the U.S. west coast for protection as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, and 

many of these have been protected from fishing pressure by being included within Essential Fish 

Habitat Conservation Areas. Of these, only Davidson Seamount has a seamount-specific 

management plan that restricts activities other than fishing. Elsewhere in U.S. waters, seamount 

complexes have been designated as special management areas or are just beginning to be 

considered for protection. A number of international successes, most notably the extensive 

system of benthic protection areas and seamount closures in New Zealand, offer examples for 

other nations to place the protection of deep-sea seamount resources as a conservation priority. 

Even more encouraging is the recent use of international instruments and authorities to create an 

emerging network of high seas MPAs to protect seamount ecosystems, as has occurred in the 

Northeast Atlantic.

Only a small fraction of the world’s fragile seamount communities are managed by Federal or 

state governments at this time. Increased deep-sea research will facilitate better understanding of

little-studied seamount habitats, and educating the public about species found at seamounts and 

the threats they face will help to build further support for expanding the number of protections 

afforded to seamounts. Comprehensive management plans should be developed by the 

respective management agencies for seamount areas that have been protected, to ensure that 

conservation goals are clear and that there are adequate enforcement mechanisms in place. 

Finally, given seamounts are of global interest, international cooperation is needed to better 

understand seamount protection options, to consider conservation strategies in international 

waters, and to enforce regulations in remote and resource-limited regions.
42

Literature Cited

Alder, J. and L. Woods. 2004. Managing and protecting seamounts ecosystems. In: Morato, T. 

and D. Pauly (eds), Seamounts: Biodiversity and Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research 

Reports 12(5):67–73.

Allain, V., J.-A. Kerandel, S. Andréfouët, F. Magron, M. Clark, D.S. Kirby, and F.E. MullerKarger. 2008. Enhanced Seamount Location Database for the Western and Central Pacific 

Ocean: Screening and Cross-checking of 20 Existing Datasets. Deep-Sea Research I 

55:1035-1047.

Alvarado, J.J., J. Cortés, M.F. Esquivel, and E. Salas. 2012. Costa ica’s Marine Protected 

Areas: status and perspectives. Revista de Biología Tropical 60(1):129-142.

Andrews, A., E. Cordes, M. Mahoney, K. Munk, K. Coale, G. Cailliet, and J. Heifetz. 2002. 

Age, growth, and radiometric age validation of a deep-sea, habitat-forming gorgonian 

(Primnoa resedaeformis) from the Gulf of Alaska. Hydrobiologia 471:101-110.

Andrews, A.H., G.M. Cailliet, L.A. Kerr, K.H. Coale, C. Lundstrom, and A.P. DeVogelaere. 

2005. Investigations of age and growth for three deep-sea corals from the Davidson 

Seamount off central California. In: Freiwald, A. and J.M. Roberts (eds.), Cold-water Corals 

and Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 1021-1038.

Ardron, J., D. Dunn, C. Corrigan, K. Gjerde, P. Halpin, J. Rice, E. Vanden Berghe, and M.

Vierros. 2009. Defining ecologically or biologically significant areas in the open oceans and 

deep seas: Analysis, tools, resources and illustrations. A background document for the CBD 

expert workshop on scientific and technical guidance on the use of biogeographic 

classification systems and identification of marine areas beyond national jurisdiction in need 

of protection, Ottawa, Canada, 29 September – 2 October 2009.

Arico, S. and C. Salpin. 2005. Bioprospecting of Genetic Resources in the Deep Seabed: 

Scientific, Legal and Policy Aspects. United Nations University Institute of Advanced 

Studies. Accessed Septebmer 20, 2012 at http://www.ias.unu.edu/binaries2/DeepSeabed.pdf

Arico, S. and C. Salpin. 2006. Gambling in the deep sea. European Molecular Biology 

Organization. EMBO Reports 7(1):17-21.

Althaus, F., A. Williams, T.A. Schlacher, R.J. Kloser, M.A. Green, B.A. Barker, N.J. Bax, P.

