Produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coral Reef Conservation Program

in cooperation with partners from State, Territorial, and Commonwealth Agencies

NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP 2 NAT OI NAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRAT OI N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

in Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States

V o l u m e I

Marine Protected Areas Managed by U.S. States, Territories, and Commonwealths

Marine Protected Areas

R e p o r t o n t h e S t a t u s o f

 
Cover Photos - (clockwise from top left): Dana Wusinich-Mendez/ NOAA, Paige 

Rothenberger/ USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Greg Moretti/ 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife, Katrina 

Adams. 
Report on the Status of Marine Protected Areas in

Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States 

Volume 1: Marine Protected Areas Managed by U.S. States, 

Territories, and Commonwealths 

Edited by Dana Wusinich-Mendez2

 and Carleigh Trappe2 

Report authors by jurisdiction: 

American Samoa – American Samoa Coral Reef Advisory Group 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands – Greg Moretti1 

Florida – Carleigh Trappe2 and Karen Bareford3 

Guam- Meghan Gombos2, Jay Gutierrez4, and Valerie Brown5 

Hawaii – Jill Komoto6 and Meghan Gombos2 

Puerto Rico – Dana Wusinich-Mendez2, María del Mar López-Rivera7, and Ernesto Díaz7 

U.S. Virgin Islands – Dana Wusinich-Mendez2 and Susan Curtis8 

Additional contributors: 

Bill Millhouser, Roger Griffis, Jonathan Kelsey, Sarah Fischer, Tom Hourigan, Risa Oram, Selaina Vaitautolu, 

Fran Castro, Michael Trianni, Dr. Peter Houk, John Starmer, Stephanie Bailenson, Chantal Collier, Laura 

Herren, Evangeline Lujan, Athline Clark, Alton Miyasaka, Matthew Ramsey, Aida Rosario, Nora Alvarez, 

Robert Matos, Clarimar Diaz, Nancy Vazquez, Nuria Mercado, Wendy Boneta, Manuel Valdes-Pizzini, Wes 

Toller, Toby Tobias, Barbara Kojis, Paige Rothenberger, Nick Drayton, Mark Drew, Shona Paterson, Bill 

Rohring, and Lisamarie Carruba. 

 NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP 2 

 February 2007 

 United States Department of National Oceanic and National Ocean Service 

Commerce Atmospheric Administration 

Carlos M. Gutierrez Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. John H. Dunnigan 

Secretary Administrator Assistant Administrator
AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS: 

1Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife; 2NOAA National Ocean Service, 

Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management; 3Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Office of 

Coastal & Aquatic Managed Areas; 4Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources; 

5NOAA Fisheries, Office of Habitat Conservation; 6Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of 

Aquatic Resources; 7Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources; 8U.S. Virgin Islands 

Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Management Division 

CITATIONS: 

Citation for the entire document: 

Wusinich-Mendez, D. and C. Trappe (eds.). 2007. Report on the Status of Marine Protected Areas in Coral Reef 

Ecosystems of the United States Volume 1: Marine Protected Areas Managed by U.S. States, Territories, and 

Commonwealths: 2007. NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP 2. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. 

Silver Spring, MD. 129 pp. + Appendices. 

Citation for an individual chapter (example of Guam chapter): 

Gombos, M., J. Gutierrez, V. Brown. 2007. Guam Coral Reef MPA Summary. pp. 69-75. In Wusinich-Mendez, D. 

and C. Trappe (ed.), 2007. Report on the Status of Marine Protected Areas in Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States 

Volume 1: Marine Protected Areas Managed by U.S. States, Territories, and Commonwealths: 2007. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum CRCP 2. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. Silver Spring, MD. 129 pp. + 

Appendices. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: 

This report was made possible through the guidance, input, and support of the following partners: 

The National Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Center for the data collected through the National Marine Managed Area 

(MMA) Inventory as well as the opportunity to include additional questions in the inventory questionnaire for the seven 

jurisdictions in this report; the report review team, including Bill Millhouser (NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management), Roger Griffis (NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program), Jonathan Kelsey (NOAA National 

MPA Center), Tom Hourigan (NOAA Fisheries), Sarah Fischer (NOAA National MPA Center), Gerry Davis (NOAA 

Fisheries), Andrew Gude (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service), and Karen Koltes (U.S. Department of the Interior Office of 

Insular Affairs); and finally, the state and territory points of contact to the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force who reviewed, 

contributed to, and endorsed the chapters for their jurisdictions, including Lelei Peau (American Samoa), Fran Castro 

(the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands), Chantal Collier (Florida), Evangeline Lujan (Guam), Athline 

Clark (Hawaii), Bill Rohring (U.S. Virgin Islands), and Aida Rosario (Puerto Rico). 

Funding for this report was provided by the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For more information about this report or to request a copy, please e-mail (coralreef@noaa.gov) or fax (301-713-4389) 

your request to NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program or visit http://www.coralreef.noaa.gov. 

DISCLAIMER: 

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for their use by 

the Unites States government. 
i 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary iii

Introduction 

• Methods and Approach 1 

• Summary of Report Contents 1 

• Summary Statistics 4 

State and Territory Coral Reef MPA Summaries 

1. American Samoa 11 

2. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 27 

3. Florida 41 

4. Guam 69 

5. Hawai‘i 77 

6. Puerto Rico 103 

7. U.S. Virgin Islands 117 

Appendices 

A. List of Acronyms A-1 

B. A Functional Classification System for Marine Protected 

 Areas in the United States B-1 
ii
iii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Seven United States (U.S.) jurisdictions have abundant coral reef ecosystems within their state and territorial waters. 

These jurisdictions are American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Florida, Guam, Hawai‘i, 

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The governments of all seven jurisdictions have recognized that to 

successfully conserve coral reef ecosystems, ecologically important reef areas need to be identified and managed 

distinctively within the broader marine environment. As a result, each of these jurisdictions has formally acknowledged 

that marine protected areas (MPAs) are an important coral reef management tool and have taken measures to officially 

incorporate this tool into their local marine resource management regimes. In this report, MPAs are defined as “any 

area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local laws or regulations to 

provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein” (Executive Order 13158, May 26, 

2000). In keeping with this broad definition, the term “MPA,” refers to a range of types of MPAs, from multiple-use 

areas that allow fishing or other uses, to “no-take reserves” where extractive uses are prohibited. 

This report, the Report on the Status of Marine Protected Areas in Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States Volume 1: Marine 

Protected Areas Managed by U.S. States, Territories, and Commonwealths, was developed by the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in conjunction with federal, state, territory, and commonwealth partners on the 

U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF). It was produced to help fulfill the goals and objectives of the U.S. National 

Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs (2000) and the National Coral Reef Action Strategy (2002), and also helps to 

advance the goals of Executive Order 13158 on MPAs. Goal number five in the National Coral Reef Action Strategy 

calls for “improving the use of marine protected areas in coral reef ecosystems.” Objective number one under this goal 

area is to “conduct and support nation-wide, state and territory assessments of the effectiveness and gaps in the existing 

system of U.S. Coral Reef MPAs.” This report directly addresses that objective by providing an inventory and 

assessment of existing MPAs that have been established and are managed by the governments of the seven coral reef 

states and territories. It illustrates the goals and objectives of these areas; describes current efforts to manage them; 

recognizes common challenges to successful management; and, identifies actions that can increase the effectiveness of 

MPA initiatives. 

Efforts to manage a total of 207 MPAs across the seven coral reef jurisdictions are summarized in this report. The 

large majority of these MPAs (76 percent) are multiple-use areas that allow some level of extractive activity throughout 

the entire site. The remaining 49 MPAs include no-take areas in which the harvesting of marine resources is prohibited. 

One hundred and forty-seven (71 percent) of the MPAs were established to sustain, conserve, restore, and understand 

the coral reef ecosystems or ecosystem components they contain, while almost one quarter of them were established to 

support the continued extraction of renewable living resources. Of the 207 sites, 86 percent are permanent sites as 

opposed to conditional sites whose potential to persist must be considered after a set period of time. Nearly all of the 

sites (97 percent) provide constant protection throughout the year; only three percent are seasonal sites in which 

resources are protected during fixed periods of time. Most of the MPAs (78 percent) were established to provide an 

ecosystem scale of protection through which management measures are intended to protect all of the components and 

processes of the coral reef ecosystem within MPA boundaries. The remaining 22 percent target a particular habitat, 

species complex, or single resource. 

Many of the MPAs in this assessment contain priority natural resources for coral reef conservation such as fish 

spawning areas found in 81 sites and the threatened or endangered species observed within 164 sites. Only 20 percent 

of the MPAs (42 sites) have approved management plans (nine additional plans are in development) suggesting that the 

development of plans to guide long-term MPA management is a challenge for these sites. However, this finding does 

not mean that management action is not happening on-the-ground. Of the 194 sites that reported on management 

actions being implemented, approximately 42 percent have targeted research and outreach and education programs or 

activities, 45 percent have on-going monitoring activities, and over 74 percent reported the existence of enforcement 

activities or programs. 

Finally, MPA managers and practitioners from 126 of the sites identified several key challenges that impede the 

effective management of their MPAs. The most commonly noted challenges were enforcement (83 percent) and 

funding and resources (80 percent). Management capacity (76 percent), monitoring (65 percent), and public support (59 

percent) are also challenges for a majority of the sites. Other frequently identified challenges to management were a 

lack of interagency coordination and insufficient communication between researchers and managers. These problems 

must be addressed to improve MPA management effectiveness. 
iv

Assessments such as this report are critical steps in understanding the use and effectiveness of MPAs as tools to 

conserve coral reef ecosystems. To successfully apply these tools, it is important to understand the strengths and 

difficulties of existing efforts. If the goal of conservation efforts is to maintain the function of coral reef ecosystems so 

that people can continue to enjoy and benefit from the valuable services they provide, it is necessary to assess which 

components of these ecosystems would be best served by MPAs and identify the gaps in our current MPA management 

schemes. 

This report provides a basic inventory of state and territory MPA efforts in coral reef ecosystems. It does not provide 

an evaluation of the effectiveness of these MPAs in fulfilling their goals and objectives. Subsequent efforts will be 

required to fully comprehend the scope and effectiveness of the use of MPAs for coral reef protection in the United 

States. Two such efforts are currently underway by NOAA and the U.S. CRTF, including the development of a second 

volume to this report that inventories federal MPA efforts in U.S. coral reef ecosystems, and an analysis of geospatial 

information to quantitatively assess the total area of coral reef ecosystem habitat types protected by U.S. MPAs. Many 

MPAs and jurisdictions are also undertaking efforts to evaluate their management effectiveness by developing and 

implementing monitoring and evaluation programs. As the number of MPAs applying these evaluations increases, 

there is greater opportunity to identify mechanisms for improving MPA effectiveness. This report is intended to 

support other assessments that will help increase our capacity as marine resource managers, practitioners, and stewards 

to conserve our nation’s coral reefs. 
1 

Matt Ramsey 2006 

Introduction 

METHODS AND APPROACH: 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coral Reef 

Conservation Program developed this report of MPAs managed by state and 

territory governments in conjunction with federal, state, territory, and 

commonwealth partners. The information included in the report was collected 

in partnership with the National Marine Managed Area (MMA) Inventory that 

was conducted by the National Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Center from 

2001-2006. Inventory data was obtained through direct surveys with managers 

of coral reef MPAs and review of legal documents and management plans. This 

data is available in the Inventory of MMAs on the National MPA Center’s 

website at www.mpa.gov (National MPA Center 2006c). This report is based on 

data extracted from the inventory in July 2005. In the process of writing and 

reviewing this document, several of the jurisdictions revised and edited their 

MMA Inventory data. 

The report contains seven chapters that focus on the state and territory MPA 

efforts of each coral reef jurisdiction. It does not include sites which are 

managed entirely or in cooperation with the federal government because the 

MMA inventory of federal sites was not completed. Since the report is a collaborative effort between NOAA and the 

jurisdictions, most chapters have multiple authors representing NOAA staff who work closely with these jurisdictions 

on their MPA initiatives and MPA leadership in each state and territory. The authors also contacted MPA managers 

and practitioners in each jurisdiction who contributed valuable information to enrich this report. As a result of this 

partnership, the authors were able to expand upon and provide insight into the responses provided through the 

National MMA Inventory including recommendations to enhance local MPA efforts. 

SUMMARY OF REPORT CONTENTS: 

Each of the seven jurisdictional chapters is organized into seven main components including: 

1) INTRODUCTION

This section is an introduction to each state or territory that provides a description of the coral reef 

resources in the jurisdiction and a broad summary of local MPA efforts. 

2) MPA TYPES

As the core of the report, this section explores the various types or “systems” of MPAs in each jurisdiction. 

The types of MPAs are not necessarily ecologically interconnected systems of MPAs, known as ecological 

MPA “networks.” Instead, they represent legal designations as established by the local government of each 

state and territory. For each MPA type, the following information is provided: 

 Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Table – Provides a list of all of the sites 

represented by each MPA type and an accounting of the priority coral reef resources and habitats 

that can be found within each site. 

 National Classification – Categorizes the sites within each MPA type according to the national 

classification system (see component 7 below). 

 Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency - Explains the legal framework for the 

establishment and management of the MPAs within each type. 

 Goals, Objectives, Policies and Protections – Describes existing goals and objectives as stated 

by site managers in management plans and in other legal documents pertaining to individual sites 

or systems of sites. It also provides information on the specific policies and regulations that 

distinguish the management of the MPAs from the surrounding marine environment. 
INTRODUCTION 

2

Mateo Mendez 2006 

 Management Activities – Identifies the different management activities that are currently being 

implemented in the sites within each MPA type. Activities include enforcement, monitoring, 

research, education and outreach, permitting, restoration, and the development of site 

management plans. 

 Stakeholder Involvement and Public Participation- Offers a summary of the level of 

involvement of relevant stakeholder groups and the general public in the MPA establishment and 

management process for each MPA type. This involvement ranges from participation in public 

meetings or hearings to community-based management of MPA sites whereby local stakeholders 

are given complete management authority over a site or system of sites. 

3) CHALLENGES TO MPA EFFECTIVENESS 

In order to improve the effectiveness of MPA management, it is 

necessary to identify and address the challenges or obstacles that 

MPA managers face. This section provides a discussion of the 

MPA management challenges specific to each jurisdiction. The 

National MMA Inventory included a special question on five main 

challenge areas for the seven coral jurisdictions in this report. 

These areas were: funding and resources, capacity, public support, 

monitoring, and enforcement. For each site in the inventory, 

managers identified which of these areas present challenges to the 

effective management of their MPAs. Each chapter provides a 

chart that depicts the predominance of these five challenge areas in 

the jurisdiction. Several coral jurisdictions also identified other 

challenges which are discussed in this section. 

4) WORKING TOWARDS A NETWORK 

This component describes existing state and territory efforts to support the development of networks of 

MPAs. A network of MPAs is defined as “a set of discrete MPAs within a region or ecosystem that are 

connected through complementary purposes and synergistic protections. A network of MPAs could focus 

on ecosystem processes, certain individual marine species, or cultural resources. For example, an ecological 

network of MPAs could be connected through dispersal of reproductive stages or movement of juveniles 

and adults” (National MPA Center 2006b). 

5) NEXT STEPS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

In this section, the authors and contributors of each chapter provide a series of potential next steps and 

recommendations to enhance local efforts to manage existing sites and to develop effective networks of 

MPAs. 

6) NATIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM TABLE 

The National Classification System was developed by the National MPA Center in an effort to develop a 

“straightforward and consistent language to accurately describe the many types of MPAs occurring in our 

waters and to understand their effects on ecosystems and the people that use them” (National MPA Center 

2006a). The system describes MPAs in purely functional terms using five objective characteristics common 

to most MPAs: 

 Conservation Focus – each site was assigned one or more of the following three attributes: 

i. Natural Heritage – established and managed to sustain, conserve, restore and understand 

the biodiversity, populations, communities, habitats, ecosystems, processes and services of 

an MPA or MPA zone 
INTRODUCTION 

3 

Greg Moretti n.d. 

ii. Cultural Heritage – established and managed to protect and understand submerged 

cultural resources 

iii. Sustainable Production – established and managed to support the continued extraction of 

renewable living resources 

 Level of Protection Afforded – each site was assigned one of the following six attributes: 

i. Uniform Multiple-Use – Consistent level of protection and allowable activities throughout 

the MPA 

ii. Zoned Multiple-Use – Some extractive activities allowed throughout entire site, but use 

marine zoning to allocate specific uses to compatible places or times 

iii. Zoned Multiple-Use with No-Take Areas – Multiple-use MPAs that contain one or more 

zones where resource extraction is prohibited 

iv. No-Take – MPA sites that allow human access but prohibit resource extraction 

throughout the area 

v. No Impact – MPAs that allow human access but prohibit all activities that could harm the 

site’s resources or disrupt the service they provide 

vi. No Access – MPAs that restrict all human access to the area unless specifically permitted 

for designated special uses 

 Permanence of Protection – each site was assigned one of the following three attributes: 

i. Permanent – MPAs whose legal authorities provide protection in perpetuity 

ii. Conditional – MPAs that have the potential to persist over time but whose legal authority 

has a finite duration and must be actively renewed 

iii. Temporary – MPAs that are designed to address relatively short-term conservation and 

management needs by protecting a specific habitat or species for a finite duration with no 

expectation or mechanism for renewal 

 Constancy of Protection – each site was assigned one of the following three attributes: 

i. Year-round – MPAs that provide constant protection throughout the year 

ii. Seasonal – MPAs that protected specific habitats and resources during fixed seasons or 

periods 

iii. Rotating – MPAs that cycle among a set of fixed geographic areas in order to meet shortterm conservation and management goals 

 Ecological Scale of Protection – each site was assigned one of the following two attributes: 

i. Ecosystem – MPAs whose legal authorities and management measures are intended to 

protect all of the components and processes of the ecosystem(s) within its boundaries 

ii. Focal Resource – MPAs whose legal authorities and management measures specifically 

target a particular habitat, species complex, or single 

resource 

Every chapter provides a table that uses this system to classify each MPA in 

the jurisdiction. The table also includes information on the presence of a 

management plan for each MPA site. A full description of the classification 

system is available in Appendix B of this report and at www.mpa.gov

(National MPA Center 2006a). 

7) SUCCESS STORY 

The close of each chapter highlights a case study that demonstrates a 

successful MPA initiative. 
INTRODUCTION 

4

Ben Mieremet n.d. 

Number of MPAs in Coral Reef Ecosystems by Jurisdiction 

(n = 207)

Hawaii

39

Florida

82

Puerto Rico

35

USVI

24

Guam

5

American 

Samoa

14 CNMI

8

Fig. A: Number of existing MPAs in each of the seven coral reef jurisdictions.

SUMMARY STATISTICS: 

The following summary statistics provide 

information on the status of coral reef 

ecosystem MPAs established by the seven 

states and territories. In total, 207 MPA sites 

are represented in this report. The data 

described in the report does not reflect the 

management effectiveness of the various 

sites, nor can it be inferred to indicate the 

amount of effort spent by the jurisdictions to 

establish or manage MPAs. As evidenced in 

the MPA summaries in each chapter, many of 

these sites have little on-going management 

activity and are in critical need of resources 

and support for increased management 

capacity. 

Level of Marine Resource Protection 

In the National Coral Reef Action Strategy, the U.S. Coral Reef Task 

Force calls for the establishment of “additional ‘no take’ ecological 

reserves in a balanced suite of representative U.S. coral reefs and 

associated habitats, with the goal of protecting at least 5 percent of all 

coral reefs and associated habitat types in each major island group 

and Florida as ecological reserves by 2002; at least 10 percent by 

2005, and at least 20 percent by 2010” (2002). 

Of the 207 sites included in the report, less than one quarter of them 

(49 sites or 24 percent) offer some level of no-take protection (Fig. 

B). This category includes all sites classified as no-take, no impact, no 

access, and zoned multiple-use with no-take areas. The remaining 

158 sites are uniform multiple-use and zoned multiple-use areas. 

Approximately 45 percent of the no-take sites are located in the Atlantic-Caribbean region in the jurisdictions of 

Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (Fig. C). The remaining 55 percent are found in the four Pacific 

jurisdictions of American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and Hawaii. A 

site’s designation as a no-take area is only a characterization of the restrictions established by its authorizing legislation 

or subsequent regulations; it is not an indication of the level of enforcement of those laws or regulations. Also, there 

are sites that do not have no-take zones, but do have active fisheries management and enforcement. For example, only 

one of the five MPAs in Guam’s marine preserve system has been designated as a no-take area, but there is a permitting 

system for the preserves that provides comprehensive fisheries restrictions that are vigorously enforced. 
INTRODUCTION 

5 

 Fig. B: Number of sites providing no-take protection vs. number of multiple-use sites. 

Number of No-Take MPAs and Zoned Multiple-Use MPAs 

with No-Take Areas by Jurisdiction (n = 49)

CNMI

4

Guam

1

Hawaii

12

Florida

10

Puerto Rico

6

USVI

6

American Samoa

10

 Fig. C: Number of sites providing no-take protection by jurisdiction. 

Level of Marine Resource Protection (n = 207)

No-Take

49

Multiple-Use

158
INTRODUCTION 

6

Number of Coral Reef MPAs by Conservation Focus 

(n = 207)

NH & SP

1

NH & CH & SP

1

NH & CH

9

SP

45

CH

4

NH

147

Natural Heritage (NH)

Cultural Heritage (CH)

Sustainable Production (SP)

Natural & Cultural Heritage

Natural Heritage & Sustainable

Production

Natural & Cultural Heritage &

Sustainable Production

 Fig. D: Conservation focus of sites.

Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs within each Jurisdiction

by Conservation Focus (n = 207)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

American

Samoa

CNMI Guam Hawaii Florida Puerto

Rico

USVI

Sustainable Production

Cultural Heritage

Natural Heritage

 Fig. E: Conservation focus by jurisdiction. 

Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs by Permanence, Constancy, 

and Scale (n = 207)

Permanent

Ecosystem

Conditional

Yearround

Focal

Resource

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Permanence of

Protection

Constancy of Protection Scale of Protection

Seasonal

Fig. F: Permanence, constancy, and scale of MPAs.

Conservation Focus 

In terms of the conservation focus of the 

sites included in this report, the large 

majority (71 percent) are natural heritage 

MPAs, meaning that they are “established 

and managed to sustain, conserve, restore 

and understand the biodiversity, 

populations, communities, habitats, 

ecosystems, processes and services of an 

MPA or MPA zone” (National MPA Center 

2006a) (Fig.D). Almost one quarter of the 

sites were established for sustainable 

production purposes. Observation of 

regional trends reveals that sustainable 

production MPAs are more common in the 

Pacific region than in the AtlanticCaribbean region (Fig. E). Very few sites in 

the seven coral jurisdictions have a cultural 

heritage focus or multiple conservation foci. 

Duration and Scale of Protection

The large majority of sites in the report are 

permanent (86 percent), provide constant 

protection throughout the year (97 percent), 

and are intended to provide ecosystem level 

protection (78 percent) (Fig. F). Twentytwo MPAs are conditional, meaning that 

after a specified period of time they will be 

reevaluated and either continue for another 

set period of time or be terminated. Seven 

sites are seasonal areas in which specific 

habitats and resources are protected during 

fixed times of the year or periods. Fortyfive MPAs in this report have authorities 

and management measures that target a 

particular habitat, species complex, or 

resource rather than focusing management 

at an ecosystem level. 
INTRODUCTION 

7 

Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs with Fish Spawning 

Areas and Threatened and Endangered Species (n = 207)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Fish Spawning Areas Threatened and Endangered

Species

 Fig. G: Coral reef ecosystem MPAs with fish spawning aggregations 

 and endangered sea turtles, marine mammals, and/or birds. 

MPA Characteristics: Resources, 

Management, and Challenges

Many of the MPAs represented in this report 

contain significant natural resources whose 

protection is essential for the effective 

conservation of coral reef ecosystems. 

Almost half of the 207 sites contain fish 

spawning areas. Threatened and endangered 

species have been observed in almost 80 

percent of the sites in this report. This 

statistic was formulated by calculating the 

number of sites that reported the presence of 

federally endangered or threatened sea 

turtles, marine mammals, and/or birds. Note 

that two species of coral, the Acropora palmata

and the Acropora cervicornis, were listed as 

federally threatened species after the 

completion of the MMA Inventory. The 

inclusion of these species in this assessment 

would increase the number of sites with 

threatened or endangered species significantly. 

Of the 207 sites included in this report, 194 of them provided information on the management activities that are being 

implemented within the areas. Figures H-K illustrate the proportion of sites in each jurisdiction that are currently 

implementing education, research, monitoring, and enforcement activities. Some jurisdictions may not have reported 

the implementation of these activities specific to particular sites, but they have comprehensive programs for education, 

research, monitoring and enforcement that inherently include these MPA sites as a part of the broader coral reef 

management efforts. For example, Hawai‘i has an extensive coral reef outreach and education campaign that does not 

focus on any specific MPA sites and therefore was not reported as a management activity for many of the sites in 

Hawai‘i. 

Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs with Education 

Activities by Jurisdiction (n = 194)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

American

Samoa

CNMI Hawaii Guam Florida Puerto

Rico

USVI

 Fig. H: Coral reef ecosystem MPAs with education activities. 
INTRODUCTION 

8

Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs with Research Activities

by Jurisdiction (n = 194)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

American

Samoa

CNMI Hawaii Guam Florida Puerto

Rico

USVI

 Fig. I: Coral reef ecosystem MPAs with research activities. 

Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs with Monitoring Activities 

by Jurisdiction (n = 194)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

American

Samoa

CNMI Hawaii Guam Florida Puerto

Rico

USVI

 Fig. J: Coral reef ecosystem MPAs with monitoring activities. 

Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs with Enforcement 

Activities by Jurisdiction (n = 194)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

American

Samoa

CNMI Hawaii Guam Florida Puerto

Rico

USVI

 Fig. K: Coral reef ecosystem MPAs with enforcement activities.
INTRODUCTION 

9 

Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs with Management Plans

by Jurisdiction (n = 207)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

American

Samoa

CNMI Guam Hawaii Florida Puerto

Rico

USVI

No Management Plan

Management Plan In Development

Management Plan

 Fig. L: Coral reef ecosystem MPAs with management plans.

Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs that identified each issue as 

a Management Challenge (n = 126)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Funding/

Resources

Capacity Public

Support

Monitoring Enforcement Other

Fig. M: Number of MPAs (out of 126 total responses) that identified each issue 

 as a challenge to effective MPA management. Of the 207 total MPAs, data was 

 not reported for 81 MPAs located in Florida, HI, and CNMI. 

The development of a management plan is an important step towards the successful implementation and effective 

management of an MPA. A management plan serves as the framework for the implementation of an MPA and lays out 

a series of goals, objectives, and management actions for a particular site or a system of sites. These plans can provide 

both long-term guidance for the application 

and adaptation of MPA management 

strategies as well as short-term actions to be 

implemented in the immediate future. The 

development of a robust management plan 

can be quite challenging depending on the 

number of management authorities, 

agencies, and other stakeholders involved in 

the process, the amount of financial and 

human resources available to work on the 

plan, and the level of local support for the 

MPA. These challenges are reflected in the 

relatively low number of sites that have 

approved management plans (Fig. L). 

It is important to note that presence of a 

management plan does not necessarily 

signify that management actions are being 

implemented in a particular site; nor does 

the absence of a management plan imply that there is no management action. Many sites without complete 

management plans have significant management activity, such as permitting systems, fisheries regulations, the 

implementation of no-take zones, outreach and education initiatives, and coral reef ecosystem monitoring among 

others. 

Finally, 126 sites responded to a question 

that asked them to identify the existing 

challenges to effective MPA 

management. The list of challenge 

options included funding and resources, 

management capacity, public support, 

monitoring, enforcement, and other. 

Excluding the “other” options, all of the 

challenge options were identified in more 

than 50 percent of the sites indicating 

that significant effort is required to 

ensure that MPA goals will be met (Fig. 

M). Enforcement was the most 

commonly identified challenge followed 

by funding and resources, capacity, 

monitoring, and public support. Several 

other challenges were identified by 

inventory respondents, such as balancing 

use with protection, interagency 

coordination, a lack of comprehensive 

management plans, a lack of citation and 

penalty systems for illegal activity, insufficient communication between researchers and managers, a lack of 

infrastructure, facilities and administrative support, conflicts with private landowners, and the poorly described or nonexistent demarcation of MPA boundaries. 

 

The successful application of MPAs as a management tool is contingent upon the resolution of these obstacles to 

effective management. If the federal, state, and territory government partners on the U.S. CRTF wish to achieve 

functioning networks of coral reef ecosystem MPAs, then they must work together to address these challenge areas and 

provide the resources and assistance required to build state and territory MPA management capacity. 
INTRODUCTION 

10

CITATIONS: 

National Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Center. 2006a. A Functional Classification System for Marine Protected Areas in the 

United States. NOAA. Silver Spring, Maryland. 6 pp. Available online at: http://www.mpa.gov/pdf/ 

helpful-resources/factsheets/class_system_0806.pdf. 

–––––––. 2006b. Glossary. http://www.mpa.gov/glossary.html. 

–––––––. 2006c. Inventory of Marine Managed Areas in the United States. http://www.mpa.gov/helpful_resources/ 

 inventory.html. 

U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. 2000. The National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs. Washington, D.C. Available online 

at: http://coralreef.gov.

U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2002. A National Coral Reef Action Strategy: Report to Congress on 

Implementation of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2002 and the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs in 2002-

2003. NOAA. Silver Spring, Maryland. 120 pp. + appendix.
11 

Chapter 1: American Samoa Coral Reef MPA Summary 

American Samoa Coral Reef Advisory Group1 

Contributors: Meghan Gombos, Risa Oram, and Selaina Vaitautolu 

INTRODUCTION 

As the southernmost U.S. Pacific Territory, American 

Samoa lies approximately 4,200 kilometers (km) south 

of Hawaii in the South Pacific. The territory is 

comprised of seven islands (five volcanic and two coral 

atolls) surrounded by shallow water habitats consisting 

primarily of fringing reefs, a few offshore banks, and 

two coral atolls. Based on the 2004 NOAA benthic 

habitat maps, the estimated area of coral-related habitat 

in the territory is 73 km2 (Riolo 2006). This estimate 

could increase significantly based on the kind of 

substrates found on the newly delineated seamounts 

that encircle Tutuila Island. 

“Coral reefs are an 

important natural resource 

in American Samoa. Not 

only are they important 

habitats for fishes, but for 

traditional and recreational 

activities as well” 

(Saucerman 1995). Coral 

reefs provide protection, 

food, medicines, and 

security, as well as other 

social, cultural, economic, 

and aesthetic benefits. A recent economic valuation 

study conducted by Jacobs Inc. indicated that the 

current total coral reef annual value (US$/year at 2004 

market prices) in American Samoa is $10,057,000. The 

total current product added value of the direct coral reef 

subsistence fishery in American Samoa is estimated to 

be about US$ 544,000/year (Jacobs, et al. 2004). 

American Samoa’s reefs have experienced numerous 

destructive impacts, both natural and human induced. 

The reefs have proven resilient to tropical storms, 

bleaching events, and crown of thorn starfish outbreaks 

in the past. This resilience is aided by high amounts of 

coralline algae that promote coral recruitment, and high 

herbivorous fish populations that keep macro-algae 

populations low. Overall, the coral reefs in American 

Samoa are considered healthy and coral cover averages 

about 30 percent (Sabater and Tofaeono 2006; Fenner 

and Whaylen 2005). Land-based pollution, 

sedimentation, fishing pressure, global climate change, 

and population pressure are among the human based 

threats that are being investigated to better understand 

their impacts on the reefs. While not all of these factors 

may have impacted the reefs noticeably up until now, 

they all potentially pose serious threats for the future. 

The reef ecosystem also has been impacted by the 

significant human population growth that has occurred 

in the territory over the last two decades. American 

Samoa has an estimated population of 66,900 people 

and a population growth rate of approximately two 

percent per year (Filiga 2006). “Rapid development and 

the accompanying environmental degradation 

have affected the South of Tutuila Island in many 

ways: roads encroach on shoreline, new 

construction, [and] siltation problems” (Coutures 

2003). In addition, fish caught in the inner Pago 

Pago Harbor are seriously contaminated with 

heavy metals such as lead and other pollutants. 

The fish in the inner Pago Pago Harbor are not 

safe to eat, and the sale of these fish is prohibited 

(ASEPA 1991). Eutrophication and 

sedimentation are likely responsible for the 

degraded condition of many coral reefs in Pago 

Pago Harbor (Banner, et al. 1970; Caperon, et al. 

1971; Smith, et al. 1973 in Dahl, et al. 1977). In recent 

years, however, water quality in the harbor has 

improved due to diversion of pollution from local 

canneries, and reefs in the harbor appear to be 

recovering as a result. 

The American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency 

(ASEPA) monitors water quality and publishes weekly 

beach advisory notifications in the Samoa News 

newspaper. Advisories are issued when E. coli bacteria, 

an indicator of contamination by human and/or animal 

wastes, concentrations exceed levels determined safe for 

human exposure (ASEPA 2005). Coral reef organisms 

are susceptible to diseases caused by pathogens and 

parasites, as well as to those conditions caused or 

aggravated by exposures to anthropogenic pollutants 

and habitat degradation (Peters 1997). 

1 The American Samoa Coral Reef Advisory Group (CRAG) is a collaboration of five different agencies in the territory, all of 

which have some link to the coral reef environment: the Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR); the 

Department of Commerce (DOC); American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA); the American Samoa 

Community College (ASCC) and; the National Park of American Samoa.

Fig. 1.1: White-spotted surgeon fish 

(Brown 2006)
AMERICAN SAMOA 

12

The territorial government of American Samoa and the 

U.S. federal government have recognized that measures 

must be taken to protect the unique marine resources in 

the islands. The first MPA in American Samoa, the 

Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, was established in 

1973. MPAs in American Samoa represent various 

levels and types of MPAs, from federally managed to 

community-based. Federal sites include the National 

Park of American Samoa, Rose Atoll National Wildlife 

Refuge, and Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary. 

The Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary is federally 

funded, but located within territorial waters; because 

both federal and territorial regulations apply, it is comanaged. 

American Samoa has established 14 MPAs on the main 

islands of Tutuila and Ofu that contain coral reef 

resources and habitats. These sites represent three types 

of MPAs: 1) special management areas (SMAs), 2) a 

territorial marine park, and 3) community-based 

fisheries management program (CFMP) reserves. The 

territory is also developing a new program to establish 

no-take MPAs. Although no MPAs have been 

established under this program, two sites are proposed 

to be established by September 2010. 

MPA TYPES 

Special Management Areas: 

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use, 

Natural and Cultural Heritage MPAs 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

Section 24.0503 of the American Samoa Coastal 

Management Act of 1990 designated Pago Pago Bay, 

and the “pala” or wetland areas of Nu’uuli and Leone as 

special management areas (SMAs) because of “their 

unique and valuable characteristics and to the imminent 

threat from development pressures” (ASCA § 24.05). 

This section also instructed the director of development 

planning to delineate boundaries and establish rules that 

impose the highest practical standards for the 

preservation, restoration, and management of the SMAs’ 

ecological, commercial, recreational, and esthetic values. 

Future SMAs may be designated by the governor, 

following a nomination process and pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedures Act.

Fig. 1.2: Map of MPAs in American Samoa (Curry and Anderson 2006) 
AMERICAN SAMOA 

13

The SMAs are primarily managed by the American 

Samoa Coastal Management Program (ASCMP) within 

the Department of Commerce, but other agencies also 

contribute to management. ASEPA oversees stream 

management, piggery management, solid waste 

management, and a water quality program in 

cooperation with ASCMP. The human health aspects 

of piggery waste management and solid waste 

management are the responsibility of the Department of 

Health. The American Samoa Community College 

(ASCC) Land Grant oversees mangrove replanting and 

shoreline stabilization. Additionally, the Department of 

Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR) has the power 

and duty to manage, protect, preserve, and perpetuate 

the marine and wildlife resources in the territory (ASCA 

§ 24.0304). Finally, local village councils enforce village 

wetland agreements, monitor their village projects for 

compliance, and support protection of wetlands by 

imposing village fines on violations and reporting 

violations to ASCMP. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

SMAs are specific areas that “possess unique and 

irreplaceable habitat, products or materials, offer 

beneficial functions or affect either the cultural values or 

quality of life significant to the general population of the 

territory and fa’aSamoa” (Samoan way of life) (ASAC 

§26.0221). These areas include both terrestrial and 

marine components. The main purpose of the SMAs is 

to protect unique marine ecosystems by regulating 

upland activities that could degrade these systems. The 

SMAs were selected using biological and ecological 

parameters (mapped accordingly to maximum extent) of 

water, soil, and plant coverage (based on U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers wetland delineations). 

The American Samoa Administrative Code (ASAC) lays 

out permit procedures and regulations for any 

development that occurs within the coastal zone and 

specifically around SMAs. In American Samoa, the 

coastal zone includes the entirety of all five islands and 

the two coral atolls out to the three-mile territorial sea 

limit. Therefore, the main protections afforded to 

SMAs are development regulations through a permit 

system. This permit system, as identified in the ASCMP 

administrative rules, integrates the permitting 

requirements of each of the territorial agencies 

concerned with environmental management, and 

includes special requirements for permits around SMAs. 

While the SMAs include a marine component, there are 

no regulations within the marine area that go beyond 

general territorial regulations. The regulations that apply 

to the Pago Pago Harbor SMA are general territorial 

fisheries and harbor regulations. As previously 

mentioned, the sale of fish from the inner Pago Pago 

Harbor is prohibited because they are not safe to eat 

(ASEPA 1991). In the Leone Pala and Nu’uuli Pala 

SMAs, territorial fisheries and wetland regulations apply. 

The wetlands within these sites have been delineated 

through an agreement with the adjacent communities. 

Within these SMAs, any activities that alter wetlands are 

regulated, including filling and dumping, dredging, 

killing or damaging any flora or fauna, and the erection 

of any structures that affect the tidal flow (ASAC § 

26.0222 F. 1. a. & b). 

Management Activities: 

The SMAs currently do not have written management 

plans with site-specific rules, regulations, and/or 

management tools and implementation strategies. 

Education and Outreach: 

Island-wide public awareness and outreach activities are 

an on-going part of ASCMP. Over the years, numerous 

efforts have focused specifically on communities located 

within the SMAs. One effort has been working with 

these communities to develop village wetland 

Table 1.1: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Three 

Special Management Areas (SMAs) 

Special Management Areas 

(SMAs) 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Leone Pala x x x x x x x 

Nu’uuli Pala x x x x x x x x x 

Pago Pago Harbor x x x x x x x x x 
AMERICAN SAMOA 

14

agreements, which are based on wetland delineations 

and traditional village uses. The finalized wetland 

boundaries are hard-line boundaries in which no 

development is allowed. Wetland and SMA boundary 

signs have been proposed and will be installed in the 

designated SMA villages in the next year. Recently, 

ASCMP (with the permission of the Department of 

Parks and Recreation) installed a mangrove-viewing 

platform in Lion’s Park with educational messages about 

mangroves in English and Samoan. 

Enforcement: 

Enforcement and monitoring activities within the SMAs 

are similar to island-wide enforcement and monitoring 

activities. ASCMP enforcement staff is in the field 

several days a week conducting site visits and 

monitoring active construction sites. These activities 

provide an opportunity to survey the island, including 

the SMAs, for non-permitted activities. Additionally, 

enforcement staff regularly receives calls from the public 

regarding non-permitted or suspicious activities. Lastly, 

ASCMP now has a designated assistant attorney general 

to work specifically on ASCMP and Department of 

Commerce cases. 

Permitting: 

Development projects within the SMAs are subject to a 

permitting process implemented by ASCMP, and carried 

out by the Project Notification and Review System 

(PNRS) Board, which consists of representatives from 

various agencies. These agencies include: ASCMP, 

ASEPA, American Samoa Historic Preservation Office, 

American Samoa Power Authority, Department of 

Health, DMWR, Department of Parks and Recreation, 

and Department of Public Works. The PNRS provides 

a system of environmental review, along with economic 

and technical considerations, that is intended to ensure 

that environmental concerns are given appropriate 

consideration in the land use decision-making process. 

Current staff positions that directly work within the 

SMA includes: ASCMP wetland specialist, a village 

conservation officer, and a community liaison officer. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

While the public was not involved in the designation of 

the SMAs, all permit reviews of projects around SMAs 

must include a public hearing to obtain stakeholder 

input about development around the SMA. 

Additionally, both Nu’uuli Village and Leone Village 

were involved in delineating their village wetland 

boundaries and each supports protection efforts. These 

villages also monitor the wetland areas and report nonpermitted activities to ASCMP. Lastly, the public will 

be involved in the proposed SMAs for the Malaeimi 

Valley and Tafuna Lowland Rainforest areas. 

Territorial Marine Park 

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use, 

Natural Heritage MPA

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

Ofu Vaoto Marine Park was established on the south 

coast of Ofu Island in 1994 through American Samoa 

Territorial Law (PL 23-13; ASCA § 18.0214). The 

Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has 

management authority for the park, but DMWR 

maintains primary authority to manage the fisheries 

within the park. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

The park was established “to protect its unique coral 

reef wildlife habitat while enabling the public to enjoy 

the natural beauty of the site” (ASCA § 18.0214). This 

unique habitat includes a high diversity of corals, in 

particular blue coral, fish, and hawksbill turtle nesting 

sites. 

Regulations for the park prohibit fishing or shellfish 

harvesting (ASCA § 18.0214). However, there is an 

Table 1.2: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Ofu Vaoto Marine Park 

Marine Park 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Ofu Vaoto x x x x x x 
AMERICAN SAMOA 

15

exception that allows Ofu Island residents to continue 

subsistence fishing and shellfish harvesting in the park 

in accordance with territorial fishing regulations. No 

other regulations have been established for the park. 

However, the ASCMP administrative rules provide 

additional protections for the park through a land use 

permit review system for areas adjacent to park and the 

adjacent National Park of American Samoa. Under this 

system, applications are reviewed “to ensure minimum 

adverse impact to marine and coastal resources, 

including water-quality, habitat, fish and wildlife, and 

recreational opportunities” (ASAC § 26.0220 F. 7.). 

Management Activities: 

There is no management plan for the park and DMWR 

is not actively implementing any management programs. 

Because the park is adjacent to the National Park of 

American Samoa and shares ecological functions with it, 

the park benefits from management programs that are 

being implemented by the National Park Service. Some 

of these programs include documentation of subsistence 

fishing harvests, and coral reef research being conducted 

in conjunction with the University of Hawaii. A current 

management concern for the park is a proposed 

extension for the adjacent airport runway. This 

extension would destroy the reef flat and could have 

significant impacts on the coral reefs in the park. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

The public was not involved in the establishment of the 

park because it was selected as compensation of habitat 

loss caused by dredging Faleasao Harbor (as required by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Due to the remote 

location and lack of accessibility by most American 

Samoans, the park essentially remains an unknown 

entity. 

Community-based Fisheries 

Management Program 

National Classification: No-Take, Sustainable 

Production and Natural Heritage MPAs 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

Based on an initiative of community-based fisheries 

management reserves in the neighboring country of 

Samoa, the American Samoan government has 

implemented a similar effort to incorporate and utilize 

the distinctive Samoan culture into resource protection. 

Within the U.S., American Samoa is unique in that 

villages have maintained virtually all marine and land 

tenure. As such, the community-based fisheries 

management program (CFMP), which is administered 

through DMWR, works with individual village 

communities to identify resource trends and problems, 

and to develop management plans that are locally 

appropriate and accepted. 

The CFMP was 

designed to assist 

villages in 

managing and 

conserving their 

inshore fishery 

resources. There 

was a 

collaborative 

effort to develop 

and co-manage 

these sites through a series of meetings in which the 

village was responsible for developing a management 

plan for the protected area with advice and technical 

assistance from DMWR. The management plan details 

the purpose, duration, and rules and regulations for the 

site. An agreement is signed between the village council 

and DMWR to legalize the site. Plans are then reviewed 

by a legal advisory review team to incorporate the village 

rules and regulations into the DMWR statutes, to 

provide more effective protections, and to allow villages 

to issue citations. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

CFMP reserves are established and managed principally 

to support the continued sustainable extraction of 

renewable living resources (e.g., fish, shellfish) within or 

outside of the reserves by protecting important habitat 

and spawning, mating, or nursery grounds; or, providing 

harvest refugia for by-catch species. The reserves also 

prohibit the extraction or destruction of natural or 

cultural resources within the reserve boundaries, and 

restrict access and/or other activities that may adversely 

impact resources, processes, and qualities, or the 

ecological or cultural services they provide. There is no 

formal network among the reserves, but as the number 

of villages included in the program increases, there are 

some discussions of creating a social network for village 

leaders to share information and request assistance. 

Each of the reserves prohibits resource extraction. 

However, in select instances, there may be an exception 

of subsistence fishing for cultural practices. The village 

members can still utilize the resources for recreational 

and educational purposes. At times, certain areas of the 

reef will be opened for use by elders in the village with 

Fig. 1.3: Ofu-Olesega, Manu’a Islands 

(Tennant 2006)
AMERICAN SAMOA 

16

permission from the village council, and as outlined in 

the individual reserve’s management plan. There is also 

a three-year expiration date on the closure of the site. 

At this time, the village reviews the management plan 

and its effects and decides if it would like to continue to 

have the same regulations, make changes to the 

regulations, or discontinue the program. Some villages 

select to open a reserve temporarily for fishing before 

closing it for an extended period. DMWR is moving 

towards discussions of more long-term or permanent 

closures for community reserves. 

Management Activities: 

Implementation of the reserve management plans is 

carried out by the village with assistance from DMWR. 

DMWR staff meets with each village approximately 

every month to discuss management efforts and address 

concerns. Management efforts for the reserves include 

research, monitoring, enforcement, and public 

awareness. 

Research: 

Research efforts implemented by DMWR include 

inshore creel surveys to determine fishing efforts and a 

“key reef species project” to examine targeted species of 

the reefs. Previously, some villages were conducting 

restoration activities by stocking the reef area with giant 

clams from the DMWR hatchery. However, these 

efforts are no longer being implemented. 

Monitoring: 

The DMWR CFMP team has recently developed 

monitoring protocol to carry out monthly monitoring of 

each participating village reserve. DMWR extension 

staff and trained community volunteers from the 

Management and Enforcement Committee are 

responsible for conducting the monitoring activities, 

such as basic fish biomass and diversity surveys. The 

Fagamalo, Vatia, Aoa, and Amaua & Auto CFMP 

reserves are also included in the Territorial Monitoring 

Plan, which surveys corals and fish species. 

Enforcement: 

Groups of untitled men, in conjunction with the village 

matai (chief), are primarily responsible for carrying out 

enforcement efforts. Violators may be brought in front 

of the village council to determine the punishment. 

When higher-level enforcement is needed, the village 

calls on the Enforcement Division of DMWR for 

assistance because it has the authority to issue citations. 

An attorney is currently reviewing community 

regulations that allow the village matai to enforce 

reserve regulations to determine how to incorporate 

them into territorial law. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

The nature of this program is to encourage communities 

to actively manage their local resources in collaboration 

Table 1.3: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the 10 Community-based Fisheries 

Management Program (CFMP) Reserves

Community-based Fisheries 

Management Program (CFMP) 

Reserves 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Alofau x x x x x x 

Amaua & Auto x x x x 

Aoa x x x x x x 

Aua x x x x 

Fagamalo x x x x x 

Masausi x x x x 

Matu'u & Faganeanea x x x x 

Poloa x x x x 

Sa'ilele x x x x x 

Vatia x x x x x x 
AMERICAN SAMOA 

17

with DMWR through a series of meetings 

and trainings. Therefore, the program itself 

is based on public involvement and would 

not succeed without major public support. 

The first meeting between the village 

members and DMWR takes place after initial 

contact by the cultural officer, high talking 

chief, or director of DMWR. This meeting 

allows DMWR to explain the extension 

process of the program, its benefits, and the 

necessary undertakings by DMWR and the 

village. The village, through the village 

council, then decides whether or not to 

accept the program. 

Group meetings with the villages are conducted with the 

village chiefs, women's group, and untitled men to 

identify the problems, the causes, and their effects, as 

well as solutions to the problems. A fisheries 

management advisory committee (FMAC) is selected 

from the chiefs and untitled men's group. With 

DMWR's assistance, this committee puts together the 

information gathered from the group meetings and a 

baseline questionnaire form to begin the development 

of a fisheries management plan (FMP). FMAC 

continues to meet with the program staff to develop an 

FMP for the village. 

 

Several public awareness efforts take place at the village 

level and the territorial level. Village-level awareness 

efforts occur mostly during village meetings, which 

allow for an exchange of information between DMWR 

staff and villagers. DMWR staff helps villagers 

understand the reef fishery ecosystems, and provide 

management advice through formal and informal 

meetings. 

 

Currently DMWR is 

conducting monthly 

community outreach 

activities at the 

different church 

youth groups within 

the participating 

villages. At these 

outreach 

events, DMWR staff 

and other 

environmental agencies educate youth groups on 

environmental issues that contribute to the destruction 

of coral reefs, and how they can contribute to saving 

these unique natural resources. Additionally, DMWR 

extension staff conducts monthly community reserve 

visits to informally keep in touch with the village 

communities about on-going issues and challenges 

related to the reserve and the program. 