Brodie, and M.A. Schlacher-Hoenlinger. 2009. Impacts of bottom trawling on deep-coral 

ecosystems of seamounts are long-lasting. Marine Ecology Progress Series 397:279–294.

Baker, C.M., B.J. Bett, D.S. Billett, and A.D. Rogers, A.D. 2001. An environmental 

perspective. In WWF, IUCN, and WCPA (eds.) The status of natural resources on the high 

seas. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland: 3-68.
43

Bobbitt, A. 2007. NeMO 2007 Cruise Report: Axial Volcano, Endeavour Segment, and Cobb 

Segment, Juan de Fuca Ridge. Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA. 169p.

Brewin, P.E., K.I. Stocks, and G. Menezes. 2007. A history of seamount research. In: Pitcher,

T.J., T. Morato, P.J.B. Hart, M.R. Clark, N. Haggan, and R.S. Santos (eds.). 2007. 

Seamounts: Ecology, Conservation and Management. Fish and Aquatic Resources Series,

Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 41-61.

Canessa, R.R., K.W. Conley, and B.D. Smiley. 2003. Bowie Seamount Pilot Marine Protected 

Area: An Ecosystem Overview Report. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 2461. Science Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 98p.

Chadwick, J., M. Perfit, I. Ridley, I. Jonasson, G. Kamenov, W. Chadwick, R. Embley, P. le 

Roux, and M. Smith. 2005. Magmatic effects of the Cobb hot spot on the Juan de Fuca 

Ridge. Journal of Geophysical Research 110, B03101, doi:10.1029/2003JB002767.

Clague, D.A., J.R. Reynolds, and A.S. Davis. 2000. Near-ridge seamount chains in the 

northeastern Pacific Ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(B7):16,541-61.

Clark, M. R., D. Tittensor, A. D. Rogers, P. Brewin, T. Schlacher, A. Rowden, K. Stocks, and M. 

Consalvey. 2006. Seamounts, Deep-Sea Corals and Fisheries: Vulnerability of Deep-Sea 

Corals to Fishing on Seamounts Beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction. UNEP-WCMC,

Cambridge, UK.

Clark, M. R., L. Watling, A. A. Rowden, J. M. Guinotte, and C. R. Smith. 2011. A global 

seamount classification to aid the scientific design of marine protected area networks. Ocean 

and Coastal Management 54(1):19-36.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2003. Marine and coastal biodiversity: Review, 

further elaboration, and refinement of the programme of work. The value and effects of 

marine and coastal protected areas on marine and coastal biological diversity: a review of 

available information. Note by the Executive Secretary to the 8

th Meeting. United Nations 

Environment Programme, Convention on Biological Diversity, Subsidiary Body on 

Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice. Accessed January 23, 2013 at: 

http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-08/information/sbstta-08-inf-12-en.pdf

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2008(a). Options for Preventing and Mitigating the 

Impact of Some Activities on Selected Seabed Habitats. Background document to the note 

by the Executive Secretary on options for preventing and mitigating the impact of some 

activities to selected seabed habitats, and ecological criteria and biogeographic classification 

systems of marine areas in need of protection. United Nations Environment Programme, 

Convention on Biological Diversity, Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and 

Technological Advice. Accessed September 18, 2012 at: 

http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-13/information/sbstta-13-inf-13-en.doc

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2008(b). Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity: 
44

Options for Preventing and Mitigating the Impact of Some Activities on Selected Seabed 

Habitats. Background Document Presented at the 13th Meeting. United Nations Environment 

Programme, Convention on Biological Diversity, Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical 

and Technological Advice. Accessed September 15, 2012 at: 

http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-13/official/sbstta-13-04-en.pdf

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2008(c). Synthesis and Review of the Best Available 

Scientific Studies on Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation in Marine Areas beyond 

the Limits of National Jurisdiction. Montreal, Technical Series No. 37, 63 p. Accessed 

September 12, 2012 at http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-37-en.pdf

Davies, A.J., J.M. Roberts, and J. Hall-Spencer. 2007. Preserving deep-sea natural heritage: 

emerging issues in offshore conservation and management. Biological Conservation 138(3–

4):299–312.