To help local villagers 

monitor and enforce the 

reserves, DMWR has 

provided training 

workshops in monitoring, 

boating safety, and 

equipment for the 

community. Information 

sheets on fisheries, corals, 

seaweeds, mangroves, 

dynamite fishing, and 

bleaching have been 

distributed in conjunction 

with press releases and 

radio announcements. To ensure stakeholder 

participation, the use of participatory tools for 

information gathering, planning, decision-making, 

monitoring, and evaluation was included in Participatory 

Learning and Action (PLA) village workshops hosted in 

partnership with local NOAA Fisheries staff. PLA is a 

community action program that engages all sectors of 

the community, especially women and youth. It is based 

on the philosophy that when people are involved in the 

information gathering, developing, and implementation 

phases, they are empowered with responsibility and 

accountability for their resource use actions. 

Federal MPAs 

Managing federal MPAs in the context of American 

Samoa’s land tenure system has required the formation 

of a unique partnership between the federal 

government, territorial government, and villages. 

American Samoa is a semi-autonomous territory that 

operates under its own constitution based on the 

traditional Samoan governance structure. Matais 

(chiefs) have control over the land and assign holdings 

to family members on a lifetime basis. These land 

holdings include the coastal waters that encompass the 

nearshore coral reefs. The existing law on land tenure 

prohibits the transfer of land ownership, except 

freehold land, to any person who is less than one-half 

Samoan. In matters pertaining to the use and protection 

of land, the traditional system of land tenure must be 

adhered to and is an integral component of the way the 

resources are managed. Therefore, the federal MPA 

programs operating in the territory have adapted their 

procedures and structure to work within the land tenure 

and management system. 

In addition to the cooperative agreements that allow for 

co-management of the federal MPAs, the National Park 

of American Samoa and the Fagatele Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary play pivotal roles in the governor’s 

Coral Reef Advisory Group (CRAG). The National 

Fig. 1.5: PLA training workshop on 

resource management and environment 

stewardship for village mayors (SauafeaLeau 2006b) 

Fig. 1.4: CFMP outreach event 

(Mata'u 2006)
AMERICAN SAMOA 

18

Park of American Samoa is a voting member of CRAG, 

and Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary has 

provided guidance and support throughout CRAG’s 

operation. Both the park and the sanctuary have 

assisted in the development of capacity building 

opportunities, marine policy, and research as it relates to 

MPAs in the territory. Because of American Samoa’s 

unique management framework and partnerships, this 

chapter includes summary information for the federal 

MPAs in the territory. These MPAs will be described in 

more detail in a future report, which will include federal 

MPAs and geospatial 

analysis of MPA coverage 

within coral reef ecosystems. 

Fagatele Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary 

The Fagatele Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary 

encompasses 163 acres (0.25 

square miles) of fringing 

coral reef ecosystem nestled 

within a flooded extinct 

volcanic crater on the southwest coast of the island of 

Tutuila. It contains many of the species native to this 

part of the South Pacific Ocean, including at least 200 

coral species, 270 fish species, turtles, whales, sharks, 

and the giant clam. 

The sanctuary was designated in 1986 in response to a 

proposal from the American Samoa government to 

NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary Program. While 

NOAA has primary responsibility for the sanctuary, it 

co-administers the sanctuary with ASCMP, and the 

sanctuary staff consists of federal, territorial, and local 

village resident employees. The sanctuary’s official 

purpose is "to protect and preserve an example of a 

pristine tropical marine habitat and coral reef terrace 

ecosystem of exceptional productivity, to expand public 

awareness and understanding of tropical marine 

ecosystems; to expand scientific knowledge of marine 

ecosystems; to improve resource management 

techniques, and to regulate uses within the Sanctuary to 

ensure the health and well-being of the ecosystem and 

its associated flora and fauna" (Federal Register 1986). 

Currently, the sanctuary regulations prohibit taking 

invertebrates and sea turtles, and any historical artifacts 

found in the bay. The only fishing allowed in the 

sanctuary is line fishing in the outer part of the bay. 

Local conservation officers and the NOAA Office of 

Law Enforcement are responsible for enforcing the 

regulations in the sanctuary. Local landowners provide 

an additional layer of surveillance by overseeing the 

visitors that access the sanctuary via land. The sanctuary 

continues to develop its relationship with landowners 

with the hope that they will extend protections to the 

coral reef area that was traditionally part of their titled 

lands. 

In addition to partnerships with landowners, the 

sanctuary uses other management tools to protect the 

resources, including research, monitoring, education, 

regulation, and enforcement. Research and monitoring 

efforts include collaborations with DMWR, ASEPA, 

NOAA’s Coral Reef Ecosystem Division, and numerous 

researchers from around the world. The 

sanctuary’s educational and outreach 

efforts inform the public about the 

unique resources found in the sanctuary, 

promote environmental stewardship, and 

encourage marine science and research. 

In 2007, the sanctuary will be 

undergoing a management plan review 

that will engage the public to revise, if 

needed, the purpose, regulations, 

boundaries, and relevance of the 

sanctuary. 

The National Park of American Samoa

The National Park of American Samoa is located on 

three islands in the territory (Tutuila, Ofu and Ta’u), and 

includes portions of land in the following villages: 

Fagasa, Vatia, Afono, Pago Pago, Ofu, Faleasao, and 

Fitiuta (NPS 2006). The park contains approximately 

8,000 acres of paleotropic rainforests and 2,500 acres of 

coastal waters, including coral reefs that extend from the 

shoreline to 0.25 miles offshore. 

The National Park of American Samoa was established 

through Public Law 100-571 in 1988 after the National 

Park Service and the American Samoan government 

completed a comprehensive feasibility study. Earlier 

attempts to establish the park failed because there was 

not a feasible way for the federal government to acquire 

traditionally owned village lands. After decades of 

discussion, the High Court of American Samoa and the 

U.S. Congress developed a compromise that allows a 

lease of the parklands that permits traditional 

(subsistence) uses of the land and marine resources by 

Samoans (NPS 2006). The park was officially 

established in 1993 when a 50-year lease was signed. 

The purpose of the park is “to preserve and protect the 

tropical forest and archeological and cultural resources 

of American Samoa, and of associated reefs, to maintain 

the habitat of flying foxes (fruit bats), to preserve the 

ecological balance of the Samoan tropical forest, and, 

consistent with the preservation of these resources, to 

provide for the enjoyment of the unique resources of 

the Samoan tropical forest by visitors from around the 

Fig. 1.6: Fagatele Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary (Tennet 2006) 
AMERICAN SAMOA 

19

world” (NPS 2006). Only subsistence uses of park 

lands and marine resources by local villagers is 

permitted. However, there is limited surveillance and 

enforcement of this regulation. 

The park has a five-year Resource Management Plan 

that includes management activities from 1995 to 2000. 

Although the plan has not been updated, the park 

continues to implement several management programs. 

Considerable surveys and research occurs in the park, 

often in cooperation with other organizations such as 

the University of Hawaii, which is examining global 

warming impacts to corals. The park has also produced 

a variety of education and outreach tools, including a 

detailed website and the Natural History Guide to 

American Samoa in both English and Samoan. To 

continue to involve the villages and the public, the park 

has liaisons in all seven villages with parklands, and it 

holds annual independent advisory group meetings that 

are open to the public. 

Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge 

The Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (RANWR), 

located 14 degrees south of the equator and 2,500 miles 

south of Hawaii, is the smallest atoll in the world, with 

15 acres in total size and 39,236 acres of submerged 

land. The square-shaped reef protects two small, 

emergent islands. The atoll is uninhabited by people, 

but is home to 12 species of migratory seabirds, 

numerous fish species, and a population of rare giant 

clams. It also provides nesting ground for threatened 

green sea turtles (USFWS n.d.). 

RANWR was established on July 5, 1973 via a 

cooperative agreement between the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the government of American 

Samoa, and both are responsible for cooperatively 

managing the area (USFWS n.d.). 

NEW NO-TAKE MPA PROGRAM 

In 2005, DMWR received funds from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Sport Fish Restoration Grant Program 

(Sport Fed Aid) to continue the development of a notake MPA program. This program will address former 

Governor Sunia’s goal of protecting 20 percent of the 

territory’s coral reefs as no-take areas. 

A no-take program manual is currently being developed, 

which will describe the guiding principles for selecting 

areas to become no-take MPAs. The two primary 

concepts considered during site selection are diversity 

and reproductive potential. Social, economic, 

enforcement, pragmatic, regional criteria, MPA size, and 

the period of closure are also integral parts of the notake site selection process. The process for no-take 

MPA site selection is detailed in the no-take program 

manual and Federal Aid in Sport grant (Brookins, et al. 

2005). The no-take program manual also describes the 

management plans, which are required for every no-take 

MPA. 

Over the next five years (2007-2011), the no-take MPA 

program intends to build the staff’s technical skills to 

design socio-economic and governance studies of 

MPAs, conduct interviews, analyze data, write reports, 

and make management decisions based on this data. 

The capacity to conduct regular effectiveness 

evaluations of MPAs will also be developed through this 

program. Annual public meetings will be held 

throughout the duration of the no-take MPA program 

in the islands of Tutuila, Ofu & Olosega, and Ta’u. 

Two permanent no-take MPAs with site-level 

management plans are proposed to be established by 

September 2010. Additionally, the CFMP intends to 

create three no-take areas within its participating villages 

by the end of 2011. 

CHALLENGES TO MPA 

EFFECTIVENESS 

MPA Management Capacity:

Managers identified a lack of human capacity as one the 

biggest challenges in managing MPAs. Due to the 

remote nature of the island, its small population, and its 

need for higher educational facilities, there is a lack of 

qualified staff to develop and implement management 

plans. A few highly experienced local managers 

implement MPA programs with the assistance of a 

number of transient workers, and frequent staff 

turnover results in reduced program continuity and a lag 

time before projects become fully active again. There is 

a serious need to train additional local staff and 

community college students in order to build and 

maintain human capacity in the management agencies. 

Additionally, the limited number of experienced staff 

present during the establishment of some of the MPAs 

has impacted the effectiveness of several sites. While all 

of the sites were established with the good intention of 

protecting natural resources, many do not have clear 

goals and objectives developed through an extensive 

public participation process. Inadequate public 

participation has led to a lack of clear understanding by 

the public about the purpose of MPAs. Additionally, 

the effectiveness of the sites is difficult to determine, as 

management plans are not comprehensive or nonexistent. 
AMERICAN SAMOA 

20

ASCC continues to expand its Marine Science Program, 

providing improvements in the relevantly trained local 

work force. Students, however, must still leave the 

territory in order to obtain a bachelor’s degree. The 

community-based sites are also improving capacity 

through outreach programs and community 

involvement in site development. 

Enforcement: 

A lack of human capacity also affects enforcement, 

which MPA managers identified as another significant 

management challenge. Insufficient enforcement within 

and around MPAs is likely to reduce the effectiveness of 

the regulations, and can weaken support for these 

programs. Even community-based programs that are 

implemented and enforced by local villagers have cited 

enforcement as the greatest challenge. In these 

instances, community members are unable to get 

offshore to cite illegal activity by outsiders. The lack of 

both equipment (e.g., boats, binoculars) and training 

inhibits proper enforcement. 

Another enforcement challenge is the long legal process 

that is required to prosecute violators, which negates the 

regulations. DMWR is working to incorporate village 

rules into the ASAC to improve their enforceability, but 

delineating the enforcement authority of the villagers 

remains a challenge. Within the community-based 

MPAs, villagers serve mainly as surveillance, and they 

are expected to initiate legal enforcement processes 

upon witnessing a violation. It has not been clear 

among villages, however, who should assume 

enforcement authority. 

Population: 

The limited livable land area of the islands, combined 

with an ever-increasing population size, present 

additional challenges for managers. Some villages are 

asking for compensation for their inability to build on 

their village wetlands, as well as for other conservation 

efforts such as monitoring and enforcement. 

WORKING TOWARDS A NETWORK 

The American Samoa Coral Reef Advisory Group 

(CRAG) is currently in the process of generating an 

MPA network strategy to better integrate the existing 

and planned MPAs throughout the territory. This 

strategy will include local, territorial, and federal MPA 

sites. CRAG is a collaboration of five different entities 

in the territory, all of which have some link to the coral 

reef environment: DMWR; the Department of 

Commerce, ASEPA, ASCC, and the National Park of 

American Samoa (CRAG 2006). 

In 1999, CRAG organized a workshop to create a fiveyear plan for coral reef management in American 

Samoa. During that workshop, CRAG identified the 

need for an MPA network. CRAG was identified as the 

lead on this issue, but the MPA network was not funded 

at that time (Craig, et al. 1999). 

In 2000, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF) 

adopted the Coral Reef National Action Plan that set 

the goal of establishing 20 percent of all U.S. coral reefs 

in no-take MPAs (CRTF 2000). Following this 

recommendation, former Governor Tauese Sunia 

directed CRAG to develop a plan (MPA 

Plan) for coral reef protection to reach the 

goal of protecting 20 percent of the 

territory’s coral reefs as no-take MPAs 

(Sunia 2000). In 2002, CRAG sponsored 

an MPA workshop with the objective of 

producing an integrated plan for the 

identification of potential marine areas that 

would become part of the territory’s 

network of MPAs. The workshop 

proceedings focused primarily on 

expanding the existing CFMP, which relies 

on the volunteer participation of villages. 

CRAG identified the need for an MPA 

coordinator to finalize and implement the 

MPA Plan, and to work closely with other 

local, regional, and federal partners to 

assure that current and future MPA efforts 

in American Samoa are coordinated and 

utilize best management practices. In 

January 2004, CRAG hired an MPA 

Management Challenges in American Samoa's MPAs

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Funding/

Resources

Capacity Public

Support 

Monitoring Enforcement Other

Fig. 1.7: Percent of MPAs (out of 14 total MPAs) that identified each issue as 

a challenge to effective MPA management. Under “other” challenges, three 

of the sites noted that management activities are difficult due to the lack of a 

comprehensive management plan. 
AMERICAN SAMOA 

21

coordinator with funds from its NOAA State and 

Territory Coral Reef Management grants (FY2004, 

2005, and 2006). The MPA coordinator, with assistance 

from the MPA working group, revised the workshop 

proceedings from the 2002 MPA workshop and 

produced several drafts of the MPA network strategy. 

CRAG is using the final year of funds to complete the 

MPA network strategy to further the coordination and 

integration of the existing territorial and federal MPA 

programs. 

Because the National Park Service (National Park of 

American Samoa) and the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Program (Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary) 

manage sites within the territory, their participation in 

the territorial MPA network is vital. These federal 

programs work collaboratively with CRAG and provide 

MPA support through partnerships and information 

sharing. These MPAs 

will be described in more 

detail in a future report, 

which will include federal 

MPAs and geospatial 

analysis of MPA 

coverage within coral 

reef ecosystems. 

NEXT STEPS/ 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The following recommendations are based on-site visits 

and discussions with MPA management staff, both 

territorial and federal, within the territory: 

MPA Outreach: 

The various territorial and federal MPA programs 

should work together to develop a toolkit that can be 

used for outreach with communities. The toolkit could 

be used as a means to work with communities in 

determining threats to resources and management 

actions. It could also serve as an institutional 

certification program for local staff that would help 

them in community outreach and participation. The 

toolkit should holistically and comprehensively address 

watershed management issues and utilize the existing 

efforts and expertise. It should include information on: 

• fisheries biology and management, 

• coastal ecology and the connection between land 

and sea (done in coordination with local ASCMP 

and ASEPA offices that have the expertise), 

• various management options, including what 

actions are needed and their potential impacts, that 

the community can choose between; these options 

can include permanent no-take areas, seasonal 

closures, species take restrictions (particularly food 

fish species), best management practices for 

reducing sediment and nutrient loading (e.g., 

vegetating cleared areas or stream banks), etc., and 

• community-based monitoring and assessment of 

managed areas (what, who, why, where, and how). 

Development of the toolkit will take time and additional 

staff training to increase their familiarity with the 

information prior to presenting it to villagers. Staff 

trainings should target educators, enforcement officers, 

and other MPA management staff who work with the 

public. Additional trainings for MPA staff should be 

identified in the budget planning and include topics such 

as watershed management, basic MPA concepts, 

monitoring techniques, and MPA effectiveness. Finally, 

the effectiveness of the toolkit should be a measured so 

that changes can be made to improve its overall success. 

MPA Effectiveness: 

A monitoring program (with biological and social 

measures) for MPA management efforts should 

be developed and implemented to determine the 

effectiveness of the MPAs. Such monitoring 

would provide a means to evaluate the progress 

of reaching MPA goals and to identify gaps to 

improve MPA management. This information 

should be used to update and improve existing, or 

to develop new, management plans by further 

defining clear, measurable objectives. 

Additionally, the CFMP’s existing communitybased monitoring should be enhanced so that 

community members can better document the effects of 

their actions on fisheries populations. Such 

documentation has been shown to improve the 

acceptance of long-term closures because community 

members see first-hand the fisheries data before and 

after the temporary opening of a site. 

Existing MPAs (community, territorial, and federal) 

should be incorporated into the on-going efforts to 

develop MPA networks. These sites should be reviewed 

or evaluated to determine their effectiveness in reaching 

the goals of protecting American Samoa’s resources and 

way of life. 

Agency Collaboration: 

While DMWR is primarily responsible for managing 

American Samoa’s living marine resources, its programs 

should be integrated with other MPA efforts and agency 

programs that impact marine resources. Agency staff 

collaborate on a variety of outreach activities, but these 

efforts should be expanded through a greater 

understanding of the relationship between upland 

threats and management actions. The next steps should 

include the development of a framework through which 

villages and agencies can develop integrated 

management plans to improve the effectiveness of 

Fig. 1.8: Matu'u CFMP (Oram 2006) 
AMERICAN SAMOA 

22

MPAs. This framework would establish a 

comprehensive approach to managing land and marine 

resources, provide a targeted and efficient use of limited 

funds, and improve the likelihood of successful 

management efforts. 

Additionally, territorial and federal MPA programs 

should collaborate on reaching the goals and objectives 

of the MPA network strategy currently under 

development by CRAG. One such effort would be an 

assessment of the current effectiveness of the territorial 

and federal MPAs in supporting territorial goals. 

Although all of the MPA programs, both territorial and 

federal, lack sufficient human capacity and enforcement 

capabilities, collaboration and the sharing of 

information and resources could help to fill some of the 

gaps. The MPA network strategy will provide a 

framework for this cooperation. 

Integrated Coastal Management Approach: 

While American Samoa faces limited human and 

financial resources, it is important to effectively utilize 

the existing resources to their fullest capacity to achieve 

resource management goals. To enhance existing MPA 

effectiveness, an integrated coastal management 

approach should be applied. Such an approach would 

require that natural resource agencies work together to 

identify site specific threats and opportunities to address 

those threats within each agency’s mandate and 

expertise. This approach could also help prioritize 

projects for funding and provide a focused effort where 

collaboration is feasible and appropriate. Any of these 

collaborative efforts should have clear and measurable 

objectives. As mentioned above, the MPA network 

strategy is expected to provide a framework for this 

integrated approach to MPA management and 

collaboration. 

Table 1.4: National Classification System for American Samoa’s 14 MPAs 

Site Name 

 Conservation  Focus  Level of  Protection  Permanence of  Protection  Constancy of  Protection  Scale of  Protection  Management  Plan 

Ofu Vaoto Marine Park Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Leone Pala SMA Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Nu’uuli Pala SMA Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Pago Pago Harbor SMA Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Alofau CFMP reserve Sustainable 

Production No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Amaua & Auto CFMP reserve Sustainable 

Production No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Aoa CFMP reserve Sustainable 

Production No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Aua CFMP reserve Sustainable 

Production No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Fagamalo CFMP reserve Sustainable 

Production No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Masausi CFMP reserve Sustainable 

Production No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Matu'u & Faganeanea CFMP 

reserve 

Sustainable 

Production No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Poloa CFMP reserve Sustainable 

Production No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Sa'ilele CFMP reserve Sustainable 

Production No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Vatia CFMP reserve Sustainable 

Production No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes 
AMERICAN SAMOA 

23

SUCCESS STORY 

Aoa, a village on Tutuila, adopted DMWR’s Community-based Fisheries Management Program (CFMP) in 

December 2005. Aoa community members have become more optimistic about the MPA because of daily 

sightings of rays swimming inshore, which has also made fishermen wish that they could fish inside the MPA. Aoa 

fishermen have also witnessed the long-absent bluefin, trevally, unicornfish, and schools of mullets swimming 

inshore. CFMP staff continue to work with fishermen to encourage their commitment to the agreed upon time 

period of at least two years for the fishing closure. 

Two months into the program, community members were excited about participating in the monitoring efforts 

coordinated by the CFMP staff. After the monitoring survey, the community members were eager to spread the 

word about what was seen. The community members’ perception is that there are more fish, and the fish have 

increased greatly in size now, as compared to before the MPA was established. The community does not realize 

that these fish have always been in their village bay. The MPA may be providing a safe place for these fish to hide, 

thus giving the community the perception that the waters of Aoa have come alive. This perception has led to 

increased commitment and participation from the community members of Aoa, and their anticipation builds as the 

fish and resources replenish and multiply before their eyes. 

The CFMP aims to assist communities to conserve and preserve their marine resources for the people of American 

Samoa today, and for years to come. To support this effort, a Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) workshop 

was held in June 2006 for the Aoa community. Participants from the neighbor CFMP village of Sa’ilele also 

participated in the workshop. During the two-day workshop, community members learned tools and techniques 

for: 1) identifying problems, causes and solutions, 2) ranking and prioritizing problems or threats, 3) conducting 

stakeholder analysis, and 4) developing a community action plan (CAP). Visionary maps were utilized to explore 

and develop a community conservation vision for their reef for the next 10-20 years. The CAP also included a list 

of activities that the community can implement and facilitate to improve their coral reef resources. The next phase 

of this project will be to develop and conduct projects that support the goals of the CAP. As a result of these 

efforts, it is hoped that villages or communities will form a cooperative that can broaden their ability to pursue 

grants and funds to support their management efforts (Sauafea-Leau 2006a). 

CITATIONS 

16 U.S.C 1431-United States Code. Title 16: 

Conservation, Chapter 32: Marine Sanctuaries, Section: 

1431: Findings, purposes, and policies; establishment of 

system. United States Government. 

American Samoa Administrative Code (ASAC) § 

26.0220 F. 7. Title 26 Environmental Safety and Land 

Management, Chapter 02 Coastal Management, Section 

26.0220 F. 7. Standards and criteria for review. 

Available online at http://www.asbar.org. 

American Samoa Administrative Code (ASAC) § 

26.0221. Title 26 Environmental Safety and Land 

Management, Chapter 02 Coastal Management, Section 

26.0221 Special Management Areas. Available online at 

http://www.asbar.org. 

American Samoa Administrative Code (ASAC) § 

26.0222 F. 1. a & b. Title 26 Environmental Safety and 

Land Management, Chapter 02 Coastal Management, 

Section 26.0222 F. 1. a & b Wetlands regulated 

activities. Available online at http://www.asbar.org. 

American Samoa Code Annotated (ASCA) § 18.0214. 

Title 18 Parks and Recreations, Chapter 02 Department 

of Parks and Recreation, Section 18.0214 Establishment 

of Ofu Vaoto Marine Park. Available online at 

http://www.asbar.org. 

American Samoa Code Annotated (ASCA) § 24.0304. 

Title 24 Natural Resources and Environment Ecosystem 

Protection and Development, Chapter 03 Department 

of Marine and Wildlife Resources, Section 24.0304 

Powers and duties. Available online at 

http://www.asbar.org. 
AMERICAN SAMOA 

24

American Samoa Code Annotated (ASCA) § 24.05. 

Title 24 Natural Resources & Environment Ecosystem 

Protection & Development. Chapter 05 Coastal 

Management Program. Available online at 

http://www.asbar.org. 

American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency 

(ASEPA). December 6, 1991. Public Health Directive: 

Contaminated Fish in Harbor. 

–––––––. 2005. Beach Advisory: Supporting efforts to 

clean up our shores. Samoa News, 2005. 

Banner, A. H., and J. H. Bailey. 1970. The effect of 

urban population upon a coral reef system. Hawaii Inst. 

Mar. Biol. Tech. Rep. 25. Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Brookins, K., R. Oram, M. Sabateur, S. Vaitautolu, and 

S. Mariner. 2005. Fisheries Projects for American 

Samoa, Project F-2-R-29, Fiscal Year 2006. Federal Aid 

in Sport. 

Brown, D. Paul. May 5, 2006. Fig. 1.1. National Park 

of American Samoa. 

Caperon, J., A., Catell, and G. Krasnick. 1971. 

Phytoplankton kinetics in subtropical estuaryeutrophication. Limnol. Oceanogr. 16:599-607. 

Coutures, Emmanuel. 2003. The Shoreline Fishery of 

American Samoa: Analysis of 1-yr data (April 02 – March 03) 

and Implementation of a New Sampling Protocol. DMWR 

Biological Report Series, No 102. The Department of 

Marine and Wildlife Resources, Pago Pago, American 

Samoa. 

Coral Reef Advisory Group (CRAG). 2006. About 

CRAG. http://doc.asg.as/crag/. 

Craig, P., N. Daschbach, S. Wiegman, F. Curren, and J. 

Aicher. 1999. Workshop Report and Development of 5-year 

Plan for Coral Reef Management in American Samoa (2000-

2004) by the American Samoa Coral Reef Advisory Group. 

Pago Pago, American Samoa. 

Curry, T. and P. Anderson. 2006. Fig. 1.2. American 

Samoa Government Department of Commerce. Data 

provided by the American Samoa Department of 

Marine and Wildlife Resources. 

Dahl, A. L., and A. E. Lamberts. 1977. Environmental 

Impact on a Samoan Coral Reef: A Resurvey of Mayor’s 

1917 Transect. Pacific Science 31(3). 

Federal Register. April 29, 1986. 51 Fed. Reg. 15878. 

Filiga, Vaitoelau. 2006. Personal Communication. 

American Samoa Government Department of 

Commerce Statistics Division. 

Jacobs in association with MRAG Americas, Inc., 

National Institution of Water and Atmospheric 

Research, NZ, and the University of Newcastle, UK. 

2004. Economic Valuation of Coral Reefs and Adjacent 

Habitats in American Samoa. Final Report for the 

American Samoa Department of Commerce. 

Mata'u, Champion. February 24, 2006. Fig. 1.4. 

American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife 

Resources. 

 

National Park Service (NPS). August 29, 2006. 

National Park of American Samoa. nps.gov. NPS. 

http://www.nps.gov/npsa/index.htm. 

Oram, Risa. July 11, 2006. Fig. 1.8. American Samoa 

Government. 

Peters, E. C. 1997. Diseases of Coral-Reef Organisms. 

In: C. Birkeland (ed.), Life and Death of Coral Reefs. p. 

114. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall and 

International Thomson Publishing. 

Riolo, Francesca. 2006. Personal Communication. 

American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife 

Resources and CRAG. 

Sabater, Marlowe and Saolotoga Tofaeono. 2006. 

Spatial Variation in Biomass, Abundance, and Species 

Composition of “Key Reef Species” in American Samoa. 

American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife 

Resources. Funded by Sportfish Restoration Grant, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Sauafea-Leau, Fatima. 2006a. Personal 

Communication. NOAA Fisheries. 

–––––––. 2006b. Fig. 1.5. NOAA Fisheries. 
AMERICAN SAMOA 

25

Saucerman, S. 1995. Assessing the Management Needs of a 

Coral Reef Fishery in Decline. Presented at the Joint 

FFA/SPC Workshop on the Management of South 

Pacific Inshore Fisheries (Noumea, New Caledonia, 26 

June – 7 July 1995). 

Smith, S. V., K. E. Chave, and D. T. O. Kam. 1973. 

Atlas of Kaneohe Bay: A reef ecosystem under stress. UNIHISEAGRANT-TR-72-01. University of Hawaii Sea 

Grant Program. 

Sunia, T. 2000. Letter from Governor Tauese Sunia to 

Lelei Peau (Chairperson of the American Samoa 

Governor’s Coral Reef Advisory Group) regarding coral 

reef protection. August 2, 2000. American Samoa 

Government. 

Tennet, M. September 8, 2006. Figs. 1.3 and 1.6. 

American Samoa Government. 

United States Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF). 2000. 

The National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs. March 2, 

2000. Washington, D.C. Available online at 

http://coralreef.gov. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). n.d. Pacific 

Islands – Rose Atoll NWR. USFWS. 

http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/wnwr/ 

prosenwr.html. 

Whaylen, L., and D. Fenner. 2005. Report of 2005 

American Samoa Coral Reef Monitoring Program (ASCRMP). 

Prepared for the Department of Marine and Wildlife 

Resources and Coral Reef Advisory Group. 
26 
27 

Chapter 2: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Coral Reef MPA Summary 

Greg Moretti, CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife 

Contributors: Fran Castro, Michael Trianni, Dr. Peter Houk, and John Starmer

INTRODUCTION 

The Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI) is part of the 290 

kilometer (km) long Mariana Islands 

Archipelago that encompasses the 14 

islands of the CNMI, numerous offshore 

banks, and the U.S. Territory of Guam. 

The southernmost islands of the CNMI, 

Rota, Tinian, and Saipan, are volcanic in 

origin and nearly all covered with uplifted 

limestone derived from coral reef. These 

islands have the oldest and most developed 

reefs in the CNMI (predominantly located 

along the western/leeward sides), and are 

where the majority of the CNMI’s residents live. 

Saipan, the capitol of the CNMI and the largest of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, is where all but one of the 

CNMI’s MPAs can be found. Saipan has a land area of 

122 km2 and is approximately 20 km long and 9 km 

wide. The island has the most diverse types of coral 

reefs and associated habitats in the CNMI. A fringing 

and barrier reef system protects the majority of the 

beaches along the western and coastal plains. The 

western side of the island is the most populated and 

coral reefs along these areas have been negatively 

affected by human activities, primarily land-based 

sources of pollution, extractive uses, and recreational 

activities. 

Although the first MPAs in the CNMI were established 

in 1981, the first no-take area was not established until 

1994. Efforts to develop a network or system of more 

restrictive MPAs in the CNMI first arose in 1985, when 

the Coastal Resources Management Office (CRMO) 

commissioned a study to investigate potential sites for 

marine parks. The goal of the study was to identify 

representative examples of the naturally, culturally, and 

recreationally important resources on Saipan, Tinian, 

and Rota, and to suggest the protection of these sites 

through a marine parks program. The objectives of this 

proposed program were conserving natural, cultural, and 

historical resources, research, promoting visitor use and 

safety, and providing outreach and educational 

opportunities. While the exact process for site selection 

is not clear, the study provides some insight into the 

criteria that were used, 

“Considerable effort 

was given to choosing 

locations that were 

accessible, close to 

shore, on public lands, 

easily developed, and 

in a relatively safe 

location in regards to 

wave action, currents 

and water depth. High 

priority for the 

underwater parks was 

finding a location 

where there was a well 

developed reef with 

good live coral coverage, [and] abundant fish and other 

marine life” (Pacific Basin Environmental Consultants 

1985). Although no sites were established as a direct 

result of this study, and the marine parks program at 

CRMO never came to fruition, the study and the 

recommended sites likely influenced the future direction 

of MPA efforts in the CNMI. In fact, the study 

proposed the designation of three sites, one each on 

Saipan, Tinian, and Rota. The areas recommended for 

protection on Saipan and Rota eventually became 

MPAs. The Tinian site was proposed at least once, but 

it was never established. 

The first no-take MPA in the CNMI was established on 

October 13, 1994 with the passing of Rota Local Law 9-

2. The remaining no-take sites, three areas on Saipan, 

were established by law between 2000 and 2001. 

Multiple attempts were made in 1998, 2001, 2002, and 

2004 to establish additional MPAs in Tinian and around 

the terrestrially protected Northern Islands, but the 

respective pieces of legislation failed to pass. Beginning 

in 1981, four multiple-use, single-species/family 

sanctuaries were established by Division of Fish and 

Wildlife (DFW) regulations to prohibit the harvest of 

sea cucumber species or the topshell Trochus niloticus. 

Two of those sanctuaries were later overlapped by notake MPAs. 

Management of the CNMI’s MPAs has traditionally 

been an intra-agency effort spread over various sections 

within DFW, namely the Fisheries Research Section, the 

Enforcement Section, and the Planning Section. 

Fig. 2.1: The Mañagaha Marine Conservation 

Area, at the northern-most portion of the Saipan 

Lagoon, as seen from above (Kessler n.d.) 
CNMI 

28

Recently, however, there has been a move towards 

creating a single MPA program within DFW, not unlike 

the one proposed in the 1985 Marine Parks 

Management Plan. To date, there has been little active 

management of the MPAs, primarily due to the lack of 

dedicated funding for such a program. There have been 

a number of federally funded efforts to improve MPA 

management, including the 2005 development of a 

management plan for the Mañagaha Marine 

Conservation Area (MMCA) (State Wildlife Grant 

funds), the hiring of three marine enforcement officers 

(NOAA Coral Reef Initiative funds), and two years of 

funding for an MPA coordinator (NOAA Coral Reef 

Conservation Program funds). State Wildlife Grant 

funding is also supporting a contractor who is currently 

developing management plans for the Bird Island and 

Forbidden Island Sanctuaries. 

Management authority for all of the MPA sites in the 

CNMI lies in DFW. Public Law 12-12, passed in 2000, 

gives DFW exclusive authority to manage marine 

conservation areas and calls for the establishment of a 

Marine Conservation Section within DFW. Although 

this section does not formally exist, management 

activities such as planning, enforcement, and monitoring 

are spread across existing DFW sections. Management 

responsibilities related to MPAs are growing, especially 

for highly used sites such as the MMCA, reinforcing the 

need for a formal MPA program within DFW and an 

overall MPA program coordinator. 

Enforcement of the 

MPAs is the 

responsibility of DFW’s 

Enforcement Section. 

The 12 armed 

conservation officers are 

tasked with enforcing the 

laws and regulations that 

fall under DFW’s 

jurisdiction. The officers 

are responsible for 

protecting the natural 

and wildlife resources of the islands, including the 

marine environment, and fish, game, and endangered 

and threatened species. The enforcement officers have 

recently been cross-deputized as federal enforcement 

officers by the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement in 

order to enforce provisions of federal laws such as the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Three of DFW’s enforcement 

officers are tasked exclusively with enforcing the 

regulations for the marine environment, with a focus on 

the MPAs. These officers currently receive federal 

funding to cover salaries, benefits, training, and 

equipment, but the local government (DFW) is expected 

to assume responsibility for funding these enforcement 

officers when federal funding is no longer available. 

There are various monitoring efforts led by different 

government agencies that collect data in the CNMI’s 

MPAs. Monitoring of the MPAs is primarily done by 

DFW’s Fisheries Research Section. The Fisheries 

Research Section established a Marine Sanctuaries 

Program (MSP) in 1998, and has been surveying MPAs 

since 1999. The primary goal of the surveys is to 

monitor annual trends in reef fish abundance and 

diversity. Secondary goals include monitoring changes 

in benthic habitat composition, macroinvertebrate 

abundance, and habitat heterogeneity. The MSP does 

fish counts, counts invertebrates of commercial interest, 

maintains a fish species checklist, and conducts a basic 

benthic habitat 

characterization 

(coral, sand, rubble, 

etc.) at each of its 

monitoring sites. 

In addition to DFW’s 

MSP, the Division of 

Environmental 

Quality (DEQ) and 

CRMO have a wellestablished Marine 

Monitoring Team (MMT) that regularly monitors a 

number of parameters at sites throughout the CNMI. 

The MMT documents how reef communities change 

over time in response to natural fluctuations, large 

disturbances (typhoons), and pollution. Monitoring 

activities are focused on characterization of nearshore 

marine habitats and documentation of their spatial 

distribution. The 1996-97 Laulau Bay Non-point 

Source Pollution Watershed Protection Program marked 

the initiation of the Marine Monitoring Program. 

Although this program was not specifically designed to 

monitor changes in MPAs, many of the monitoring sites 

happen to be located in MPAs and can provide insight 

into those sites as they change over time. In fact, the 

MMT monitors at least one site in each of the MPAs. 

The discussion under each MPA type provides more 

information about the types of MSP and/or MMT 

monitoring sites that are present in the MPAs. 

There are two main components to the monitoring 

program, water quality surveys and biological surveys. 

The water quality surveys monitor salinity, temperature, 

nutrients, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, pH, Enterococci, 

and fecal coliform. Water quality is tested by DEQ staff 

on an eight-week rotational basis at sites that represent 

swimming, boating, or fishing areas used by the public, 

and weekly at sites on the western Saipan beaches. 

Continuous temperature recorders have been placed at 

Laulau Bay and Sasanhaya Bay in order to measure 

seasonal fluctuations in temperature. Additionally, four 

sediment traps have been placed in Laulau Bay, where 

terrigenous sediment input is of concern. 

Fig. 2.3: Members of the 

interagency MMT beginning a 

research dive (Moretti n.d.)

Fig. 2.2: DFW Conservation 

Officers (Moretti n.d.)
CNMI

29

The MMT biological surveys measure benthic coverage, 

coral communities, macroinvertebrate abundance, fish 

abundance, coral recruitment, and biological diversity. 

For benthic coverage, 0.5 meter x 50 meter (m) video 

belt transects are used to estimate benthic cover. Coral 

communities are measured via the point quadrat method 

to assess coral population structure and relative 

abundance. All macroinvertebrates encountered within 

two meters of each side of the transect line are identified 

and counted. Fish surveys are completed along each of 

the 50 m transect lines and counts are made of all fish, 

to the family (or functional group) level, within 5 m of 

each side of the transect line. To measure coral 

recruitment, all corals less than 5 centimeters in 0.5 m x 

10 m belt transects are identified to the genus level and 

counted. Biological diversity is measured at each site via 

a checklist list of all fish, corals, and other invertebrates 

and algae that have been identified. 

Population dynamics are assessed at a few sites using 

four permanently placed one m2 quadrats that allow for 

estimates of coral recruitment, death, growth, and 

survival rates. Permanent quadrats have been 

established at the Laulau Bay Sea Cucumber Sanctuary 

in Saipan, the Sasanhaya Bay Fish Reserve in Rota, and a 

few other non-MPA sites. In addition, the MMT 

conducts regular reef flat monitoring at Laulau Bay, 

Forbidden Island, Tank Beach, Bird Island, and 

Sasanhaya Bay (all within MPAs). 

CNMI’s MPA efforts have included the establishment 

of eight MPAs that contain coral reef resources and 

habitats. These sites are categorized into four types: 

marine conservation areas, marine sanctuaries, fish 

reserves, and focal resource sanctuaries. 

MPA TYPES 

Marine Conservation Areas 

National Classification: No-Take, Natural Heritage 

and Cultural Heritage MPA 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The Mañagaha Marine Conservation Area (MMCA) was 

established on August 8, 2000 with the passing of Public 

Law 12-12, the Mañagaha Marine Conservation Act. 

The initial bill to protect Mañagaha Island and its 

surrounding waters first surfaced in 1999, but it did not 

become law until late the following year. The law states 

that the Department of Lands and Natural Resources 

(DLNR) “shall have the exclusive authority to manage 

marine conservation areas” (CNMI Public Law 12-12 

§5). It is unclear whether or not this authority applies to 

similar MPAs that have titles other than “marine 

conservation area,” but DFW has interpreted it to apply 

to other types of MPAs, regardless of name. Public Law 

2-51 gives DFW the authority and responsibility for the 

protection of fish, game, and endangered and threatened 

species. Public Law 12-12 further outlines DFW’s 

specific management responsibilities and gives DFW 

authority to prohibit activities that would negatively 

affect the conservation area. 

On August 7, 2006, the CNMI attorney general issued 

the Attorney General Legal Opinion No. 06-11, stating 

that the Department of Public Lands has “the exclusive 

authority to manage and dispose of public lands in the 

Commonwealth, which necessarily includes Mañagaha 

Island” (Office of the Attorney General 2006). At the 

time of writing, the extent of DFW’s authority over the 

island is unclear. However, DFW clearly maintains 

authority over the marine portion of the conservation 

area. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

The MMCA includes 1.952 square miles (mi2) of marine 

and terrestrial habitat (1.933 mi2 marine). The 

legislation denotes the boundaries of the conservation 

area as four Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)-

based coordinates, representing the four corners of the 

box that is the conservation area. The boundaries were 

designated with consideration of existing markers and 

navigational areas (the shipping channel), historical 

World War II shipwrecks (eight submerged historic 

Table 2.1: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Mañagaha Marine Conservation Area 

Marine Conservation Area 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Mañagaha x x x x x x x 
CNMI 

30

properties lie within the conservation area boundaries), 

and the inclusion of at least some of the reef habitat 

lying outside of the lagoon. 

The MMCA was established to protect the historical, 

cultural, and natural resources found within its 

boundaries. According to Public Law 12-12, the 

purpose of the MMCA is “to protect and preserve, by 

strict regulatory enforcement, the land and water 

resources, flora, fauna, and marine life that are found in 

the conservation area for the enjoyment of future 

generations of commonwealth residents and visitors” 

(Public Law 12-12 §4(b)). The area is designated as a 

recreational and educational area that aims to provide 

“safe habitats for fish and other marine life to exist and 

propagate for the continued use and enjoyment for the 

people of the commonwealth and its visitors” (Public 

Law 12-12 §2). This dual purpose, natural resource 

protection and protection for recreation, poses 

significant management challenges associated with the 

impacts of visitor use. 

Public Law 12-12 prohibits the harvesting or catching of 

fish or other marine life or natural resources, except as 

approved by regulation for scientific research, cultural 

and traditional practices, or educational studies. No 

motorized or non-motorized watercraft, whether 

floating or submersible, or other means of aquatic 

transport are permitted within the conservation area. 

Again, the regulations allow for exceptions for 

enforcement, scientific, recreational and educational 

purposes, or for the transport of persons to and from 

the isle of Mañagaha. No swimming, diving, snorkeling, 

or other human activity is permitted within the 

conservation area, except as provided by regulation. 

DFW has the authority to further prohibit by citation, 

order, rule or regulation, any activity that in any way 

would cause a significantly negative or long-lasting 

impact on the conservation area. Public Law 12-12 sets 

the fines for violations of this act between $500 and 

$10,000, and it enables seizure of items pursuant to 

enforcement of the act. Violators of the act or any rule, 

regulation, or order related to the act are subject to an 

administrative proceeding as provided under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (1 CMC § 9101 et seq.). 

Public Law 12-12 gave DFW a period of 180 

days to promulgate regulations for the 

conservation area. Emergency regulations 

were passed in September 2001 that simply 

added the MMCA to the existing DFW 

regulations on marine reserves (DFW NonCommercial Fishing and Hunting 

Regulations, Part 5, §120). The regulations 

were adopted on an emergency basis in order 

to address inconsistencies between the 

regulations’ prohibition on commercial 

activities within marine reserves and the 

Agreement for Special Recreational 

Concession between the CNMI and Tasi 

Tours and Transportation, Inc. that allowed 

them to operate a commercial concession on 

Mañagaha Island. Under the emergency 

regulations, commercial activities on 

Mañagaha Island are exempt from the 

regulatory prohibition on commercial 

activities in marine reserves. The regulations 

prohibit the take of any marine animal or 

plant, using food to attract fish, anchoring 

vessels, removing or damaging artifacts, natural objects, 

or structures, removing substrate, and littering and 

dumping. Although the law and existing regulations 

prohibit a number of activities, the only rules that are 

currently enforced are the no-take provisions. Rules on 

swimming, anchoring, vessel use, feeding fish, etc. are 

not enforced. More comprehensive regulations were 

drafted in the summer of 2006 in order to aid and clarify 

enforcement efforts. This draft set of comprehensive 

regulations is expected to go through a public review 

process by the end of 2006 as a part of the adoption 

process. 

The small 0.019 mi2 (five hectares) island, which is part 

of the MMCA, has an additional level of protection 

under the Commonwealth Constitution. The 

constitution mandates that “the island of Mañagaha 

shall be maintained as an uninhabited place and used 

only for cultural and recreational purposes” 

(Commonwealth Constitution Article XIV, Section 2). 

 Fig. 2.4: Mañagaha Marine Conservation Area (Moretti n.d.) 
CNMI

31

Management Activities: 

A management plan for the MMCA was completed in 

April 2005, and it is the first (and to date, the only) 

management plan to be written for an MPA in the 

CNMI. Development of the plan was overseen by the 

DFW natural resources planner. It should be noted, 

however, that a management plan for the Mañagaha 

Island Marine Park was written for CRMO by a 

consultant in 1985, before any such park existed. The 

plan was essentially a proposal for the designation of a 

marine park surrounding Mañagaha Island. This 1985 

plan was never implemented. 

The following are the management goals articulated in 

the 2005 Management Plan for the Mañagaha Marine 

Conservation Area: 

• Goal 1: Develop and promulgate regulations, permit 

fees, and visitor use guidelines 

• Goal 2: Dedicate staff and material resources to 

implement the Mañagaha management plan and to 

enforce associated regulations. 

• Goal 3: Survey and monitor natural, cultural, and 

historical resources, and visitor uses to assess their 

status through time. 

• Goal 4: Inform and educate visitors about the 

conservation area resources, potential impacts of 

their uses, and the regulations and guidelines for the 

conservation area. 

• Goal 5: Annually 

evaluate the effectiveness 

of the conservation area 

management and 

regulations. 

The management plan 

details measurable, timebound objectives for each 

goal, as well as short and 

long-term strategies for 

accomplishing these goals. 

A 15-year budget of $1.641 

million is estimated for the 

full implementation of the 

management plan, considering existing DFW budgets. 

As part of the budget, the management plan outlines a 

schedule, staffing, materials, and equipment needed, and 

specific tasks that will be accomplished. 

CNMI’s MPA systems specialist working for DFW 

coordinates many of the management activities for the 

MMCA, with the exception of the Fisheries Sanctuary 

Monitoring Program. Recent management activities 

have involved drafting regulations and legislation, 

installation of signage, outreach efforts, and efforts to 

secure permanent sources of funding for the 

implementation of the management plan. Since there is 

currently no budget for the MPA, implementation of 

management activities has been primarily restricted to 

activities that the MPA systems specialist can 

accomplish without funding. It is becoming evident 

that, as DFW assumes true responsibility for the 

management of the MMCA and other MPA sites, an 

MPA program manager, and eventually site managers, 

will be needed. 

Research and Monitoring: 

DFW’s MSP regularly carries out several monitoring 

activities in the MMCA. The MSP does fish counts, 

counts invertebrates of commercial interest, maintains a 

fish species checklist, and conducts a basic benthic 

habitat characterization (coral, sand, rubble, etc.) at each 

of its monitoring sites within the conservation area. 

Biological monitoring is also conducted by the 

interagency MMT at three monitoring sites within the 

MMCA. DEQ samples water at 11 sites equally spaced 

around Mañagaha Island on a weekly basis. See the 

“Background” section for details on the Marine 

Monitoring Program. 

Enforcement: 

Enforcement activities fall under the jurisdiction of the 

head of the Enforcement Section. The MMCA is 

patrolled periodically by the DFW conservation officers, 

primarily via boat patrol since the conservation area is 

difficult to view from land. The MMCA’s location in 

the Saipan Lagoon makes it relatively easy to patrol by 

boat, both during the day and at night. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

A single public hearing on the MMCA was held on 

December 7, 1999, eight months prior to the 

establishment of the site. In general, the public was 

supportive of the idea of establishing an MPA around 

Mañagaha Island. According to a December 9, 1999 

news article in the Saipan Tribune that documented the 

hearing, “Legislation restricting activities on Mañagaha 

Island and surrounding waters drew wide support at a 

public hearing held Tuesday night as residents and 

government agencies underscored the need to protect 

fish species and marine resources found in the area” 

(Saladores 1999). There is no information available on 

individual comments received, or opinions expressed, 

during the hearing. 

Currently, there is little to no public involvement in 

management decisions and activities related to the 

MMCA. However, DFW has expressed a desire to 

increase involvement of local communities. It is 

expected that at least one (required) public hearing on 

Fig. 2.5: Visitor use impacts 

are one of the primary 

management concerns for 

the MMCA (Moretti n.d.) 
CNMI 

32

the proposed regulations for the MMCA will be held 

during 2006 in order to give the public an opportunity 

to comment on the proposed regulations.

Marine Sanctuaries 

The two sanctuaries benefit from significantly sized 

adjacent terrestrial conservation areas that were 

established through separate processes. The Bird 

Island Sanctuary is a 0.568 mi2 protected area which 

consists of 0.563 mi2 of marine habitat and a small, 

0.003 mi2 (1.3 hectare) island. The Forbidden Island 

Sanctuary is a 0.979 mi2 protected area which consists 

of 0.967 mi2 of marine habitat and a small, 0.012 mi2 (3 

hectare) island. 

National Classification: No-Take, Natural Heritage 

MPAs 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The two sanctuaries were legally established on April 20, 

2001 through CNMI Public Law 12-46. At both 

locations, Public Law 12-46 protects waters from the 

low tide line to 1000 feet seaward. At the Bird Island 

site, it also includes protection for land that is 500 feet 

up the face of the cliff line, provided that it does not 

conflict with private property. As mentioned 

previously, Public Law 12-12 gives exclusive 

management authority of marine conservation areas to 

DFW. Public Law 12-46 reiterates this authority and 

places management and monitoring responsibilities 

under DFW. However, Public Law 12-46 also clearly 

states that DFW shall work with Public Lands, CRMO, 

and the Marianas Visitors Authority to collaborate on 

management activities. Under Public Law 12-46, DFW 

has the authority to charge a “nominal entry fee for the 

purposes of maintenance of these sanctuaries and for 

enforcement, research and improvement of these 

sanctuaries" (Public Law 12-46 §4).