Davis, A.S, D.A. Clague, W. A. Bohrson, G. B. Dalrymple, and H. G. Greene. 2002. 

Seamounts at the continental margin of California: A different kind of oceanic intraplate 

volcanism. Geological Society of America Bulletin 114(3):316-333.

Davis, A.S., D.A. Clague, and J.B. Paduan. 2007. Diverse origins of xenoliths from seamounts

at the continental margin, offshore central California. Journal of Petrology 48(5):829-852.

de Forges, B.R., J.A. Koslow, and G.C.B. Poore. 2000. Diversity and endemism of the benthic 

seamount fauna in the southwest Pacific. Nature 405: 944-947.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities (DSEWPC). 

2012a. Commonwealth Marine Reserves. Australian Government. Accessed November 28,

2012 at http://www.environment.gov.au/marinereserves/index.html

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities (DSEWPC). 

2012b. Huon Commonwealth Marine Reserve. Australian Government. Accessed

November 28, 2012 at http://www.environment.gov.au/marinereserves/southeast/huon/index.html.

DeVogelaere, A.P., E.J. Burton, T. Trejo, C.E. King, D.A. Clague, M.N. Tamburri, G.M.

Cailliet, R.E. Kochevar, and W.J. Douros. 2005. Deep-sea corals and resource protection at

the Davidson Seamount, California, U.S.A. In Freiwald, A. and J.M. Roberts (eds). 2005.

Cold-water Corals and Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 1189-1198.

Dunne, R. 2012. The Chagos Archipelago EPPZ MPA Patrol Vessel. Accessed November

29, 2012 at https://sites.google.com/site/thechagosarchipelagofacts/eppz-mpa/patrol-vessel

Epp, D. and N.C. Smoot. 1989. Distribution of seamounts in the North Atlantic. Nature 337: 

254-257.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FOC). 2012. Bowie Seamount Marine Protected Area. Accessed
45

November 28, 2012 at http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/protection/mpazpm/bowie/index-eng.htm.

Frey, O. and A.P. DeVogelaere. In review. Container Loss: The Containerized Shipping 

Industry and the Phenomenon of Containers Lost at Sea. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation 

Series. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD.

Fundación MarViva. 2011. Costa Rica Seamounts Marine Management Area. Pamphlet. 4 p. 

Accessed November 21, 2012 at http://www.marviva.net/index.php/es/nuestrotrabajo/publicaciones/doc_download/44-costa-rica-seamounts-marine-management-area

Genin, A., P.K. Dayton, P.F. Lonsdale, and F.N. Spiess. 1986. Corals on seamount peaks 

provide evidence of current acceleration over deep-sea topography. Nature 322: 59-61.

Gubbay, S. 2003. Seamounts of the North-East Atlantic. Oceanic Seamounts: an Integrated 

Study (OASIS). Frankfurt, Germany: WWF. 40 p.

Hein, J. 2004. Geologists and Biologists Endeavor to Understand Seamount Environments Off 

California. U.S Geological Survey Sound Waves 57:4-6.

Helson, J., S. Leslie, G. Clement, R. Wells, and R. Wood. 2010. Private rights, public benefits:

Industry-driven seabed protection. Marine Policy 34:557-566.

Hillier, J.K. and A.B. Watts. 2007. Global Distribution of Seamounts from Ship-track 

Bathymetry Data. Geophysical Research Letters 34: L13304, doi:10.1029/2007GL029874.

Hofmann, G.E., J.P. Barry, P.J. Edmunds, R.D. Gates, D.A. Hutchins, T. Klinger, and M.A. 

Sewell. 2010. The effect of ocean acidification on calcifying organisms in marine

ecosystems: An organism to ecosystem perspective. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, 

and Systematics 41:127–147.

Hood, M., P. Brewer, P. Haugan, and H.O. Poertner (eds). 2014. What is ocean carbon 

sequestration? Ocean Acidification Network. Accessed March 18, 2014 at 

http://www.ocean-acidification.net/FAQocs.html.