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

The legislative purpose of the sanctuaries is the 

conservation of wildlife and marine life, and they were 

designated to serve as “natural laboratories for 

continued propagation of wildlife and marine species, 

which gradually and naturally can re-populate 

depopulated areas of [the] lagoon and island” (Public 

Law 12-46 §1). 

The enabling legislation prohibits the “destruction, 

harassment and/or removal of plants, wildlife including 

birds, turtles, fish and marine species of any kind, 

fishing in any form, operation of jet skis, walking on 

exposed sections of the reef, harvesting or removal of 

fish, shellfish or marine life in any form” within the 

confines of the sanctuaries (Public Law 12-46 §5). A 

fine of $500 and/or a prison sentence of not more than 

one year shall be imposed on any individual who 

engages in any of the prohibited activities within the 

sanctuaries. 

Table 2.2: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Two Marine Sanctuaries 

Marine Sanctuaries 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Bird Island x x x x x x x 

Forbidden Island x x x x x x x 

Fig. 2.6: Forbidden Island Sanctuary (Moretti n.d.)
CNMI

33

Management Activities: 

Although no formal management plans currently exist 

for these two sanctuaries, a contract was awarded in 

mid-2006 to a private consultant to develop plans for 

the sites. DFW’s Natural Resource Planning Section is 

leading this effort in conjunction with the development 

of plans for the adjacent terrestrial protected areas. 

Research and Monitoring: 

DFW’s MSP regularly carries out monitoring activities 

in the Bird Island and Forbidden Island Marine 

Sanctuaries. The MSP does fish counts, counts 

invertebrates of commercial interest, maintains a fish 

species checklist, and conducts a basic benthic habitat 

characterization (coral, sand, rubble, etc.) at each of its 

monitoring sites within the sanctuaries. Biological and 

reef flat monitoring are also conducted by the 

interagency MMT at three monitoring sites within the 

sanctuaries (Bird Island, Forbidden Island, and Tank 

Beach). DEQ samples water at three sites (Bird Island, 

Forbidden Island, and Tank Beach) on an eight-week 

rotational basis. See the “Introduction” section for 

details on the Marine Monitoring Program. 

Enforcement: 

Enforcement activities fall under the jurisdiction of the 

head of the Enforcement Section. The sanctuaries are 

patrolled periodically by DFW conservation officers, 

primarily via land patrol. The sanctuaries’ location on 

the east side of Saipan means that boat patrols are often 

difficult, though not impossible. Much of the Bird 

Island and Forbidden Island Sanctuaries is visible from 

a variety of vantage points on land, although these 

vantage points are not always easily accessible. 

Nighttime patrolling of these sanctuaries is logistically 

challenging. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

There is no record of any stakeholder involvement or 

public participation in the establishment of these two 

sites. 

Although there have not been opportunities for direct 

public involvement in developing the management 

plans, DFW intends to receive public input during the 

development and promulgation of regulations for these 

sites. 

Fish Reserves 

The 0.326 mi2 reserve is located on the island of Rota. 

National Classification: No-Take, Natural Heritage 

and Cultural Heritage MPA 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The Sasanhaya Bay Fish Reserve (SBFR) was established 

on October 13, 1994 with the passing of Rota Local 

Law 9-2. Six years later, the Rota local law was 

reinforced with the passing of the DFW NonCommercial Fishing and Hunting Regulations (Part 5, 

§120), which became effective on August 18, 2000. 

Enforcement and management of this law is the 

responsibility of the secretary of DLNR, in consultation 

with the director of DFW and Rota’s resident director 

of DLNR. DFW regulations are enforced by DFW 

conservation officers pursuant to the provisions in 

Public Law 2-51, the legislation that originally 

established DFW. Additionally, Public Law 12-12, 

passed in 2000, states that DLNR “shall have the 

exclusive authority to manage marine conservation 

areas” (Public Law 12-12 §5). 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

According to Rota Local Law 9-2, the SBFR was 

established to “preserve the natural beauty, pristine 

marine environment and the historical wreckage in the 

Sasanhaya Bay of Rota” (Rota Local Law 9-2 §1). The 

protected area was found to be a valuable tourist 

attraction and it was determined that its preservation 

would be a boost to the tourist industry. In addition to 

prohibiting any activities that are exploitive or 

destructive to marine life, the reserve specifically 

prohibits killing or removing, or attempting to remove, 

any marine animal, including but not limited to any 

fishes, coral (live or dead), lobster, shellfish, clams, 

octopus, and shells. Any activities that are exploitive or 

Fig. 2.7: Bird Island Sanctuary (Moretti n.d.)
CNMI 

34

destructive to the World War II shipwrecks are also 

strictly prohibited. 

Management Activities: 

There is no management plan for the SBFR. No 

individual at the DLNR office on Rota is tasked with 

management of the SBFR. 

In 1996, via requests from the CNMI governor and the 

mayor of Rota, the director of the CNMI Emergency 

Management Office asked the U.S. Navy to detonate the 

live depth charges on a World War II sub chaser wreck 

at the popular coral gardens dive site in the SBFR. It 

was felt by some that the charges posed a hazard to 

recreational divers and fishermen, although there were 

protests by some members of the general community 

and the dive community. The force of the detonation 

caused significant damage to the SBFR, the oldest of the 

CNMI’s MPAs. The blast killed numerous fish, 

decimated coral, and killed an endangered hawksbill 

turtle. In addition, considerable secondary damage was 

caused by the blast’s extensive sediment plume, which 

blanketed a large area in and around the coral gardens 

site. Two typhoons subsequently caused further 

damage, and expanded the impacted area to 

approximately 29,000 m2. Estimates based on a value of 

$2,833/m2 resulted in a total estimated economic impact 

of $82 million. 

Research and Monitoring: 

DFW’s MSP regularly carries out monitoring activities 

in the SBFR. The MSP does fish counts, counts 

invertebrates of commercial interest, maintains a fish 

species checklist, and conducts a basic benthic habitat 

characterization (coral, sand, rubble, etc.) within the 

SBFR. Biological and reef flat monitoring are also 

conducted by the interagency MMT at a monitoring site 

within the reserve. DEQ regularly monitors beach 

water quality in the reserve. See the “Introduction” 

section for details on the Marine Monitoring Program.

Education and Outreach: 

The 2006-2008 NOAA coral reef management fellow is 

working out of the DEQ office on Rota and has begun 

some small projects aimed at increasing public 

awareness of the SBFR and the benefits it provides. 

There are also plans to get Rota High School biology 

students involved with reserve activities. 

Enforcement: 

Enforcement activities fall under the jurisdiction of 

Rota’s DLNR. The SBFR is monitored by the Rota 

DFW conservation officers, primarily via land patrol. 

There are six conservation officers on Rota tasked with 

the enforcement of all terrestrial and marine fish and 

wildlife laws and regulations, including the SSBFR. 

These officers report to the resident director of DLNR 

on Rota, who reports to the mayor of Rota. The 

enforcement officers have one boat available for patrol, 

but there is purportedly a perpetual shortage of fuel 

available for the vessel. The reserve’s location in the 

relatively calm waters of the Sasanhaya Bay means that 

the reserve is highly accessible, either by land or by boat. 

Much, if not all, of the reserve is visible from a variety 

of vantage points on land. The reserve also contains a 

popular dive site so there are often a number of boats in 

the area that can report violations. Dive operators 

stated that they used to report violations to DFW, but 

they no longer bother to report them because of a lack 

of response. 

Table 2.3: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Sasanhaya Bay Fish Reserve 

Fish Reserve 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Sasanhaya Bay x x x x x 

 Fig. 2.8: Sasanhaya Bay Fish Reserve, Rota (Moretti n.d.) 
CNMI

35

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

There is no record of any stakeholder involvement or 

public participation in the establishment of this site. 

In 2006, DLNR undertook a number of community 

involvement projects aimed at increasing public 

awareness of the MPA and increasing public 

involvement in management activities. These activities 

included holding a fishermen's forum, conducting social 

science survey research, developing and distributing 

outreach materials, community monitoring of reef flats, 

and leading a week-long eco-camp with an MPA 

module. 

Focal Resource Sanctuaries 

The four focal resource sanctuaries provide protections 

for either the topshell Techtus (Techtus) niloticus (known 

locally as “trochus”) or sea cucumbers (including 

families holothuridae, synaptidae, and stichopodidae). Two of 

the four sanctuaries, Bird Island Sea Cucumber 

Sanctuary and Tank Beach Trochus Sanctuary, are 

overlapped entirely by no-take MPAs (Bird Island 

Sanctuary and the Forbidden Island Sanctuary). The 

Laulau Bay and Bird Island Sea Cucumber Sanctuaries 

include 0.759 mi2 and 0.309 mi2 marine of marine 

habitat, respectively. The Bird Island Sea Cucumber 

Sanctuary also includes a small terrestrial habitat so its 

total area is 0.314 mi2. The 0.429 mi2 Lighthouse Reef 

and 0.066 mi2 Tank Beach Trochus Sanctuaries include 

only marine habitat. 

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use, 

Sustainable Production MPAs 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The Laulau Bay Sea Cucumber Sanctuary and Bird 

Island Sea Cucumber Sanctuary were established by the 

DFW Non-Commercial Fishing and Hunting 

Regulations, Part 5, §60.2 on August 18, 2000. The 

sanctuaries encompass the waters from the mean high 

tide line to the 40-foot depth contour. DFW is the 

responsible agency, with the authority to promulgate 

and enforce fish and wildlife regulations as allowed 

under Public Law 2-51. 

The Lighthouse Reef Trochus Sanctuary and Tank 

Beach Trochus Sanctuary were established by the DFW 

Non-Commercial Fishing and Hunting Regulations, Part 

5, §50.2 in 1981. The Lighthouse Reef Trochus 

Sanctuary extends from the inshore edge of the reef to 

the 40-foot depth contour. The Tank Beach Trochus 

Sanctuary extends from the mean high tide line to the 

40-foot depth contour. DFW is the responsible agency, 

with the authority to promulgate and enforce fish and 

wildlife regulations as allowed under Public Law 2-51. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

Collection of sea cucumber and trochus is currently 

prohibited by law due to a sea cucumber moratorium, 

and the lack of an open harvest season for trochus. 

However, the reserves were established in anticipation 

of possible open seasons in the future. 

Sea Cucumber Sanctuaries: 

In 1995, a fishery for sea cucumbers was started on the 

island of Rota that targeted Actinopyga mauritiana, with 

incidental captures of the black teatfish, Holothuria 

whitmaei. In 1996, after depleting much of the resource 

on Rota, the fishery moved to Saipan (Trianni 2002c). 

As a condition on the original fishing permits, 

harvesting was not allowed in Laulau Bay or around 

Table 2.4: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Four Focal Resource Sanctuaries 

Focal Resource Sanctuaries 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Bird Island Sea Cucumber * x x x x x 

Laulau Bay Sea Cucumber x x x x x 

Lighthouse Reef Trochus x x x x x 

Tank Beach Trochus * x x x x x 

*These sites are entirely overlapped by Bird Island and Forbidden Island Sanctuaries.
CNMI 

36

Bird Island. At that time, these sites were not yet 

formally established as MPAs. After the fishery was 

closed in 1997 due to declining catch, DFW conducted 

a post-harvest study on Saipan and found that 80-100 

percent of the population had been harvested there 

(Trianni 2002a). DFW also conducted a pre-harvest 

study on Tinian because the fishery had expressed 

intentions to move to that island next. The results of 

these studies demonstrated a near total depletion of sea 

cucumber at the harvested islands. In response, a 

CNMI-wide moratorium on the harvest of sea 

cucumber (and seaweed and sea grass) was put into 

effect with the passing of Public Law 11-63 on February 

18, 1999. The moratorium is effective for a period of at 

least ten years and is set to expire in early 2009. 

The goals of the sea cucumber sanctuaries are to 

minimize the impacts of the (currently inactive) sea 

cucumber fishery, and to ensure a sustainable harvest of 

sea cucumber if and when the fishery is reopened. 

These goals are not explicitly stated in the regulations 

that created the reserves. 

Trochus Sanctuaries: 

The topshell “trochus”, 

Tectus (Tectus) niloticus

(synonymous with Trochus 

niloticus), was introduced 

to the Mariana Islands in 

March 1938, when 2,974 

individuals were planted 

in Saipan. According to 

historical records, peak 

harvest was in 1956. 

From 1947-1976, trochus 

harvest was restricted to a 

14-day period between 

May and July. From 1976 

to 1981, harvest was 

unrestricted. In 1981, Public Law 2-51 established 

DFW, and the first set of DFW regulations was 

adopted. The regulations included the two trochus

sanctuaries, making them the first formally established 

MPAs in the CNMI. The DFW regulations also 

imposed size restrictions and a CNMI-wide moratorium 

on the harvest of Trochus niloticus, and gave the DLNR 

secretary the authority to declare open seasons at any 

time after consultation with the director of DFW. Since 

1981, an open season has been declared only once, in 

1996, for a period of three months (Trianni 2002b). 

The declaration of an open season does not affect the 

restrictions on harvest in the trochus sanctuaries. 

The goals of the trochus sanctuaries are to “ensure 

continuous high levels of productivity of trochus” 

(DFW Non-Commercial Fishing and Hunting 

Regulations, Part 5, §60.2). It is prohibited to take 

trochus from the trochus sanctuaries at any time, even 

during open seasons. 

Management Activities: 

There are little to no management activities related to 

the sea cucumber or trochus sanctuaries, except for the 

continued enforcement of the CNMI-wide prohibition 

on the harvest of these resources. 

Research and Monitoring: 

The interagency MMT conducts biological monitoring, 

water quality monitoring, and reef flat monitoring 

(including counts of macroinvertebrates) at two 

monitoring sites within the Laulau Bay Sea Cucumber 

Sanctuary. The MMT also regularly surveys two sites at 

Bird Island and Tank Beach (for more details, see the 

“Research and Monitoring” section for Bird Island 

Sanctuary and Forbidden Island Sanctuary). The 

CRMO/DEQ Lagoon Monitoring Project also collects 

benthic habitat data at the Lighthouse Reef Trochus 

Sanctuary. 

Enforcement: 

Enforcement activities fall 

under the jurisdiction of the 

head of the Enforcement 

Section. Because there is a 

moratorium on the harvest of 

trochus and sea cucumber, the 

sanctuaries do not have any 

additional level of protection 

over other CNMI waters. 

Therefore, the sanctuaries are 

not specifically patrolled. 

Conservation officers have 

periodically cited individuals 

for illegal collection of trochus. 

 Fig. 2.9: Lau Lau Bay Sea Cucumber Sanctuary (Moretti n.d.) 

Fig. 2.10: Lighthouse Reef Trochus Sanctuary (Moretti n.d.)
CNMI

37

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

There is no record of any stakeholder involvement or 

public participation in the establishment of these sites. 

However, the 1981 adoption of the DFW regulations 

and the 2000 adoption of the amendments to the DFW 

regulations required a 30-day public notice and public 

comment period. No public comments were received 

related to these sanctuaries.

CHALLENGES TO MPA 

EFFECTIVENESS 

MPAs in the CNMI face many of the 

same challenges to effectiveness that other 

MPA sites around the world face, 

including funding issues, lack of capacity, 

lack of community support, and 

enforcement issues. The current 

economic crisis that the CNMI is facing 

contributes to these challenges, making it 

difficult to garner the necessary political 

and financial support for an effective 

MPA program. DFW, along with other 

resource management agencies, has made 

some significant strides in recent years by 

developing management plans and 

monitoring programs. However, these 

efforts have existed outside of a dedicated 

management framework for MPAs. 

Without funding and staff dedicated to an 

MPA program, much of what needs to get 

done will be difficult to accomplish. 

There is currently only one person 

working exclusively on MPA issues, and 

that person is on a temporary (two-year), 

federally funded contract. 

The management plan for the MMCA provides a 

detailed budget (including human resources) for the site, 

which DFW has been using as a starting point to lobby 

for funds for an MPA program. Legislation has been 

written, and is expected to be introduced during 2006, 

that will provide a budget in the range of $200,000 

annually for an MPA program within DFW. This 

money is to come from charging tourists fees to enter 

the MMCA. Increased funding would address many of 

the existing gaps by funding an MPA program 

coordinator, 24-hour enforcement officers/rangers on 

Mañagaha Island, and a community outreach and 

education coordinator. This funding would also 

support any projects that these staff would implement, 

including assisting, coordinating, and improving on 

existing monitoring efforts. Other operating costs, such 

as equipment and fuel, would also be covered by this 

budget. 

The CNMI’s capacity to implement and manage an 

MPA program of this scale is somewhat limited. As is 

the case in other U.S. territories, it is often difficult to 

find local residents who are qualified and willing to work 

in the positions that need to be filled. Though the 

situation has been improving, the effectiveness of 

current MPA efforts has been negatively affected by a 

lack of cooperation between natural resource 

management agencies with similar and overlapping 

authorities. In addition, socio-political arrangements 

that are prevalent in many small-island societies create 

challenges to effective leadership and enforcement. 

Although local communities have expressed some levels 

of support for the concept of protected areas, the 

CNMI has not sufficiently engaged with communities to 

build support for an MPA program. In a place where 

capacity is limited, engaging the community can be a 

great source of support, volunteerism, and motivation 

for MPA efforts. In general, one of largest problems 

facing the CNMI is the public’s lack of understanding 

and awareness of issues surrounding MPAs. It will be 

difficult to generate support for MPAs without a basic 

level of awareness of the need for MPAs and the 

benefits they provide. 

An effective enforcement regime is another one of the 

CNMI’s biggest challenges. Current enforcement 

efforts lack the political support, motivation, and 

Management Challenges in CNMI's MPAs

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Funding/

Resources

Capacity Public

Support 

Monitoring Enforcement Other

Fig. 2.11: Percent of MPAs (out of 6 total responses) that identified each issue 

as a challenge to effective MPA management. Bird Island Sea Cucumber and 

Tank Beach Trochus Sanctuaries were not included because they are entirely 

overlapped by other MPAs (Bird Island and Forbidden Island Sanctuaries). 

Examples of “other” challenges include demarcation of boundaries, 

compliance, need for on-site staff, interagency cooperation, and identification 

of human carrying capacity. 
CNMI 

38

organization needed to be truly effective. It should be 

noted, however, that the capacity for effective 

enforcement exists. 

WORKING 

TOWARDS 

A NETWORK

The CNMI has 

already taken some of 

the first steps 

towards creating a 

network of MPAs. 

The creation of an 

MPA program plan (to be completed by early 2007), the 

creation of site management plans (three of four no-take 

MPAs will have plans by 2007), and efforts towards 

securing a permanent source of funding for MPAs are 

critical to the development of an effective network of 

sites. The consensus among agency officials is that it is 

best to work to improve the effectiveness of existing 

sites before attempting to designate new sites. If the 

CNMI lacks the capacity to effectively manage its 

existing sites, there is no point in adding new sites to an 

ineffective system. 

While noting the point above, there have been efforts to 

add a few sites to the current list of MPAs in the CNMI. 

Of the three significantly inhabited islands of the 

CNMI, Tinian is the only one without an MPA. Tinian 

has made at least two attempts in recent years to 

establish an MPA in Barcinas Bay, but the attempts have 

failed due to a lack of political support. The CNMI 

Fisheries Act, which has been introduced multiple times 

(most recently in 2003), had language in it that would 

have protected waters around four of the terrestrially 

protected Northern Islands. Three of the islands were 

the island chain’s northernmost, while one was more 

centrally located. The act failed because of controversy 

surrounding the ownership of submerged lands, which 

has since been resolved. Interest in re-introducing the 

Fisheries Act and an act to protect Tinian’s Barcinas Bay 

has resurfaced recently. 

If Barcinas Bay and the marine waters around the four 

Northern Islands were protected, they could contribute 

to a system of MPAs. Including these potential MPAs 

with current and proposed protections in Saipan, Tinian, 

and Rota, and Guam’s system of MPAs, would 

constitute a geographically representative system of 

MPAs in the Mariana Islands. The creation of such a 

system, combined with biological representativeness, is a 

goal the CNMI MPA program may choose to strive 

towards in the future. 

NEXT STEPS/ 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

As the CNMI works towards establishing an MPA 

program, there are two main priorities for the next 

year. First, a source of funding for the program needs 

to be secured. Secondly, DFW needs to complete the 

MPA program plan in order to strategically guide the 

program through the next three to five years. Support 

of MPAs has been building up over the last few years, 

and it is important that this momentum be built upon. 

In future years, two related areas that will need 

attention are enforcement and engagement of the 

local communities. There is hope that money brought 

into the Enforcement Section through a recent 

Memorandum of Understanding with the NOAA Office 

of Law Enforcement, as well as separate funding and 

management by the MPA program, will aid in the 

development of an effective enforcement and outreach 

regime. Current enforcement efforts are plagued by a 

complicated and colorful past that, by some accounts, 

included somewhat selective enforcement of certain 

rules and regulations. This history, combined with a 

very heavy handed, top-down approach, has led to a loss 

of trust and confidence in enforcement officers by the 

local community. Enforcement officers, along with 

other government representatives and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), are going to be 

important players in re-engaging local communities. 

Working with the extremely diverse communities 

present in the CNMI to build support for the islands’ 

MPAs will be the key to 

increasing compliance and 

having effective enforcement 

in the future. Educating the 

public will likely require a 

full-time education and 

outreach coordinator. This 

person will be tasked with 

the development and 

implementation a large-scale 

public outreach campaign, 

with a goal of bringing the 

issue of MPAs to the 

public’s attention. 

One final recommendation is to engage and train high 

school students through a natural resource management 

vocational education program. Many of the students 

who leave the CNMI to attend college do not return; 

many of those who stay end up working entire careers at 

government agencies. The government employs a large 

percentage of CNMI locals, and there is competition for 

these lucrative government jobs. Establishing a 

Fig. 2.12: School of fish and coral reef 

(Moretti n.d.)

Fig. 2.13: Fisherman 

(Moretti n.d.)
CNMI

39

vocational education program for high school students 

is one way to slowly build capacity at the agencies, 

where it is very much needed. By providing students 

with the skills and background they need to work with 

natural resource managers, the CNMI can create the 

skilled labor force that is currently so hard to find. 

Table 2.5: National Classification System for CNMI’s Eight MPAs 

Site Name 

 Conservation  Focus  Level of  Protection  Permanence of  Protection  Constancy of  Protection  Scale of  Protection  Management  Plan 

Mañagaha Marine Conservation 

Area 

Natural & 

Cultural 

Heritage 

No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Bird Island Sanctuary Natural 

Heritage No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem In development

Forbidden Island Sanctuary Natural 

Heritage No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem In development

Sasanhaya Bay Fish Reserve 

Natural & 

Cultural 

Heritage 

No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Bird Island Sea Cucumber 

Sanctuary* 

Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource N/A 

Laulau Bay Sea Cucumber 

Sanctuary 

Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Lighthouse Reef Trochus 

Sanctuary 

Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Tank Beach Trochus Sanctuary* Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource N/A 

* These sites are entirely overlapped by Bird Island and Forbidden Island Sanctuaries. 

SUCCESS STORY 

The no-take Mañagaha Marine Conservation Area (MMCA) is the most commonly recognized MPA in the CNMI 

because it is a very popular tourist attraction, it lies in the protected Saipan Lagoon, and it is an important part of 

the cultural history of the CNMI’s Carolinian inhabitants. Although it was established in August 2000, effective 

enforcement of Public Law 12-12 required additional enforcement staff and equipment. Starting in September 

2002, the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program provided funds for enforcement staff and equipment. The 

federal funding was used to hire three local agency marine conservation officers to enforce the MPA laws on 

Saipan, and they began to hand out citations for violations in 2003. At the same time, education efforts were 

initiated, including ads in local magazines, publication of brochures, school presentations, and fishermen’s forums 

to discuss fishery issues, such as MPAs. 

In contrast, the no-take Sasanhaya Bay Fish Reserve (SBFR) in Rota was established in 1994, and additional 

enforcement staff were never made available for the enforcement of the site. Outreach efforts were also limited. 

Unpublished research from DFW’s Fisheries Research Section suggests a vast difference in fishery recovery rates 

between the two MPAs. Researchers began seeing positive trends in the size of certain fish species in the MMCA, 

while such trends have not been observed in the SBFR. Although it is difficult to account for all of the variables 

that may have caused this disparity, it is commonly held that the difference in enforcement presence, enforcement 

actions, and education efforts account for much of the difference between the recovery rates at the two sites. 
CNMI 

40

CITATIONS 

1 CMC § 9101 et seq. Administrative Procedure Act. 

CNMI Public Law 2-51. Fish, Game, and Endangered 

Species Act of 1981. 

CNMI Public Law 11-63. An act to establish a 

moratorium on the harvesting of seaweed, sea grass, and 

sea cucumber in the Commonwealth waters; and for 

other purposes. 

CNMI Public Law 12-12. Mañagaha Marine 

Conservation Act of 2000. 

CNMI Public Law 12-46. An act to designate Bird 

Island and Forbidden Island as sanctuaries for the 

conservation of wildlife and marine life; and for other 

purposes. 

Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) Non-Commercial 

Fishing and Hunting Regulations, Part 5, §120. Marine 

Reserves. 

Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) Non-Commercial 

Fishing and Hunting Regulations, Part 5, §60.2. 

Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) Non-Commercial 

Fishing and Hunting Regulations, Part 5, §50.2. 

Kessler, Curt. n.d. Fig. 2.1:. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Moretti, Greg. n.d. Figs. 2.2 - 2.13. CNMI Division of 

Fish and Wildlife.

Office of the Attorney General. August 7, 2006. 

Attorney General Opinion No. 06-11. 

Pacific Basin Environmental Consultants, Inc. March 

1985. CNMI Marine Parks Management Plan. Prepared 

for the Coastal Resources Management Office, Saipan. 

Rota Local Law 9-2. An act to create a fish reserve in 

Sasanhaya in Rota which shall extend from Puña Point 

to the Coral Gardens, and for other purposes. 

Saladores, Benhur C. 1999. Limited marine activities on 

Mañagaha draw support. Saipan Tribune, December 9, 

1999. Available online at www.saipantribune.com. 

The Commonwealth Constitution, Article XIV, Section 

2. 

Trianni, Michael S. 2002a. Evaluation of the resource 

following the sea cucumber fishery of Saipan, Northern 

Mariana Islands. In: M. K. Kasim Moosa, S. 

Soemodihardjo, A. Nontji, A. Soegiarto, K. 

Romimohtarto, Sukarno and Suharsono (eds.), 

Proceedings of the Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, 

Bali, Indonesia, October 23-27 2000. Ministry of 

Environment, the Indonesian Institute of Sciences and 

the International Society for Reef Studies. 

–––––––.2002b. Summary of data collected from a 

declared trochus season on Saipan, Northern Mariana 

Islands. SPC Trochus Information Bulletin 9: 2-5. 

–––––––.2002c. Summary of data collected from the 

sea cucumber fishery on Rota, Northern Mariana 

Islands. SPC Beche-de-mer Information Bulletin 16: 5-11. 
41 

Chapter 3: Florida Coral Reef MPA Summary 

Carleigh Trappe, NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

Karen Bareford, Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Office of Coastal & Aquatic Managed Areas 

Contributors: Stephanie Bailenson, Chantal Collier, and Laura Herren 

INTRODUCTION 

Florida is the only state in the continental United States 

with shallow coral reef formations near its coastline. 

The Florida reef tract stretches from the Dry Tortugas, 

west of Key West, to the Saint Lucie Inlet in Martin 

County, an extension of approximately 530 kilometers 

(km). Rohmann, et al. (in press) estimate that 

30,801km2 of Florida’s nearshore shallow waters may 

support coral reef resources. The development of these 

reefs is attributed to Florida’s broad, shallow continental 

shelf and the Gulf Stream, which carries flora, fauna and 

warm waters to the area. Florida’s primary coral habitats 

include patch reefs, bank reefs, and hardbottom 

communities - the latter being the most extensive 

(Andrews, et al. 2005). Mangroves, wetlands, algal beds, 

and seagrass beds are also important components of the 

reef ecosystem. More than 460 species of fish have been 

observed in this region by expert-level Reef 

Environmental Education Foundation fish identification 

volunteers (via more than 8,000 surveys) since 1993 

(REEF 2001). Although there have been a few studies 

reporting the existence of corals along Florida’s west 

coast, research and data collection are incomplete. 

The coral reefs off Florida’s coast provide over $1.9 

billion in annual income and 71,300 jobs to the residents 

of Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, 

and Monroe Counties (Johns, et al. 

2001). These coral reefs and associated 

ecosystems provide vital biological, 

socioeconomic, and recreational 

resources to the residents of Florida and 

the United States. 

Like many coral reefs throughout the 

world, Florida’s reefs are threatened 

directly and indirectly by human 

activities. Large coastal infrastructure 

projects can contribute to shoreline 

erosion and can damage coral habitat by 

increasing turbidity. Beach nourishment 

projects can cause severe impacts to 

reefs. Sediments can smother corals, and 

the reduced water clarity from these 

projects can deprive corals of the light 

they require for photosynthesis. Dredge 

and fill projects, and construction of 

seawalls and docks, can negatively impact 

seagrasses, mangroves, and other benthic 

communities that are important to the 

entire coral reef ecosystem, and can 

impact corals directly and indirectly. 

Runoff from residential, industrial, and 

agricultural areas may contain 

contaminants and debris, which are 

carried through storm drains to Florida's 

waterways. Sewage discharges from 

waste treatment facilities, boats, and 

developed land areas may contribute to 

coral diseases and death. Even treated 

sewage may contain high nutrient levels 

 Fig. 3.1: Map of Florida reef tract, including the Southeast Florida Coral Reef 

 Initiative (SEFCRI) area and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

 (FDEP CAMA 2006) 
FLORIDA 

42

that may trigger algal blooms that can smother reefs, 

and may also contain bacteria and viruses that threaten 

the health of the marine environment and humans. 

Physical contact from fins, hands, or equipment of 

boaters, divers, snorkelers, and fishermen can damage 

delicate corals. Abandoned, improperly discarded, or 

lost fishing gear like line, nets, and traps can cause 

physical damage to reef systems. Ships and other vessels 

that run aground or drop anchor on reefs can dislodge, 

overturn and crush corals. 

Acknowledging the significance of Florida’s coral reef 

system, and the threats it faces, federal and state 

agencies initiated efforts to protect the reefs. The state’s 

first effort was the establishment of John Pennekamp 

Coral Reef State Park in 1963 - the first underwater park 

in the United States. The federal government 

recognized the need for additional protection and 

established the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary 

and Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary, in 1975 and 

1981, respectively. To comprehensively manage all the 

reefs and associated reef resources of the Florida Keys, 

the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) 

was established in 1990. NOAA cooperatively manages 

the sanctuary with the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Other 

federally designated and managed areas within the reef 

system include national parks, national wildlife refuges, 

federal fishery habitat conservation zones, and federal 

fishery management zones. 

The state of Florida has 

implemented many additional 

programs and management 

designations to protect its coral 

reefs and other coastal and 

marine resources. These 

designations include fisheries 

areas, manatee safety havens 

and speed zones, critical 

wildlife areas, outstanding 

Florida waters, surface water improvement and 

management areas, wildlife management areas, state 

parks, and aquatic preserves. More recently, with 

guidance from the United States Coral Reef Task Force, 

FDEP and FWC coordinated the formation of a team 

of interagency marine resource professionals, scientists, 

non-governmental organizations, and other interested 

stakeholders to address management needs of the 

northern extension of the Florida reef tract. The 

Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SEFCRI) Team 

first gathered to develop a local action strategy (LAS) in 

May 2003, targeting the reefs from Miami-Dade County, 

through Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin Counties. 

This region was chosen because its reefs are close to an 

intensely-developed coastal region, where, prior to the 

development of SEFCRI, there was no coordinated 

public education or management effort for reefs located 

north of the Florida Keys (FDEP CRCP 2004). The 

formation of SEFCRI acknowledged the importance of 

coral reefs throughout the full extent of Florida’s reef 

tract (530 km), with the entire tract falling within the 

SEFCRI region or the FKNMS. 

Several monitoring efforts are in place to help address 

some of the threats to Florida’s reefs. Water quality, 

seagrass, and coral reef monitoring are required under 

the FKNMS enabling legislation and were initiated in 

1995-96 (U.S. DOC 1996). The Southeast 

Environmental Research Center Water Quality 

Monitoring Network consists of more than 200 stations 

within the FKNMS and on the shelf, and 100 stations 

within Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, and the southwest 

shelf. Monitoring data from this program has revealed 

significant changes in water quality in the Florida Keys 

(Andrews, et al. 2005). 

The status of corals and benthic biota in the Florida 

Keys is tracked through FWC’s Coral Reef Evaluation 

and Monitoring Project (CREMP). CREMP was 

initiated in 1996 and is a collaborative effort between 

the sanctuary, FWC, and the University of Georgia, 

Institute of Ecology. CREMP surveys from 1996-2003 

indicate that there has been a decline in stony coral 

species richness throughout the Florida Keys, and a 

decline in the number of species at 70 percent of the 

monitoring stations. Monitoring 

data also reveal concerns about coral 

disease trends, with increases in the 

number of stations where disease has 

occurred, the number of types of 

diseases, and the number of coral 

species infected. Also of note, is the 

decline in coral cover from 1996-

1999, likely due to bleaching 

episodes and hurricanes; from 1999-

2003, there was no significant change 

(Andrews, et al. 2005). North of the 

Florida Keys, coral health, status, and trends are 

monitored by a partnership program established 

through SEFCRI to extend the CREMP to MiamiDade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin Counties. This 

program, known as the Southeast Florida Coral Reef 

Evaluation and Monitoring Project (SECREMP), 

commenced in 2003. SECREMP is a collaborative effort 

between FDEP, FWC, and the National Coral Reef 

Institute at Nova Southeastern University. 

Most fisheries data from the Florida Keys has focused 

on commercial landings, but the NOAA Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center has used the reef fish visual 

census (RVC) method to assess fish communities and 

habitat associations. Based on the information 

Fig. 3.2: Reef in SEFCRI area (Gilliam n.d.) 
FLORIDA

43

collected, Ault, Bohnsack, and Meester (1998) 

determined that 65 percent of the 35 assessed exploited 

reef fish stocks (including groupers, snappers, and 

grunts) in the Florida Keys were below the federal 

standards for sustainability at that time. A positive 

change has been documented for goliath grouper, with 

evidence that the stock is rebuilding after closure of the 

goliath grouper fishery in Florida and Atlantic waters in 

1990 and in the Gulf in 1992 (Porch, Eklund, and Scott 

2003). After the implementation of the Tortugas 

Ecological Reserve in the FKNMS, increases in 

abundance and sizes of groupers and snappers were 

recorded in the Tortugas region (Ault, et al. 2006). 

Similar studies have shown the same trends with lobster 

and other popular fish species. Numerous other 

monitoring programs are underway in the Florida Keys, 

including monitoring of spiny lobsters and queen conch 

by FWC. 

The designation of MPAs is an important tool for 

protecting and managing Florida’s reef system. MPAs 

can provide a range of protections for a variety of 

resources, as reflected in the assortment of types of 

MPAs in Florida. This chapter will highlight the eight 

types of state MPAs that are found within Florida’s reef 

tract: fisheries areas, manatee safety havens and speed 

zones, critical wildlife areas, outstanding Florida waters, 

surface water improvement and management areas, 

wildlife management areas, state parks, and aquatic 

preserves. Eighty-two MPAs and numerous manatee 

speed zones have been established within these eight 

categories. 

MPA TYPES 

Fisheries Areas 

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use, 

Natural Heritage MPAs 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

FWC has the authority, under the Constitution of the 

State of Florida, Article 4, Section 9, to exercise the 

regulatory and executive powers of the state with 

respect to wild animal life, fresh water aquatic life, and 

marine life. Thus, FWC has the authority to establish 

areas and regulations to protect fisheries resources, and 

to enforce those regulations. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

Florida Statute 370.025 declares that it is the policy of 

the state to manage and preserve its renewable marine 

fishery resources, and its paramount conservation and 

management concern is the continuing health and 

abundance of the marine fisheries resources of the state. 

FWC established three fisheries areas within Biscayne 

Bay to protect specific fisheries resources. In the 

Biscayne Bay-Card Sound Spiny Lobster Sanctuary, it is 

unlawful to molest, take, or trap any spiny lobster (68B11, F.A.C.). The other two areas protect marine 

resources in Biscayne National Park. In the park, it is 

illegal to harvest, possess, or land sponges (68B-28.004 

(1)(a), F.A.C.), and to harvest tropical ornamental 

marine life and plant species, unless granted a collecting 

Table 3.1: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Three Fisheries Areas 

Fisheries Areas 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Mud Flats  Other reefs (oyster,  worm, etc.)  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Biscayne Bay-Card 

Sound Spiny Lobster 

Sanctuary * 

x x 

Biscayne National Park, 

Sponge Harvest 

Prohibited Area + 

x 

Biscayne National Park, 

Tropical Ornamental 

Marine Species Harvest 

Prohibited Area + 

x 

* Information about resources in Biscayne Bay can be found under the Biscayne Bay SWIM Area and Biscayne Bay Aquatic 

Preserve (Tables 3.5 and 3.8). 

+ Information about resources in Biscayne National Park will be presented in a future report, which will include federal MPAs and 

geospatial analysis of MPA coverage within coral reef ecosystems. 
FLORIDA 

44

permit from the park superintendent (68B-42.0036). 

Recreational and commercial fishng are allowed in these 

areas unless otherwise specified in the Florida 

Administrative Code (F.A.C.). These areas do not 

restrict any other activities. 

Management Activities: 

Because of the nature of these areas as regulatory 

designations, they do not have management plans. 

However, the areas are managed through enforcement 

activities to address the primary management concern, 

which is poaching. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

Public involvement in the designation of these areas is 

obtained through a public comment period when the 

rules are first proposed. Any changes to the rules would 

also require a public comment period. 

Manatee Safety Havens and Speed 

Zones 

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use and 

No Access, Natural Heritage MPAs

 

Hundreds of manatee safety havens and speed zones 

have been established in 18 counties along Florida’s 

eastern and gulf coasts to protect the endangered 

Florida manatee. All types of zones are found within 

the coral reef system, including two motorboats 

prohibited zones, seven no entry zones, and numerous 

idle, slow, and maximum speed zones. These zones are 

located in the coastal bays, estuaries, canals, and rivers 

that serve as migration routes, resting areas, breeding 

areas, and feeding areas for Florida manatees. An 

important habitat in many of these zones is seagrass 

beds as seagrass is the manatees’ primary food source. 

 

Table 3.2: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Nine Manatee Safety Havens 

and Numerous Speed Zones 

Manatee Safety 

Havens and Speed 

Zones 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Mud Flats  Other reefs (oyster,  worm, etc.)  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Biscayne Canal No 

Entry Zone x 

Black Creek Canal No 

Entry Zone x x 

Coral Gables Canal No 

Entry Zone x 

Fisher Island 

Motorboats Prohibited 

Zone 

x x 

FPL Riviera Beach 

Power Plant Motorboats 

Prohibited Zone 

x x 

Lauderdale Power Plant 

No Entry Zone x x 

Little River No Entry 

Zone x 

Port Everglades Power 

Plant No Entry Zone x x 

Virginia Key No Entry 

Zone x x 

Manatee Speed Zones* x x 

* The Manatee Speed Zones include an assortment of Idle Speed Zones, Slow Speed Zones, and Maximum Speed Zones. The total 

number of these zones within the Florida reef tract has not yet been determined. 
FLORIDA

45

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act designated the state 

of Florida as a refuge and sanctuary for the Florida 

manatee. Under the act, it is unlawful for any person 

“to annoy, molest, harass, or disturb or attempt to 

molest, harass, or disturb any manatee; injure or harm or 

attempt to injure or harm any manatee; capture or 

collect or attempt to capture or collect any manatee; 

pursue, hunt, wound, or kill or attempt to pursue, hunt, 

wound, or kill any manatee; or possess, literally or 

constructively, any manatee or any part of any manatee” 

(Florida Statute 370.12(2)(d)). 

FWC’s Bureau of Protected Species Management is 

responsible for establishing manatee safety havens and 

speed zones, and enforcing the regulations in these 

areas. Local governments can also establish manatee 

speed zones through the adoption of a local ordinance, 

but the zones must be approved by FWC before they 

can take effect. 

Goals, Objectives, 

Policies, and 

Protections: 

Manatee safety 

havens and speed 

zones are established 

to protect Florida 

manatees and their 

habitats from harm 

caused by 

motorboats. There 

are a variety of zones 

and associated regulations depending on the level of 

protection needed. Within the zones, there may be 

year-round regulations, seasonal regulations, or a 

combination of seasonal regulations. Slow speed zones, 

idle speed zones, and maximum speed zones restrict 

what speeds boats may travel at within the zone. In 

motorboats prohibited zones, “all vessels equipped with 

any mechanical means of propulsion are prohibited 

from entering the marked area unless the mechanical 

means of propulsion is not in use and, if possible to do 

so, is tilted or raised out of the water” (68C-22.002(3), 

F.A.C). No entry zones further restrict activities by 

prohibiting “all vessels and all persons, either in vessels 

or swimming, diving, wading, or fishing (except from an 

adjacent bank or bridge when using poles or lines which 

are not equipped with a fishing line retrieval mechanism, 

e.g., a cane pole)” from entering (68C-22.002(11), 

F.A.C). 

Exceptions to these rules may be made, by permit, for 

certain activities (68C-22.003, F.A.C.). Permits are 

available for the following activities: commercial fishing 

and professional guiding; owners or residents of 

waterfront property in limited entry areas; boat and 

motor manufacturing testing; boat races; and, research, 

education, construction, maintenance, or repairs. 

Management 

Activities: 

Although there are no 

management plans for 

manatee safety havens 

or speed zones, these 

zones are incorporated 

into county manatee 

protection plans and FWC’s Manatee Program 

protection efforts. FWC utilizes several programs to 

manage these zones, including permitting, education, 

enforcement, research, and public use management. As 

discussed above, FWC may issue permits for certain 

activities in manatee speed zones and safety havens. 

Signs serve as both enforcement and 

education tools. Educational signs at 

marinas and boat ramps include 

information about Florida manatees, what 

to do and not to do, and how to know 

when you are traveling at slow or idle 

speed. Regulatory signs post the allowable 

speed and associated rule and permit 

numbers (FWC Manatee Program 1999-

2005). Speed zones are often the focus of 

manatee enforcement activities, particularly 

newly established zones and zones with 

high vessel traffic (FWC Fish and Wildlife 

Research Institute n.d.). FWC performs 

numerous research activities, such as 

population assessments and behavioral ecology studies, 

which may lead to the revision or establishment of 

speed zones. Human-dimension research efforts have 

focused on using research results to achieve costeffective manatee protection, such as increasing 

voluntary compliance with speed zones to relieve the 

burden on enforcement personnel (FWC Fish and 

Wildlife Research Institute n.d.). 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

Public involvement in the designation of these zones is 

obtained through a public comment period when the 

zones are first proposed. Any changes to the zones 

would also require a public comment period. 

The public may indirectly contribute to general manatee 

protection and management efforts by contributing to 

the Save the Manatee Trust Fund through the purchase 

Fig. 3.3: Power plant discharge canal (FWC 

Manatee Program n.d.) 

Fig. 3.4: Regulatory sign 

(FWC Manatee Program 

1999-2005)
FLORIDA 

46

of a manatee license plate, decal donation, or direct 

donation. This fund supports environmental education, 

research, and protection and recovery efforts. Although 

it is not applicable to the coral reef system, FWC 

cooperates with Tampa BayWatch to offer volunteer 

opportunities through the Tampa Bay Manatee Watch 

program. 

Critical Wildlife Areas 

National Classification: No 

Access, Natural Heritage MPAs 

Critical wildlife areas are found 

throughout the state, with 17 in 

coastal or marine waters. They encompass waters and 

lands that provide important habitat for birds, such as 

mangroves, wetlands, mudflats, and coral rubble. The 

two critical wildlife areas within the coral reef system, 

Bill Sadowski Critical Wildlife Area and Pelican Shoal 

Critical Wildlife Area, contain important foraging and 

nesting habitat for numerous bird species. 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

FWC has the authority to establish critical wildlife areas 

with prior concurrence from the property owner (68A19.005 (1), F.A.C). FWC is responsible for managing 

and enforcing the rules in these areas. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

Critical wildlife areas are established to protect critical 

habitats for birds that are in danger of extinction and 

subject to human disturbance. During the designated 

period, public access is prohibited within critical wildlife 

areas. No person can take or disturb any wildlife, or 

enter or operate a vehicle or vessel within the areas 

(68A-19.005 (2), F.A.C). To further prevent 

disturbance, no person can knowingly allow a dog under 

their care to enter the areas. 

The Bill Sadowski Critical Wildlife Area is in MiamiDade County, near Miami and Biscayne Bay. It was 

established to protect shorebirds, herons, and egrets that 

forage within the site, and regulations apply year-round. 

The Pelican Shoal Critical Wildlife Area is located in the 

Straits of Florida, in southern Monroe County, about 

five miles south-southeast of Boca Chica 

Key. Regulations apply seasonally (from 

April 1 – September 1) to the area to 

protect nesting roseate terns and bridled 

terns. The area supports the only native 

substrate-breeding colony of threatened 

roseate terns in Florida, and it’s the site 

of North America's first (and only) 

bridled tern breeding colony. 

Management Activities: 

While there are no management plans for these areas, 

FWC is responsible for implementing several 

management activities. Because these areas prohibit 

public access, the activities are focused on monitoring 

and enforcement. Biologists monitor the sites to 

determine the types of species and number of nests 

present, and whether the sites are used for nesting, 

resting, and/or feeding habitat (FWC n.d.(a)). The 

primary enforcement activity is the posting of signs to 

inform the public about the regulations and the 

importance of the areas. FWC law enforcement 

personnel coordinate protection efforts with local 

governments, other agencies, and organizations, and 

encourage the public to report violations (FWC n.d.(a)). 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

There are no specific opportunities for public 

involvement in the designation or management of these 

areas. The public can contribute to the management of 

critical wildlife areas by reporting violations to FWC. 

Table 3.3: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Two Critical Wildlife Areas (CWAs) 

Critical Wildlife Areas 

(CWAs) 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Mud Flats  Other reefs (oyster,  worm, etc.)  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Bill Sadowski x 

Pelican Shoal x x 

Fig. 3.5: Roseate terns on Dry Tortugas 

(Hood 2006) 
FLORIDA

47

Outstanding Florida Waters 

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use, 

Natural Heritage MPAs 

One hundred and eighty-four outstanding Florida 

waters (OFWs) have been designated in estuarine or 

marine waters, 36 of which are in the coral reef system. 

Most OFWs overlap with existing state and federal 

MPAs, such as state parks, aquatic preserves, national 

wildlife refuges, and national parks. The OFW 

designation provides another level of protection to the 

waters within these MPAs. However, some OFWs are 

established independently of any existing MPAs. By 

protecting water quality, OFWs provide benefits to 

numerous species and habitats, including seagrass beds, 

mangroves, wetlands, coral reefs, and mudflats. 

Table 3.4: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the 36 Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) 

Outstanding Florida 

Waters (OFWs) 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Mud Flats  Other reefs (oyster,  worm, etc.)  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Bahia Honda State Park x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Bill Baggs Cape Florida 

State Park x x x x x x x x x x x 

Biscayne Bay Aquatic 

Preserve x x x x x x x x x x x 

Biscayne National 

Park + n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Coupon Bight Aquatic 

Preserve x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Coupon Bight x x 

Crocodile Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge + n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Curry Hammock x x x x x x x x x 

Dry Tortugas National 

Park + n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

East Everglades x 

Everglades National 

Park + n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Florida Keys *, + n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Fort Zachary Taylor 

State Historic Site x x x x x x 

Great White Heron 

National Wildlife 

Refuge + 

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hobe Sound National 

Wildlife Refuge + n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hugh Taylor Birch State 

Recreation Area x x x x 

Jensen Beach to Jupiter 

Inlet Aquatic Preserve x x x x x x x x x x x x 

John D. McArthur 

Beach State Park x x x x x x x x x x 

John Pennekamp Coral 

Reef State Park x x x x x x x x x x 
FLORIDA 

48

Table 3.4 (cont.): Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the 36 

Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) 

Outstanding Florida 

Waters (OFWs) 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Mud Flats  Other reefs (oyster,  worm, etc.)  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

John U. Lloyd Beach 

State Park x x x x x x x x x 

Jonathan Dickinson 

State Park x x x x x 

Key Largo Hammock 

State Botanical Site x x x x x 

Key Largo National 

Marine Sanctuary + n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Key West National 

Wildlife Refuge + n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Lignumvitae Key 

Aquatic Preserve x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Lignumvitae Key 

Botanical State Park x x x x x x x x x x x 

Long Key State 

Recreation Area x x x x x x x x x x x 

Looe Key National 

Marine Sanctuary + n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Loxahatchee River-Lake 

Worth Creek Aquatic 

Preserve 

x x x x x x x x x x 

Martin County Tracts x 

National Key Deer 

National Wildlife 

Refuge + 

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

North Beach x x x 

North Fork, St. Lucie 

Aquatic Preserve x x x x x x x x x x 

North Key Largo 

Hammock x x x 

Oleta River State Park x x x x x x x x 

San Pedro State 

Underwater 

Archeological Preserve 

x x x x x 

Seabranch x x x x x x x 

St. Lucie Inlet Preserve 

State Park x x x x x x x x x x x 

Westlake x x x 

Windley Key Fossil Reef 

Geological State Park x x x x x 

Most OFWs entirely overlap existing state and federal MPAs, and thus contain the same resources. 