Hourigan, T.F. 2009. Managing fishery impacts on deep-water coral ecosystems of the USA: 

emerging best practices. Marine Ecology Progress Series 397:333-340.

Kitchingman A. and S. Lai. 2004. Inferences of potential seamount locations from midresolution bathymetric data. In: Morato T. and D. Pauly (eds) Seamounts: biodiversity and 

fisheries. Fish Cen Res Rep Univ Vancouver 12(5):7–12.

Kogan, I., C.K. Paull, L.A. Kuhnz, E.J. Burton, S.V. Thun, H.G. Greene, J.P. Barry. 2006. 

ATOC/Pioneer Seamount cable after 8 years on the seafloor: Observations, environmental 

impact. Continental Shelf Research 26:771-787.
46

Kontner, J.G., H. Staudigel, and J. Gee. 2010. Spotlight: Jasper Seamount. Oceanography 

23(1):40-41.

Koslow, J.A., G.W. Boehlert, J.D.M. Gordon, R.L. Haedrich, P. Lorance, and N. Parin. 2000. 

Continental slope and deep-sea fisheries: Implications for a fragile ecosystem. ICES Journal 

of Marine Sciences 57:548-557.

Koslow, J.A. 2001. Fish Stocks and Benthos of Seamounts. In: Thiel, H. and J.A. Koslow (eds)

Managing Risks to Biodiversity and the Environment on the High Sea, Including Tools Such 

as Marine Protected Areas: Scientific Requirements and Legal Aspects. Bonn, Germany: 

German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. 214 p.

Koslow, J.A., G.W. Boehlert, J.S.M. Gordon, R.L. Haedrich, P. Lorance and N. Parin. 2001. 

The impact of fishing on continental slope and deep-sea ecosystems. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 

57:548-557.

Kusek, K.M. 2008. Coral catastrophe on the Corner Rise Seamounts: Fishing trawlers likely 

caused extensive damage to deep-sea coral communities. Oceanus 46(2). Accessed October 

4, 2012 at http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=33769

Lundsten, L., C. R. McClain, J. P. Barry, G. M. Cailliet, D. A. Clague, and A. P. DeVogelaere. 

2009a. Ichthyofauna on three seamounts off southern and central California, USA. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 389:223-232.

Lundsten, L., J. P. Barry, G. M. Cailliet, D. A. Clague, A. P. DeVogelaere, and J. B. Geller. 

2009b. Benthic invertebrate communities on three seamounts off southern and central 

California, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 374:23-32.

Lundsten, L., S.B. Johnson, G.M. Cailliet, A.P. DeVogelaere, and D.A. Clague. 2012. 

Morphological, molecular, and in situ behavioral observations of the rare deep-sea anglerfish 

Chaunacops coloratus (Garman, 1899), order Lophiiformes, in the eastern North Pacific. 

Deep-Sea Research I 68:46-53.

Malahoff, A. 2000. Loihi Submarine Volcano: A unique, natural extremophile laboratory. 

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, NOAA. Accessed November 8, 2012 at 

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_loihi.html

Marine Conservation Institute (MCI) and Waitt Foundation (WF). 2012. MPAtlas. 

http://www.mpatlas.org

Maxwell, S.M., J.J. Frank, G.A. Breed, P.W. Robinson, S.E. Simmons, D.E. Crocker, J.P. GalloReynoso, and D.P. Costa. 2012. Benthic foraging on seamounts: a specialized foraging 

behavior in a deep-diving pinniped. Marine Mammal Science 28(3):E333–344.

McClain, C.R., L. Lundsten, M. Ream, J. Barry, and A. DeVogelaere. 2009. Endemicity, 

biogeography, composition, and community structure on a northeast Pacific seamount. PLoS 
47

ONE 4(1):e4141. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004141

Miliani, K. 2012. Costa Rica: Área Marina de Manejo Montes Submarinos. The Nature

Conservancy. Accessed February 1, 2013 at

http://espanol.tnc.org/dondetrabajamos/costarica/lugares/isladelcoco.html

Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones de Costa Rica (MINAET). 2011.