* The Florida Keys OFW overlaps with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. 

+ Information about resources in the national wildlife refuges, national parks, and national marine sanctuaries will be presented 

in a future report, which will include federal MPAs and geospatial analysis of MPA coverage within coral reef ecosystems. 
FLORIDA

49

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

Under Florida Statute 403.061, FDEP has authority to 

control and prohibit pollution of air and water, and to 

establish rules that provide for a special category of 

water bodies referred to as outstanding Florida waters, 

which are worthy of special protection because of their 

natural attributes, and to adopt rules that may include 

stricter permitting and enforcement provisions within 

these waters. 

Anyone can propose waters for OFW designation, but 

the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission 

must approve the designation. FDEP’s Water Quality 

Standards and Special Projects Program is responsible 

for enforcing the regulations. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

OFWs are established to prevent the reduction of 

existing water quality in areas worthy of special 

protection because of their natural attributes. Within 

OFWs, degradation of water quality, except as allowed 

in subsections 62-4.242 (2) and (3), F.A.C., is prohibited 

(62-302.700 (1), F.A.C.). Some of the exceptions 

include permitted activities that are grandfathered in, 

maintenance of existing facilities, activities to allow or 

enhance public usage, and construction activities that 

temporarily lower water quality. In practice, the rule 

means that FDEP cannot issue permits for direct 

pollutant discharges to OFWs that would lower ambient 

(existing) water quality, or indirect discharges that would 

significantly degrade nearby OFWs (FDEP Water 

Quality Standards and Special Projects Program 2006a). 

Additionally, permits for new dredging and filling must 

be clearly in the public interest. If an activity results in 

direct discharge of stormwater to OFWs, it is required 

to retain or treat a larger amount of stormwater than if 

the discharge was to non-OFW waters (FDEP Water 

Quality Standards and Special Projects Program 2006a). 

However, there are exemptions for agriculture and 

silviculture activities. 

Management Activities: 

No management plans exist for these areas. However, 

OFWs often overlap existing MPAs, which have 

management plans in place to address other resources 

and activities in the areas. Because the major 

management concerns in OFWs are point and nonpoint source pollution and dredge and fill activities, 

management activities focus on permitting and 

enforcement. For activities in OFWs that require a 

FDEP permit, the Water Quality Standards and Special 

Projects Program ensures that OFW criteria are used in 

the permitting decision (FDEP Water Quality Standards 

and Special Projects Program 2006a). Permits are 

reviewed periodically to ensure that the conditions are 

met; if there is a violation, enforcement action is taken. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

Although the public does not participate in the 

management of OFWs, it can nominate waters to be 

designated as OFWs. The public is also involved in the 

designation of these areas through at least one factfinding workshop in the affected area and a public 

comment period. A final public hearing is held in the 

affected area during which the Florida Environmental 

Regulation Commission, a seven-member citizens' body, 

votes on each proposal (FDEP Water Quality Standards 

and Special Projects Program 2006a). Any changes to 

the rules would also require a public comment period. 

Surface Water Improvement and 

Management Areas 

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use, 

Natural Heritage MPA 

Thirty-three surface water improvement and 

management (SWIM) areas have been established 

throughout the state. Fifteen areas contain coastal or 

marine waters, but the Biscayne Bay SWIM Area is the 

only one within the coral reef system. In order to better 

protect and manage the bay, the SWIM area includes 

Fig. 3.6: Biscayne Bay SWIM Area (SFWMD 1995) 
FLORIDA 

50

significant inland areas. Coastal and marine habitats 

within the Biscayne Bay SWIM Area include mangroves, 

wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, and coral reefs. 

These habitats support commercial fish species, and 

numerous other ecologically important species, such as 

sea turtles, marine mammals, and endangered birds. 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The 1987 Surface Water Improvement and Management 

Act (Florida Statute 373.451 - 373.4595) requires each 

water management district to develop plans and 

programs for the improvement and management of 

surface waters within their districts. Each water 

management district, in cooperation with FDEP and 

other government entities, must prepare and maintain a 

list that prioritizes water bodies of regional or statewide 

significance within each water management district 

(Florida Statute 373.453). Once FDEP approves the 

priority lists, the water management districts, in 

cooperation with FDEP and other government entities, 

may develop surface water improvement and 

management plans (SWIM plans) for water bodies based 

on the priority lists. 

FDEP’s Watershed Management Program and the 

appropriate water management district are responsible 

for managing SWIM areas and enforcing the rules. For 

the Biscayne Bay SWIM Area, the South Florida Water 

Management District is the responsible district. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

SWIM areas, including the Biscayne Bay SWIM Area, 

were established to restore surface waters that have been 

degraded, or are in danger of becoming degraded, and 

to enhance the environmental and scenic values of these 

waters. 

For each SWIM area, the responsible district must 

develop a SWIM plan that includes a description of 

strategies for restoring or protecting the water body 

sufficient to meet Class III standards or better, and a 

description of the measures needed to manage and 

maintain the water body once it has been restored to 

prevent future degradation (62-43.035 (1), F.A.C.). To 

meet Class III standards, the waters must support 

recreation, and the propagation and maintenance of a 

healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife 

(FDEP Water Quality Standards and Special Projects 

Program 2006b). SWIM plans should have programs to 

address point and non-point source pollution, 

destruction of natural systems, correction and 

prevention of surface water problems, and research that 

may improve the management of surface waters and 

associated natural systems.

The intent of the Biscayne Bay SWIM Plan is to prevent 

further decline in the quality of surface water resources 

in Biscayne Bay through reducing or eliminating 

pollution; cleaning up, isolating, or removing the 

pollutants from the system; and, restoring, preserving, 

and protecting the bay ecosystem, including the 

watershed components that are critical to the health of 

the bay (SFWMD 1995). 

Management Activities: 

The first Biscayne Bay SWIM Plan was written in 1988, 

and updated in 1995. The three management goals 

identified in the 1995 Biscayne Bay SWIM Plan include 

maintaining and improving water quality; improving the 

quantity, distribution, and timing of freshwater flows 

and circulation characteristics of Biscayne Bay; and, 

protecting environmental resources of Biscayne Bay and 

adjacent areas (SFWMD 1995). These goals are further 

refined in 16 objectives. The plan also contains a list of 

proposed projects to address the needs and objectives, 

which incorporate a range of management techniques. 

Some of the management programs used to meet these 

goals and objectives include enforcement, research, 

monitoring, restoration, education, permitting, and 

water quality and habitat management. 

Table 3.5: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Biscayne Bay Surface Water 

Improvement and Management (SWIM) Area 

Surface Water 

Improvement and 

Management (SWIM) 

Area 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Mud Flats  Other reefs (oyster,  worm, etc.)  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Biscayne Bay x x x x x x x x x x x x 
FLORIDA

51

Research: 

A significant amount of research has been done to 

better understand the relationship between hydrology, 

water quality, and the environment. One project, 

Minimum Flows and Level Requirements for Biscayne 

Bay, was conducted to determine past water flows into 

the bay and to establish minimum flow requirements. 

Two projects have focused on the hydrology of the C111 basin: one assessed the marsh hydroperiod and the 

needs of fish; the other quantified the relationship 

between hydrological conditions and vegetation patterns 

(SFWMD 1995). 

Monitoring: 

As expected, numerous water quality monitoring efforts 

are underway in the SWIM area, including general 

surface water quality monitoring for pollutants. Other 

monitoring activities have focused on sediments and 

biological parameters. For example, one monitoring 

project has involved sampling tissue from bivalves and 

other marine organisms to determine levels of 

contaminant compounds and metals (SFWMD 1995). 

Restoration: 

Hydrological and 

habitat restoration 

activities have been 

closely linked, such 

as the reintroduction 

of the fresh water 

that was cut off by 

the L-31E levee. 

The freshwater flow 

was reintroduced to 

the mangrove 

wetlands to facilitate the restoration of these habitats. 

Other restoration activities include a cooperative 

wetlands restoration project at the Bulk Carrier Site, and 

the development of the South Dade Watershed 

Restoration Plan (SFWMD 1995). 

Education and Outreach: 

A variety of education and outreach materials and 

methods have been utilized within the SWIM area. 

There have been several projects focused on the 

importance protecting and restoring wetlands, including 

a mentoring program by high school students for lower 

grade levels. The Don Diego Campaign targeted 

Hispanic children, and established Don Diego, an actual 

historical figure, as an icon that protects the bay. Lastly, 

a speaker’s bureau was formed to educate the business 

community about water resources and how they can 

have a positive impact on water quality and the bay 

environment (SFWMD 1995). 

Enforcement: 

One of the most effective enforcement programs has 

been compliance on the Miami River. The program 

focuses on responding to water quality violations, point 

source pollution, and illegal dumping. In Biscayne Bay, 

increased signage marking the shallow areas of the bay 

has helped to reduce damage to seagrass beds and 

hardbottom communities (SFWMD 1995). 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

There were no specific opportunities for public 

involvement in the designation of this area. During the 

development and update of the SWIM plan, the water 

management district is required hold at least one public 

hearing and public workshop in the vicinity of the water 

body. Representatives from the public may also serve 

on committees that are appointed as necessary to assist 

in developing protection and restoration strategies. 

Wildlife Management and Wildlife and 

Environmental Areas 

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use, 

Natural Heritage MPA 

The wildlife management area (WMA) system covers 

more than five million acres in Florida. Lands and 

waters in the system are established as wildlife 

Table 3.6: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Florida Keys 

Wildlife and Environmental Area (WEA) 

Wildlife and 

Environmental Area 

(WEA) 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Mud Flats  Other reefs (oyster,  worm, etc.)  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Florida Keys x x x x x x x 

Fig. 3.7: Mangroves (FKNMS n.d.) 
FLORIDA 

52

management areas (WMAs) or 

wildlife and environmental 

areas (WEAs), and include 

mitigation parks. Of the 131 

areas, seven contain coastal or 

marine components, but only 

one is within the reef system. 

The Florida Keys Wildlife and 

Environmental Area is an 

archipelago of small sites 

stretching 80 miles from Key 

Largo almost to Key West. 

The WEA is predominantly 

tropical hammock, which 

provides feeding and resting 

areas for migratory birds. The 

WEA also has extensive coastal 

salt marshes, mangrove 

swamps, and open water habitats that are used by the 

migratory birds.

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

FWC, “with the approval of the Governor, may acquire, 

in the name of the state, lands and waters suitable for 

the protection and propagation of game, fish, non-game 

birds, or fur-bearing animals, or for hunting purposes, 

game farms, by purchase, lease, gift or otherwise to be 

known as state game lands” (Florida Statutes 372.12). 

FWC has the authority to make and enforce regulations 

to protect, manage, or develop lands and waters owned 

by the commission for fish or wildlife management 

purposes, including the right of ingress and egress 

(Florida Statutes 372.121). 

Some WMAs are cooperatively managed by FWC and 

another state agency. In those areas, the cooperative 

agency is primarily responsible for management, but 

FWC contributes to management and enforcement. In 

the case of the Florida Keys WEA, FWC is the lead 

agency so it is responsible for managing the area and 

enforcing the laws and regulations. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

WMAs are managed to sustain the widest possible range 

of native wildlife in their natural habitats (FWC 1999-

2005). WMAs offer recreational opportunities, but they 

do not have developed amenities like the state parks. 

The Florida Keys WEA was acquired to protect and 

restore tropical hardwood hammocks and many rare 

plants and animals, including Key deer and migratory 

birds (FWC 2004). The WEA also helps protect the 

OFWs, the recreational and commercial fisheries, and 

the reefs surrounding the area. Further, it provides 

more natural areas for residents and visitors to enjoy. 

Regulations regarding 

the management of 

WMAs and WEAs are in 

68A-17.004, F.A.C. The 

disturbance or removal 

of any plants, rocks, 

minerals, animal life, or 

manmade, cultural, or 

other natural materials is 

prohibited. Building and 

hunting are allowed with 

restrictions or permits. 

The general regulations 

allow fishing, but the 

regulations for specific 

WEAs may restrict some 

fishing activities. Other 

activities may be further 

restricted within individual areas, depending on their 

purpose. For example, the Florida Keys WEA lands 

were acquired as single use properties, with a focus on 

ecosystem preservation and management (FWC 2004). 

However, as the WEA developed the site-specific 

management strategies, it considered multi-use 

management. In preparation for multi-use management, 

the activities deemed inconsistent with the goals of the 

Florida Keys WEA include hunting, horseback riding, 

off-road vehicle use, developed camping, cattle grazing, 

apiaries, linear facilities, and citriculture and other 

commercial agriculture (FWC 2004). Boating, fishing, 

and wildlife watching are approved uses that are 

consistent with the goals of the WEA. 

Management Activities: 

Conceptual management plans are prepared for all 

WMAs and WEAs. The Florida Keys WEA was 

established in 1997, and its first conceptual management 

plan was completed in 1998. The most recent plan, the 

Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area 

Conceptual Management Plan 2004-2014, was approved 

in February 2004 (FWC 2004). 

FWC uses several programs to manage WMAs and 

WEAs. For the Florida Keys WEA, the programs 

include education, monitoring, enforcement, research, 

restoration, habitat management, and public use 

management. The Florida Keys WEA also has an 

advisory group that contributed to the development of 

the management plan, and volunteers who assist with 

restoration and education projects. Recreational 

facilities and trails have not been developed on the 

WEA. However, as discussed above, the WEA is 

considering allowing some activities, in certain areas, 

that are consistent with the protection of the natural 

resources. 

Fig. 3.8: Florida Keys WEA, which consists of several 

parcels stretching over 80 miles (FWC n.d.(b))
FLORIDA

53

Research: 

FWC has developed Memorandums of Understanding 

with the National Audubon Society, The Nature 

Conservancy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other 

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to encourage 

research on the WEA. One project, contracted through 

the Audubon of Florida’s Tavernier Science Center, is 

an inventory and study of the habitat use of neotropical 

migrant songbirds (FWC 2004). The results will guide 

habitat management and bird monitoring efforts. 

Education and Outreach: 

To date, the primary educational activity has been the 

development of brochures with maps explaining 

locations and resources. Other efforts include updating 

the Nature-based Recreation Program website, and 

completion of an information kiosk. The WEA has also 

been investigating the feasibility of an environmental 

education and interpretive center on Dove Creek (FWC 

2004). 

Enforcement: 

Because the Florida Keys WEA consists of several 

parcels stretched over 80 miles, enforcement can be 

challenging. The WEA has investigated several 

strategies for improving enforcement, such as 

establishing closed areas and community watch 

programs. While enforcement activities deal with 

looting and dumping on the lands of the WEA, many 

activities have focused on the submerged lands, 

including the enforcement of fishing and boating 

regulations (FWC 2004). 

Objective-based 

Habitat Management: 

An objective-based 

habitat management 

approach will be 

implemented on the 

Florida Keys WEA. 

The first step in the 

approach is the 

monitoring and 

mapping of plant 

community types. 

Based on this 

information, the WEA will delineate management units 

and determine management objectives for each unit. 

These objectives will be indicator based and will seek to 

achieve preferred habitat conditions for specified plant 

or animal species. In the process of identifying 

management objectives and developing strategies, the 

WEA will also develop recreational use and restoration 

plans. Habitat management and restoration techniques 

will then be applied to achieve the identified 

management objectives, and the applicable indicators 

will be monitored to determine if the objectives were 

met (FWC 2004). The process to implement this 

management approach is currently underway. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

There were no specific opportunities for public 

involvement in the designation of this area. 

However, there are several opportunities for public 

participation in the management of the Florida Keys 

WEA, including volunteering and commenting on the 

management plan. Volunteer programs offer both 

occasional and regular service opportunities. To assist 

with management, the WEA provides training to 

volunteers on plant identification and invasive species 

removal. Volunteers are also encouraged to educate the 

public about invasive species. 

When updating the conceptual management plan, a 

management advisory group is convened to participate 

in a consensus meeting. FWC invites spokespersons for 

the various stakeholder groups to serve as members of 

the management advisory group (FWC 2004). This 

group provides their input about how the area should be 

protected and managed by generating a list of ideas and 

prioritizing them by vote. The ideas generated, and 

their priorities, are considered in the development of the 

conceptual management plan. The general public also 

has an opportunity to comment on the plan during a 

public hearing. 

State Parks 

National Classification: Uniform 

Multiple-Use, Zoned Multiple-Use, and NoTake, Natural Heritage and Cultural Heritage 

MPAs 

Florida’s state park system includes 159 

parks, 80 of which contain coastal or marine 

components. Within Florida’s coral reef 

system, there are 19 state parks. These parks 

cover a range of habitats, from coral reefs to 

mangrove estuaries and tidal wetlands. Numerous 

endangered species, such as sea turtles and seabirds, are 

also found within the parks. The diversity of resources 

offers unique opportunities for recreation and 

conservation. 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The authority to establish state parks rests with FDEP’s 

Division of Recreation and Parks under Florida Statute 

Fig. 3.9: Coastal salt marsh (Kautz n.d.) 
FLORIDA 

54

258.007. The division’s policy is to promote the state 

park system for the use, enjoyment, and benefit of the 

people of Florida and visitors; acquire properties that 

are accessible to all people and that emblemize the 

state’s natural values; conserve these natural values for 

all time; and to administer the development, use, and 

maintenance of these lands to enable the people of 

Florida and visitors to enjoy these values without 

depleting them (Florida Statute 258.037). 

In addition to establishing parks, the division has 

responsibility for managing the parks and enforcing 

regulations within the parks. Other state entities that 

are responsible for enforcement are the Florida Park 

Patrol and FWC. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

State parks are established and managed to provide 

resource-based recreation while preserving, interpreting, 

and restoring natural and cultural resources. A suite of 

regulations (62D-2.013 and 2.014, F.A.C.) exists to 

ensure that these goals are achieved. In general terms, 

the regulations prohibit the destruction, disturbance, or 

removal of anything within the park area, and waters 

thereof. This prohibition applies to a 

range of objects, including structures 

and buildings, historic artifacts, sand, 

rocks, minerals, animals, and plants. 

There is an exception for fishing, which 

is discussed below. Park regulations 

also prohibit the introduction of any 

plant or animal species into the parks. 

State parks allow recreational activities 

such as boating, kayaking, surfing, 

snorkeling, and fishing. However, 

spearfishing is prohibited in the parks 

(62D-2.014 (9)(d), F.A.C.). The state 

parks do not regulate commercial 

fishing because that authority rests with 

FWC. Activities prohibited in the parks 

include oil and gas and mineral 

extraction, and hunting (except in 

reserves as authorized by FWC) (62D2.014 (10), F.A.C.). Building, seabed 

alteration, and research are activities 

that are restricted, or require permits, in 

the parks. These activities are 

authorized only if they are deemed 

consistent with park management 

practices. 

 

In addition to the general regulations, 

some state parks further restrict 

activities. Boating is allowed in the 

submerged areas of the state parks, but 

many parks restrict boating activities, including 

prohibiting anchoring and establishing combustible 

engine exclusion zones or no wake zones. For example, 

in Lignumvitae Key Botanical State Park and John 

Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, combustible engine 

exclusion zones were established to protect seagrass 

beds and hardbottom communities. Other parks, such 

as Oleta River State Park, have no wake zones to protect 

manatees and reduce erosion. In San Pedro Underwater 

Archaeological Preserve State Park, only kayaks and 

glass bottom or dive boats are allowed, and they must 

use park mooring buoys; no anchoring is allowed. 

Additionally, no fishing is allowed in San Pedro 

Underwater Archaeological Preserve State Park. These 

restrictions exist to protect the wreck, as well as the 

corals and seagrass beds. 

John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park is the only park 

in which fishing is specifically regulated. The Lobster 

Harvest Prohibited Areas, and the Prohibition on 

Harvest of Certain Species, Size Limit rules were 

established by FWC because such fishing activities are 

inconsistent with park management goals. The Lobster 

Harvest Prohibited Areas rule identifies ten specific 

Fig. 3.10: State parks within the Florida reef tract (FDEP Division of Recreation 

and Parks n.d.(a)) 
FLORIDA

55

patch reefs where it is illegal to harvest spiny (genera 

Panulirus) or slipper (genera Scyllerides) lobsters or to 

deploy traps, and it closes the entire park to the 

harvesting of spiny (Panulirus argus) lobster during the 

two-day mini season (68B-24.0065 (2), F.A.C.). The 

Prohibition on Harvest of Certain Species, Size Limit 

rule prohibits the harvest of 47 families/generas/species 

of popular tropical ornamental reef species within the 

park, and establishes an eight-inch minimum size limit 

for unregulated species, with the exception of some 

baitfish, jack, and mullet species (68B-5.002, F.A.C.). 

Management Activities: 

All of the 19 state parks in the coral reef ecosystem have 

up-to-date management plans. As required by Florida 

Statute, these plans are updated every five years. The 

state parks employ a variety of management programs, 

including education, monitoring, enforcement, research, 

restoration, permitting, habitat management, and public 

use management. On-site staff, advisory committees, 

and volunteer programs also contribute to park 

management. Water quality management programs and 

visitor centers are found in some parks. 

Table 3.7: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the 19 State Parks 

State Parks 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Mud Flats  Other reefs (oyster,  worm, etc.)  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Bahia Honda x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Bill Baggs Cape Florida x x x x x x x x x x x 

Curry Hammock x x x x x x x x x 

Fort Zachary Taylor 

State Historic Site x x x x x x 

Hugh Taylor Birch State 

Recreation Area x x x x 

Indian Key State 

Historic Site x x x x x x x x x 

John D. MacArthur 

Beach x x x x x x x x x x 

John Pennekamp Coral 

Reef x x x x x x x x x x 

John U. Lloyd Beach x x x x x x x x x 

Jonathan Dickinson x x x x x 

Key Largo Hammock 

State Botanical Site x x x x x 

Lignumvitae Key 

Botanical x x x x x x x x x x x 

Long Key State 

Recreation Area x x x x x x x x x x x 

Oleta River x x x x x x x x 

San Pedro Underwater 

Archaeological Preserve x x x x x 

Seabranch Preserve x x x x x x x 

St. Lucie Inlet Preserve x x x x x x x x x x x 

The Barnacle Historic x x x x x x x 

Windley Key Fossil Reef 

Geological x x x x x 
FLORIDA 

56

Research: 

All of the parks have undertaken significant efforts to 

inventory and map park resources. However, efforts to 

map submerged areas and inventory marine resources 

are just beginning in many of the parks. In addition to 

general data collection, the parks support research to 

address management concerns, including beach erosion, 

algal blooms, and sponge and seagrass die-offs. 

• John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park: Since records 

have been kept, 229 research permits have been 

issued for work in the park. Some of the projects 

include research on seagrass die-off, prop scarring, 

butterfly reintroduction, and ocean currents. Park 

staff have conducted studies to evaluate visitor 

impact on the reefs, 

which involved the 

establishment of 

closed areas to serve 

as controls. The 

closed areas were 

compared to visited 

areas, some of which 

had mooring buoys 

and others that were 

unmarked. Species 

composition, 

number of fish, and 

coral damage were monitored at all of the sites. The 

study results will quantify the type and severity of 

reef damage with varying levels of usage, and the 

impacts or benefits of mooring buoys (FDEP 

Division of Recreation and Parks 2004). 

Monitoring: 

Monitoring programs for nesting sea turtles and 

shorebirds are common in many of the parks. The 

parks collect information about the number of turtles or 

birds, the species, the number of nests, and the miles of 

beach surveyed, which is used to determine trends. The 

results are published in the resource management annual 

reports and used to inform management activities, such 

as the need for predator control or the regulation of 

lighting and heavy equipment use on the beach. Other 

monitoring efforts include the monitoring of restoration 

projects, prop scars, and water quality. 

• Jonathan Dickinson State Park water quality and quantity 

monitoring: The park works with several federal, state, 

and local agencies to monitor water quality and 

quantity within the park. The primary concerns to 

the river and estuary are non-point source pollution 

(stormwater runoff), and the shift from agricultural 

lands to urban development in the surrounding 

areas. With population growth, there has been 

increasing groundwater removal, which could impact 

the park’s wetlands. The park and the South Florida 

Water Management District have established 

monitoring wells to determine any affects, such as 

water depression, on the wetlands (FDEP Division 

of Recreation and Parks 2000). 