Decreto Ejecutivo No 36452-MINAET del 03/03/2011: Creación del Área Marina de Manejo

Montes Submarinos. La Gaceta 121. Accessed February 1, 2013 at

http://documentos.cgr.go.cr/content/dav/jaguar/USI/normativa/2011/DECRETOS/DE36452.doc

Ministry for the Environment (MFE). 2012. Marine Management Tools. Government of New 

Zealand. Accessed November 28, 2012 at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmentalreporting/oceans/protected-areas/management-tools.html

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). 2012. Benthic Protection Areas. Government of New 

Zealand. Accessed November 28, 2012 at http://www.fish.govt.nz/ennz/Environmental/Seabed+Protection+and+Research/Benthic+Protection+Areas.htm

Mofjeld, H.O., V.V. Titov, F.I. González, and J.C. Newman. 2001. Tsunami scattering 

provinces in the Pacific Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters 28(2):335–337.

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). 2012a. Mapping Program: Gumdrop, 

Pioneer, and Guide Seamounts. Accessed October 24, 2012 at 

http://www.mbari.org/data/mapping/seamounts/guide2gumdrop.htm.

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). 2012b. Mapping Program: Taney 

Seamounts. Accessed October 24, 2012 at 

http://www.mbari.org/data/mapping/seamounts/taney.htm

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). 2012c. Mapping Program: Davidson 

Seamount. Accessed October 24, 2012 at 

http://www.mbari.org/data/mapping/seamounts/davidson.htm

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). 2012d. Mapping Program: Rodriguez 

Seamount. Accessed October 24, 2012 at 

http://www.mbari.org/data/mapping/SBBasin/rodriguez.htm

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). 2012e. Continental Margin Seamounts. 

Accessed October 26, 2012 at http://www.mbari.org/volcanism/Seamounts/SeamContlMarg.htm

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). 2012f. Mapping Program: Vance 

Seamounts. Accessed November 12, 2012 at 

http://www.mbari.org/data/mapping/seamounts/vance.htm
48

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). 2012g. Mapping Program: President 

Jackson Seamounts. Accessed January 25, 2013 at 

http://www.mbari.org/data/mapping/seamounts/presjackson.htm

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). 2009. Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary Davidson Seamount Management Plan. Living Document, version 5.0. U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Ocean Service, National Marine Sanctuary Program.

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). 2012a. Davidson Seamount Management 

Zone Threats Assessment. Technical Report 2012-1, 39p.

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). 2012b. Davidson Seamount. Accessed 

October 31, 2012 at http://montereybay.noaa.gov/research/dsmz/welcome.html

Moore, J.A., M. Vecchione, B.B. Collette, R. Gibbons, K.E. Hartel, J.K. Galbraith, M. 

Turnipseed, M. Southworth, and E. Watkins. 2003. Biodiversity of Bear Seamount, New 

England Seamount Chain: Results of exploratory trawling. Journal of Northwest Atlantic 

Fishery Science 31:363-372.

Moore, J.A., M. Vecchione, B.B. Collette, R. Gibbons, K.E. Hartel. 2004. Selected fauna of 

Bear Seamount (New England Seamount chain), and the presence of "natural invader" 

species. Archive of Fishery and Marine Research 51(1-3): 241-250

Morato, T., T.J. Pitcher, M.R. Clark, G. Menezes, F. Tempera, F. Porteiro, E. Giacomello, and 

R.S. Santos. 2010. Can We Protect Seamounts for Research? A Call for Conservation. 

Oceanography 23(1):190-199.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006. Final Rule: Fisheries of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone off Alaska. Federal Register 71 (124), 36694-36714. Codified at 50 CFR 

Part 679.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010. Final Rule: Fisheries in the Western Pacific; 

Hawaii Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish; Measures To Rebuild Overfished Armorhead 

at Hancock Seamounts. Federal Register 75 (217), 69015-69016. Codified at 50 CFR Part 

665.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2011. Habitat Areas of Particular Concern. 

Accessed October 17, 2012 at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/hcd_webcontent/socal/hapc.htm.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. Habitat Areas of Particular Concern in the 

Alaska Region. Accessed November 12, 2012 at 

http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/habitat/efh/hapc/hapc_ak.pdf

National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP). 2008. Final Rule: GFNMS; MBNMS; and 

CBNMS Regulations. Federal Register 73 (225), 70488-70540. Codified at 15 CFR Part 22.
49

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003. Ocean Explorer: Mountains 

in the Sea, July 11 – July 19, 2003. Accessed November 12, 2012 at 

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/03mountains/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008. Monterey Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan. Prepared as part of the Joint Management Plan 

Review. Volume III, October 2008, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, National Marine Sanctuary Program, 

478 p.

New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). 2012. Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat 

Amendment 2: Deep-sea coral management alternatives. Draft, June 2012. Accessed 

February 1, 2013 at 

http://www.nefmc.org/habitat/planamen/efh_amend_2/June_2012_Coral_Alternatives.pdf

North Sea Marine Cluster (NSMC). 2012. Managing Marine Protected Areas: a case study 

examining the Chagos Archipelago. Marine Protected Area Network Report. 24p.

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). 2012. NAFO Conservation and 

Enforcement Measures. NAFO FC Doc. 12/1 Serial No. N6001. Accessed November 8, 

2012 at http://archive.nafo.int/open/fc/2012/fcdoc12-01.pdf

O’Leary, B.C, .L. Brown, D.E. Johnson, H. von Nordheim, J. Ardron, T. Packeiser, and C.M 

Roberts. 2012. The first network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the high seas: The 

process, the challenges and where next. Marine Policy 36(3):598-605.

OSPAR Commission. 2010. Background document on Milne Seamount. Publication number 

524/2010. 17p.

OSPAR Commission. 2012. Atlantic seamount becomes the first case added to international 

repository of Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas. OSPAR news, February 

17, 2012. Accessed November 28, 2012 at 

http://www.ospar.org/content/news_detail.asp?menu=00600725000000_000019_000000

Owen, D. 2010. Interactions between management of a water column marine protected area in 

the high seas of the OSPAR maritime area and the exercise of sovereign rights regarding 

subjacent outer continental shelf. Report to WWF Germany. 55p.

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2005. Amendment 18 (Bycatch Mitigation

Program) and Amendment 19 (Essential Fish Habitat) to the Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery. 

98p.

Paduan, J.B., D.A. Clague, and A.S. Davis. 2009. Evidence that three seamounts off southern 

California were ancient islands. Marine Geology 265(3-4):146-156.
50

Patin, S. and E. Cascio (translator). 1999. Environmental Impact of the Offshore Oil and Gas 

Industry. EcoMonitor Publishing, East North Port, New York. 425 p.

Pitcher, T.J., T. Morato, P.J.B. Hart, M.R. Clark, N. Haggan, and R.S. Santos (eds.). 2007. 

Seamounts: Ecology, Conservation and Management. Fish and Aquatic Resources Series,

Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Pitcher, T.J., T. Morato, K. I. Stocks, and M. R. Clark. 2010. Seamount Ecosystem Evaluation 

Framework (SEEF): A tool for global seamount research and data synthesis. Oceanography 

23:123–125.

Probert, P. K., S. Christiansen, K. M. Gjerde, S. Gubbay, and R. S. Santos. 2007. Management 

and conservation of seamounts (Chapter 20): 442-475. In: T. J. Pitcher, T. Morato, P. J. B. 

Hart, M. R. Clark, N. Haggan, and R.S. Santos (Eds.). Seamounts: Ecology, Fisheries and 

Conservation. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK. XXIV + 527p.

Rogers, A.D. 1994. The Biology of Seamounts. Advances in Marine Biology 30:305-350.

Rogers, A.D. 2004. The Biology, Ecology and Vulnerability of Seamount Communities. 

International Union for Conservation of Nature & Natural Resources. Accessed July 7, 2011 

at http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/alexrogers_cbdcop7_seamounts_complete1_1.pdf

Rogers, A.D, M.R. Clark, J.M. Hall-Spencer and K.M. Gjerde. 2008. The Science behind the 

Guidelines: A Scientific Guide to the FAO Draft International Guidelines (December 2007) 

For the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas and Examples of How the 

Guidelines May Be Practically Implemented. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Global Marine 

Programme. 48 p.

Sanctuary Integrated Monitoring Network (SIMoN). 2012. Monitoring Project: Pioneer 

Seamount Ocean Acoustic Observatory. Accessed October 24, 2012 at 

http://sanctuarysimon.org/projects/project_info.php?projectID=100159

Santos, R.S., F. Tempera, and T. Morato. 2010. Background Document for Seamounts. OSPAR 

Commission Biodiversity Series. 30 p.

Sarma, K., M.V. Ramana, V. Subrahmanyam, and K.S. Krishna. 1998. Seamounts an additional 

tool to confirm the nature of the crust and to locate possible mineral resources for dredging. 

Mar. Georesources and Geotechnology 16(1):41-51.

Shank, T.M. 2010. New England and Corner Rise Seamounts. Oceanography 23(1):104-105.

Sheppard, C.R.C., M. Ateweberhan, B.W. Bowen, P. Carr, C.A. Chen, C. Clubbe, M.T. Craig, R. 

Ebinghaus, J. Eble, N. Fitzsimmons, M.R. Gaither, C-H. Gan, M. Gollock, N. Guzman,

N.A.J. Graham, A. Harris, R. Jones, S.Keshavmurthy, H. Koldewey, C.G. Lundini, J.A.

Mortimer, D. Obura, M. Pfeiffer, A.R.G. Price, S. Purkis, P. Raines, J.W. Readman, B. Riegl, 

A. Rogers, M. Schleyer, M.R.D Seaward, A.L.S. Sheppard, J. Tamelander, J.R. Turner, S. 
51

Visram, C. Vogler, S. Vogt, H. Wolschke, J.M-C. Yang, S-Y. Yang and C. Yesson. 2012a. 

Reefs and islands of the Chagos Archipelago, Indian Ocean: why it is the world’s largest notake marine protected area. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 

22:232–261.

Sheppard, C., P. Carr, N. Graham, A. Harris, C. Head, H. Koldewey, J. Meeuwig, J. Mortimer, S. 

Purkis, A. Price, C. Roberts, M.H. Schleyer, A. Sheppard, J. Tamelander, and J. Turner. 

2012b. Conservation and Management in British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos 

Archipelago). Unpublished report. 28p.

Spear, B. and J. Cannon. 2012. Benthic Protection Areas: Best Practices and Recommendations. 

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership. 36p. Accessed November 28, 2012 at 

http://cmsdevelopment.sustainablefish.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2012/04/20/SFP_Benthic_Pro

tection_Areas_Report_2012_April-97c98c67.pdf

Starr, R.M and K. Green. 2010. Fishes of Las Gemelas Seamounts and Isla del Coco: 

Preliminary Findings of September 2009 Submersible Surveys. California Sea Grant 

Extension Publications, California Sea Grant College Program, UC San Diego. 14 p.

Staudigel, H., A.A.P. Koppers, J.W. Lavelle, T.J. Pitcher, and T.M. Shank (eds). 2010. Special 

Issue on Mountains in the Sea. Oceanography 23(1).

Stocks, K. 2009. SeamountsOnline: An Online Information System for Seamount Biology. 

Version 2009-1. World Wide Web electronic publication. Accessed September 14, 2012 at 

http://seamounts.sdsc.edu

Taranto, G.H., K.Ø. Kvile, T.J. Pitcher, and T. Morato. 2012. An Ecosystem Evaluation 

Framework for Global Seamount Conservation and Management. PLoS ONE 7(8):e42950. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042950.

Téllez, R. 2011. NGOs to pick up tab for protecting prized Isla del Coco marine park. Tico 

Times, May 20, 2011. Available at http://www.ticotimes.net/layout/set/print/CurrentEdition/Top-Story/News/NGOs-to-pick-up-tab-for-protecting-prized-Isla-del-Coco-marinepark_Friday-May-20-2011.

Thiel, H. and J.A. Koslow (eds.). 2001. Managing risks to biodiversity and the environment on 

the high sea, including tools such as marine protected areas: Scientific requirements and legal 

aspects. Proceedings of the Expert Workshop held at the International Academy for Nature 

Conservation, Isle of Vilm, Germany, 27 February - 4 March 2001. German Federal Agency 

for Nature Conservation, Bonn, 214p.

Tsounis, G., S. Rossi, R. Grigg, G. Santangelo, L. Bramanti, and J. Gili. 2010. The exploitation 

and conservation of precious corals. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 

48:161-212.

Turley, C.M., J.M. Roberts, and J.M. Guinotte. 2007. Corals in deep-water: will the unseen hand 
52

of ocean acidification destroy cold-water ecosystems? Coral Reefs 26:445-448.

UN Environment Programme (UNEP). 2010. High Seas MPAs: Regional Approaches and 

Experiences. Side event at the 12th Global Meeting of the Regional Seas Conventions and 

Action Plans, Bergen, Norway, 20th – 22nd September 2010. UNEP (DEPI)/RS.12 

/INF.6.RS. 38p.

UNEP-WCMC. 2012. UNEP-WCMC Species Database: CITES-Listed Species On the World 

Wide Web. Accessed September 14, 2012 at http://www.unep-wcmcapps.org/isdb/CITES/Taxonomy/tax-genus-result.cfm/isdb/CITES/Taxonomy/tax-genusresult.cfm?displaylanguage=eng&Genus=1154&source=animals&Country=

UN General Assembly (UNGA). 2007. Resolution 61/105 [Sustainable Fisheries]. 

A/RES/61/105. March 6, 2007.

Van den Hove, S. and V. Moreau. 2007. Deep-sea biodiversity and ecosystems: A scoping report 

on their socio-economy, management, and governance. UNEP World Conservation 

Monitoring Centre. 88 p.

Waller, R., L. Watling, P. Auster and T. Shank. 2007. Anthropogenic impacts on the Corner 

Rise seamounts, north-west Atlantic Ocean. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. (87):1075–1076.

Wessel, P., D.T. Sandwell, and S-S. Kim. 2010. The Global Seamount Census. In: Staudigel, 

H., A.A.P. Koppers, J.W. Lavelle, T.J. Pitcher, and T.M. Shank (eds). 2010. Special Issue 

on Mountains in the Sea. Oceanography 23(1).

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC). 2010. Amendment 2 to 

the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaii Archipelago: Management measures for the

Hancock Seamounts to address the overfished condition of armorhead (Pseudopentaceros 

wheeleri), including an environmental assessment. 41 p.

Williams, A., F. Althaus, and D. Furlani. 2006. Assessment of the conservation values of the 

Norfolk Seamounts area: A component of the Commonwealth Marine Conservation 

Assessment Program 2002-2004. Report to the Department of Environment and Heritage, 

Australia. 173p.

Williams, A., T. A. Schlacher, A. A. Rowden, F. Althaus, M. R. Clark, D. A. Bowden, R. 

Stewart, N. J. Bax, M. Consalvey, and R. J. Kloser. 2010. Seamount megabenthic 

assemblages fail to recover from trawling impacts. Marine Ecology 31 (Suppl. 1):183–199.

WWF Germany. 2012. Charlie-Gibbs Marine Protected Area: Protecting diversity in the high 

seas. Accessed November 28, 2012 at http://www.charlie-gibbs.org/

Yesson, C., M.R. Clark, M.L. Taylor, and A.D. Rogers. 2011. The global distribution of 

seamounts based on 30 arc seconds bathymetry data. Deep-Sea Research I 58:442-453.