Restoration: 

The state parks conduct a variety of programs to restore 

habitats and hydrology. Hydrological restoration 

projects seek to restore the original hydrology by filling 

or plugging ditches, removing obstructions to surface 

water sheet flow, installing culverts under roads, and 

installing water control structures to manage water 

levels. Habitat restoration projects range from invasive 

species removal, to beach rebuilding, to wetland and 

mangrove planting. 

• Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park habitat restoration: 

Since 1992, there has been a significant effort by 

county, state, and federal agencies to restore the 

park’s habitats to their original diversity and 

density. While much of the effort has focused on 

upland coastal strand and maritime hammock 

communities, there has been a significant wetland 

restoration component. The restoration of 

coastal dune lakes, mangroves, and tidal wetlands 

has provided resting and foraging habitat for 

shorebirds and wading birds, and attracted state 

threatened and endangered species previously not 

found in the park (FDEP Division of Recreation 

and Parks 2001). 

• Curry Hammock State Park hydrological restoration: The 

park is working with the South Florida Water 

Management District on a project to restore the tidal 

connection between two of the islands. 

Construction of U.S. Highway 1 had closed the 

natural gap and a 

culvert under the 

highway is now 

being proposed to 

restore the tidal 

flow, which will 

support the 

restoration of tidal 

wetlands (FDEP 

Division of 

Recreation and Parks 

February 2005). 

Education and Outreach: 

The state parks offer a variety of educational and 

outreach opportunities. Some of the activities include 

nature walks, estuary walks, birding tours, kayak tours, 

glass bottom boat tours, and lecture series. Six of the 

state parks within the coral reef system have visitor 

centers, which include educational exhibits. Educational 

efforts range from an ecosystem-wide perspective to a 

focus on specific species (manatees, sea turtles, etc.) or 

resource management issues such as boat groundings. 

Fig. 3.12: Curry Hammock 

State Park (FDEP Division of 

Recreation and Parks 2005b) 

Fig. 3.11: Scuba divers in John 

Pennekamp State Park (FDEP 

Division of Recreation and Parks 

2005a)
FLORIDA

57

• John D. MacArthur Beach State Park: The park runs a 

kindergarten through sixth grade in-park educational 

program and summer camps that get children out 

into the water. More specific educational efforts 

target manatees, the worm reef, and sea turtles. 

During the summer months, park staff conduct sea 

turtle watches, which include a slide presentation and 

a walk along the beach to witness nesting female 

loggerhead sea turtles (FDEP Division of Recreation 

and Parks April 2005). 

Enforcement: 

Enforcement in state parks is a cooperative effort 

between the Division of Recreation and Parks and 

several other state entities, including the Division of 

Law Enforcement, Park Patrol, and FWC. In the state 

parks within Florida’s reef ecosystem, many 

enforcement activities are related to boating. Parks 

maintain channel markers and post regulatory signs and 

buoys to protect hardbottom and seagrass communities 

from boat groundings and prop scars. The installation 

of mooring buoys prevents anchor damage to these 

sensitive communities. Law enforcement personnel 

patrol the parks to enforce speed zones and motor boat 

prohibited areas that 

protect submerged 

communities and 

manatees, and reduce 

erosion of intertidal 

communities 

(mangroves). 

Carrying Capacity: 

The Division of 

Recreation and Parks 

established Visitor Carrying Capacity Guidelines, which 

all of the state parks use to inform management. The 

use of such guidelines protects both the natural 

environment and users’ experiences by preventing 

overcrowding, which can lead to the deterioration of 

natural resources. Some of the activities with 

established carrying capacities include hiking, camping, 

swimming, surfing, fishing, and boating (FDEP 

Division of Recreation and Parks n.d.(b)). 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

There are several opportunities for public participation 

in the designation and management of state parks. Prior 

to the designation of a state park, a public meeting is 

held to seek input on how the park should be used. 

After a draft management plan is developed, a second 

public meeting is held to obtain additional comments. 

Another opportunity for public participation is as a 

member of an advisory group. Advisory groups are 

appointed to assist in the development of new 

management plans and to review draft management plan 

updates. These groups include several government 

members, but also include citizen representatives and 

other stakeholders (such as tour outfitters and nonprofit 

organizations). In addition to commenting on the draft 

plans, the advisory groups can provide suggestions 

about issues that need to be addressed, or ways in which 

management may be improved. 

The public can contribute to the management of state 

parks through an extensive network of volunteers, with 

over 7,000 annual volunteers (for the entire park system) 

(FDEP Division of Recreation and Parks 2005c). These 

volunteers lead tours, remove invasive species, and 

maintain beaches, waterways, and trails. In many state 

parks, volunteer efforts are further organized through 

the establishment of citizen support organizations 

(CSOs). Thirteen of the nineteen (68 percent) state 

parks within the reef system have a CSO. 

Aquatic Preserves 

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use and 

Zoned Multiple-Use, Natural Heritage MPAs 

Over 1.8 million acres of submerged lands are protected 

in 41 aquatic preserves, 37 of which are marine or 

estuarine. There are six preserves within the coral reef 

system, which contain a diversity of habitats, including 

mangroves, seagrass beds, wetlands, oyster reefs, and 

coral reefs. These habitats support numerous fish, bird, 

marine mammal, and sea turtle species. The aquatic 

preserves provide important protection to these habitats 

and resources, while also allowing for recreational 

activities. 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The state designated the first aquatic preserve, Estero 

Bay Aquatic Preserve, in 1966. Several other aquatic 

preserves, including Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, 

were established in subsequent years. In 1975, the 

aquatic preserves were codified in the Aquatic Preserve 

Act. The designation of aquatic preserves has continued 

since that time. Under the Florida Aquatic Preserve 

Act, state-owned submerged lands with exceptional 

biological, aesthetic, and scientific value are to be set 

aside forever as aquatic preserves or sanctuaries for the 

benefit of future generations (Florida Statute 258.36). 

FDEP’s Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas 

(CAMA) is responsible for managing the aquatic 

preserves. FDEP and FWC are responsible for 

Fig. 3.13: Boat properly tied up 

to a mooring buoy (Collier 2006) 
FLORIDA 

58

enforcing the laws and regulations within the aquatic 

preserves. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

Aquatic preserves are established to protect submerged 

lands that have exceptional aesthetic, biological, and 

scientific values for the enjoyment of future 

generations. These areas are managed primarily for 

“the maintenance of essentially natural conditions, the 

propagation of fish and wildlife, and public recreation” 

(18-20.0001, F.A.C.). Several more specific long-term 

goals have also been established for the preserves. 

These goals are to: (a) protect and enhance the 

ecological integrity of the preserves; (b) restore areas to 

their natural condition; (c) encourage sustainable use 

and foster active stewardship by engaging local 

communities in the protection of preserves; and, (d) 

improve management effectiveness through a process 

based on sound science, consistent evaluation, and 

continual reassessment (FDEP CAMA June 2006). 

An extensive set of laws and regulations govern 

activities within aquatic preserves. Although there are 

some exceptions, the following activities are prohibited 

within aquatic preserves: relocation or setting of 

bulkhead lines waterward of the line of mean high 

water, dredging or filling of submerged lands, dredging 

seaward of a bulkhead line, drilling of gas or oil wells, 

excavation of minerals, erection of structures, and 

discharge of wastes or effluents (Florida Statute 258.42). 

Docking facilities, including commercial, industrial, and 

residential facilities, are allowed, but are subject to 

numerous standards and criteria (18-20.004(5), F.A.C.). 

Additional rules include: 1) use of state-owned lands for 

the purpose of providing private or public road access 

or water supply to islands where such access or supply 

did not previously exist is prohibited, 2) utility cables, 

pipes and other structures must be located in a manner 

that will cause minimal disturbance to submerged land 

resources and not interfere with traditional uses, and 3) 

spoil disposal within the preserve is strongly 

discouraged (18-20.004(1) and (3), F.A.C.). The rule 

Table 3.8: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Six Aquatic Preserves 

Aquatic Preserves 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Mud Flats  Other reefs (oyster,  worm, etc.)  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Biscayne Bay x x x x x x x x x x x 

Coupon Bight x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Jensen Beach to Jupiter 

Inlet x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Lignumvitae Key x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Loxahatchee River - 

Lake Worth Creek x x x x x x x x x x 

North Fork, St. Lucie x x x x x x x x x x 

 Fig. 3.14: Aquatic preserves within the Florida reef tract (FDEP 

CAMA 2006)
FLORIDA

59

regarding indigenous life prohibits the taking of 

indigenous life forms for sale or commercial use, except 

for the commercial taking of finfish, crustacean, or 

mollusks (18-20.012, F.A.C.). 

Some aquatic preserves (Coupon Bight, Jensen Beach to 

Jupiter Inlet, and Lignumvitae Key) have management 

zones to ensure that potential upland development is 

compatible with the preserves’ management goals. 

Preserve management areas are classified based on their 

resource value and the designated upland land uses, 

which include agriculture, single-family, multi-family, 

commercial-industrial, public recreation, and 

preservation. Each management area has a set of 

allowable uses that guide development. The range of 

allowable uses includes residential and commercial 

docks, piers, boat ramps, signs, boardwalks, mooring 

buoys, highway maintenance/improvements, and utility 

easements (FDEP CAMA 1992). 

Although there are a significant number of restrictions 

in aquatic preserves, the preserves allow recreational 

activities such as boating, kayaking, surfing, snorkeling, 

and fishing. The aquatic preserves do not regulate 

commercial fishing because that authority rests with 

FWC. The exception is Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, 

which prohibits the use of seines or nets, except when 

the fishing is for shrimp or mullet, and is otherwise 

permitted by state law or rules (Florida Statute 

258.397(4)(c)). In some aquatic preserves, there are 

vessel restrictions to protect sensitive resources, such as 

seagrass beds. Research, aquaculture, and beach renourishment are allowed, but require permits or other 

approval. 

Management Activities: 

The majority of aquatic preserves have management 

plans. CAMA has recently developed a Program 

Overview, which establishes an updated and proactive 

framework for the development and implementation of 

aquatic preserve management plans (FDEP CAMA June 

2006). Working within this framework, CAMA will be 

updating the individual aquatic preserve management 

plans over the next few years. As identified in the 

Program Overview, there are six focus areas for 

management: community outreach and stewardship, 

adjacent land uses and conservation, public access and 

use, water resource monitoring, water quantity, and 

habitat impacts (FDEP CAMA June 2006). The specific 

types of management programs utilized vary across the 

preserves. For the preserves within the coral reef 

system, the most common programs are restoration, 

volunteers, education, monitoring, and permit review. 

Habitat management and water quality management are 

also common management programs in the preserves. 

Other programs and activities that are used by some 

preserves include research, resource inventories, 

enforcement, public use management, visitor centers, 

marketing, natural resource damage assessment 

authority, and emergency spill operations. 

Research and Monitoring: 

CAMA considers monitoring of water resources to be 

one of the most important tools available to protect the 

preserves. The current monitoring strategy focuses on 

water chemistry and physical measurements as 

indicators of ecosystem health. The goal is to develop 

this strategy into a comprehensive program that will 

include biological monitoring and other critical 

ecosystem components (FDEP CAMA June 2006). 

• Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve: The preserve is currently 

involved in juvenile fish studies, research reviewing 

the larval recruitment of spiny lobster, and studies 

on the effectiveness of fishing exclusion zones 

(FDEP CAMA April 2006). 

• North Fork, St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve: In cooperation 

with FWC, the preserve conducts biological 

monitoring of fish and invertebrates at hydrologic 

restoration sites to support preserve management 

and Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

studies (FDEP CAMA April 2006). 

Restoration: 

Many aquatic 

preserves in the 

state are 

involved in 

restoration 

efforts. These 

efforts range 

from spoil 

islands, to bird 

and turtle habitat, to seagrass beds. As a result of boat 

groundings and propeller scars, replanting of seagrass 

beds is a common restoration activity. 

• North Fork St. Lucie River Aquatic Preserve: The 

preserve and the county are working with local 

NGOs on a combined effort to restore local spoil 

island habitats. There is also a joint effort to cleanup and restore habitats damaged by ghost fishing 

gear. 

• Loxahatchee River – Lake Worth Aquatic Preserve: The 

restoration of Kitching Creek is a partnership 

between Martin County, South Florida Water 

Management District, and FDEP that redirects 

freshwater flows to Kitching Creek, increases flows 

to the Loxahatchee River for habitat restoration, 

raises groundwater levels, restores degraded 

wetlands, and reduces nutrient loads (FDEP CAMA 

April 2006). 

Fig. 3.15: Seagrass bed (FKNMS n.d.) 
FLORIDA 

60

Education and Outreach: 

CAMA has developed a successful outreach campaign 

based on the images of Florida artist Clyde Butcher. 

Living Waters: Aquatic Preserves of Florida is a documentary 

film that highlights the environmental and economic 

significance of the preserves and encourages 

stewardship. Other related materials include a book of 

photographs, a traveling photograph exhibit, a photo 

calendar, and a CD of natural sounds (FDEP CAMA 

2005). 

• Coupon Bight and Lignumvitae Key Aquatic Preserves: The 

preserves participate in the Seagrass Outreach 

Partnership (SOP), which educates people about the 

importance of seagrasses to the local economy and 

ecology, and how to minimize boater impacts 

(FDEP CAMA April 2006). 

• Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve: 

The preserve participates in 

several community events, 

including marine debris cleanup events such as the 

International Coastal Clean-up 

(FDEP CAMA April 2006). 

Stakeholder Involvement 

and Public Participation: 

There were no specific opportunities for public 

involvement in the establishment of the existing aquatic 

preserves since they were established by legislative 

process. However, the Florida Aquatic Preserve Act of 

1975 directed that should the Governor and Cabinet, 

acting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund, wish to create a new aquatic 

preserve, public notice must be given and a public 

hearing must be held in the county or counties in which 

the preserve would be located. 

Volunteer programs are a common way for the public to 

be involved with preserve management. While there are 

several well-established volunteer programs in some of 

the aquatic preserves, the programs are not as well 

defined in the six preserves within the coral reef system. 

Many of these preserves partner with other 

organizations, such as the Biscayne Bay Alliance, to 

coordinate volunteer activities. There is also a citizen’s 

support organization, The Stewards for the Southeast 

Florida Aquatic Preserves, Inc., which organizes 

volunteers for restoration and monitoring projects. One 

program that has a significant amount of volunteer 

support is the Spoil Island Enhancement Program in 

Indian River Lagoon, which includes the Jensen Beach 

to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve and the North Fork, St 

Lucie Aquatic Preserve. Volunteers have removed 

exotic species for shoreline stabilization projects, 

planted mangroves, removed debris, and created 

campsites (Spoil Island Working Group n.d.). 

In 2005, the public had an opportunity to be involved 

with preserve management by attending public meetings 

for the Program Overview development process. 

FDEP conducted a series of nine workshops 

throughout the state in order to include public input in 

the process. The meetings focused on explaining the 

existing aquatic preserve program, describing the 

process for creating a statewide overview and for 

updating the site-specific aquatic preserve management 

plans, and soliciting public input on the management 

challenges, threats, and solutions (FDEP CAMA March 

2006). During the meetings, FDEP collected input 

from the community about the range of 

values they held for the aquatic preserves. 

These efforts will continue over the next 

five years as CAMA works to update all of 

their site management plans throughout 

the state. 

CHALLENGES TO MPA 

EFFECTIVENESS 

Florida faces numerous challenges to effective 

management of the MPAs in the coral reef system. Like 

so many MPAs throughout the world, a lack of adequate 

funding is often an issue. A lack of adequate funding 

can contribute to other management challenges, such as 

capacity, enforcement, and monitoring. Capacity is a 

significant issue in the state parks, mainly in terms of 

staffing. While some parks note the need for more 

biologists and scientific expertise, the primary need is 

for more park rangers. Some of the aquatic preserves 

struggle with a different capacity issue – insufficient 

staffing levels to handle permit reviews. The need for 

more park rangers in the state parks highlights another 

important issue in many MPAs, which is the ability to 

enforce the regulations. More than half of the state 

parks and aquatic preserves in the coral reef system 

identify enforcement as a management challenge. 

Another common challenge to effective management is 

monitoring, especially among the aquatic preserves. 

More effective management could be achieved with 

additional, or enhanced monitoring. 

Overall, there is strong public support for MPAs in 

Florida, with numerous citizen support organizations 

for the state parks and aquatic preserves. Even so, 

several aquatic preserves note public support as a 

challenge as they are still working to build broader 

public support. The state parks, on the other hand, are 

well established and public support is not a challenge to 

effective management. However, two parks in the coral 

Fig. 3.16: Beach clean-up (Crane n.d.) 
FLORIDA

61

reef system acknowledge that they could use 

more public support. Interestingly, one 

park suggests that heightened public 

awareness is actually a challenge because 

people are more observant and critical of 

park management activities without 

understanding the reasons behind them. 

Similarly, public awareness of MPAs can 

lead to increased use of the areas, which 

contributes to the challenge of balancing 

use and protection. 

Individual state parks and aquatic preserves 

in the coral reef system face several 

challenges that are site-specific. In the state 

parks, some of the challenges include 

invasive species, development or 

encroachment near park boundaries, 

convoluted boundaries, interagency 

cooperation, and derelict vessels. Individual 

aquatic preserves identify other challenges, 

which include boat groundings and seagrass scars, 

insufficient communication between researchers and the 

preserve, inadequate mapping and GIS products and 

capacity, and the fact that many agencies are responsible 

for managing the same area. 

WORKING TOWARDS A NETWORK 

Florida has a diversity of MPAs, with varying purposes, 

protections, and management programs. This diversity 

has allowed the state to establish the most appropriate 

type of MPA for addressing the particular needs and 

concerns in an area. However, this diversity also means 

that there are a variety of entities responsible for the 

designation and management of these areas. With 

management responsibility split between agencies, and 

between divisions and offices within agencies, it would 

be difficult to establish a comprehensive, statewide 

network of MPAs. Instead, efforts to establish and 

manage MPAs as part of a network or system have 

occurred at the division and office level. Efforts to 

increase coordination across agencies or 

across divisions are expected to continue 

as well. 

The state park system is a statewide system 

of protected areas managed by FDEP’s 

Division of Recreation and Parks. 

Planning for the establishment and 

management of state parks occurs at the 

system level. The system philosophy and 

policies are then applied to each state park 

through the individual management plans. 

The division also identifies, evaluates, and 

establishes priority projects for acquisition at the system 

level (FDEP Division of Recreation and Parks 2006). 

As was mentioned in the section on aquatic preserves, 

FDEP’s Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas 

(CAMA), which oversees the preserves, the national 

estuarine research reserves (NERRs), the Coral Reef 

Conservation Program (which manages the Southeast 

Florida Coral Reef Initiative), and the state’s comanagement responsibilities in the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary, is embarking on a new 

program and management framework. Over the next 

five years, CAMA will produce three to six new 

management plans for individual sites each year. The 

purpose of developing the new plans as a part of one 

concentrated effort is to be able to consider the values, 

issues, and threats to specific areas of the state’s coastal 

waters while considering the statewide perspective. In 

addition to this new initiative, CAMA carries out several 

on-going comprehensive management efforts. CAMA 

manages the aquatic preserves with a focus on the 

unique resource management requirements of each unit 

while ensuring that the actions are consistent with the 

principles of ecosystembased management. 

CAMA also supports 

several initiatives that 

will produce bioregional 

maps for the Florida 

coast and beyond into 

other state and federal 

jurisdictions. 

Management Challenges in Three Types of Florida's MPAs 

(Florida Keys WEA, State Parks, & Aquatic Preserves)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Funding/

Resources

Capacity Public

Support

Monitoring Enforcement Other

 Fig. 3.17: Percent of MPAs (out of 24 total responses) that identified each 

 issue as a challenge to effective MPA management. Data reported for the 

 Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area, state parks, and aquatic 

 preserves. See text for discussion of “other” challenges. 

Fig. 3.18: Gray angelfish and coral reef 

(FKNMS n.d.)
FLORIDA 

62

NEXT STEPS/ 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Florida is a large state with expansive coastal areas and it 

will take a collaborative effort to properly conserve its 

resources for future generations. As this chapter 

reveals, MPA establishment, management, and 

enforcement responsibilities are shared between several 

entities. Thus, many MPAs rely on partnerships to 

manage the resources effectively. Some of the 

government agencies that have established partnerships 

or undertaken other collaborative efforts include 

multiple local governments, Monroe, Miami-Dade, 

Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin Counties, the Water 

Management Districts, and the following state and 

federal agencies: the Florida Department of 

Environmental Projection; Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission; Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services; Florida Department 

of Health; Florida Department of State; Florida 

Department of Transportation; National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration; U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers; U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. In addition to government agencies, many 

concerned citizens, groups, and NGOs have joined in 

the efforts to adequately preserve and protect Florida’s 

coastal ecosystems, and specifically the coral reef 

ecosystems. Continued collaboration among all of these 

entities is needed to ensure that Florida’s coastal 

resources are effectively managed and protected. 

Table 3.9: National Classification System for Florida’s 82 MPAs 

Site Name 

 Conservation  Focus  Level of  Protection  Permanence of  Protection  Constancy of  Protection  Scale of  Protection  Management  Plan 

Biscayne Bay-Card Sound Spiny 

Lobster Sanctuary 

Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Biscayne National Park, Sponge 

Harvest Prohibited Area 

Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Biscayne National Park, Tropical 

Ornamental Marine Species 

Harvest Prohibited Area 

Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Biscayne Canal No Entry Zone Natural 

Heritage No Access Permanent Seasonal Focal resource No 

Black Creek Canal No Entry 

Zone 

Natural 

Heritage No Access Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Coral Gables Canal No Entry 

Zone 

Natural 

Heritage No Access Permanent Seasonal Focal resource No 

Fisher Island Motorboats 

Prohibited Zone 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

FPL Riviera Beach Power Plant 

Motorboats Prohibited Zone 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Seasonal Focal resource No 

Lauderdale Power Plant No Entry 

Zone 

Natural 

Heritage No Access Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Little River No Entry Zone Natural 

Heritage No Access Permanent Seasonal Focal resource No 

Port Everglades Power Plant No 

Entry Zone 

Natural 

Heritage No Access Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Virginia Key No Entry Zone Natural 

Heritage No Access Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Manatee Speed Zones* Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round & Seasonal 

Focal 

resource No 

Bill Sadowski CWA Natural 

Heritage No Access Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

* The Manatee Speed Zones include an assortment of Idle Speed Zones, Slow Speed Zones, and Maximum Speed Zones. The 

total number of these zones within the Florida reef tract has not yet been determined. 
FLORIDA

63

Table 3.9 (cont.): National Classification System for Florida’s 82 MPAs 

Site Name 

 Conservation  Focus  Level of  Protection  Permanence of  Protection  Constancy of  Protection  Scale of  Protection  Management  Plan 

Pelican Shoal CWA Natural 

Heritage No Access Permanent Seasonal Focal resource No 

Bahia Honda State Park OFW Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park 

OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve 

OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Biscayne National Park OFW Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve 

OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Coupon Bight OFW Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Crocodile Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Curry Hammock OFW Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Dry Tortugas National Park 

OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

East Everglades OFW Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Everglades National Park OFW Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Florida Keys OFW Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Fort Zachary Taylor State 

Historic Site OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Great White Heron National 

Wildlife Refuge OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Hobe Sound National Wildlife 

Refuge OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Hugh Taylor Birch State 

Recreation Area OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Indian Key State Historic Site 

OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet 

Aquatic Preserve OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

John D. McArthur Beach State 

Park OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

John Pennekamp Coral Reef State 

Park OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

John U. Lloyd Beach State Park 

OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Jonathan Dickinson State Park 

OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 
FLORIDA 

64

Table 3.9 (cont.): National Classification System for Florida’s 82 MPAs 

Site Name 

 Conservation  Focus  Level of  Protection  Permanence of  Protection  Constancy of  Protection  Scale of  Protection  Management  Plan 

Key Largo Hammock State 

Botanical Site OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Key Largo National Marine 

Sanctuary OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Key West National Wildlife 

Refuge OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Lignumvitae Key Aquatic 

Preserve OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Lignumvitae Key Botanical State 

Park OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Long Key State Recreation Area 

OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Looe Key National Marine 

Sanctuary OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Loxahatchee River-Lake Worth 

Creek Aquatic Preserve OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Martin County Tracts OFW Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

National Key Deer National 

Wildlife Refuge OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

North Beach OFW Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

North Fork, St. Lucie Aquatic 

Preserve OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

North Key Largo Hammock 

OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Oleta River State Park OFW Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

San Pedro State Underwater 

Archeological Preserve OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Seabranch OFW Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

St. Lucie Inlet Preserve State Park 

OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Westlake OFW Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Windley Key Fossil Reef 

Geological State Park OFW 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Biscayne Bay SWIM Area Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Florida Keys WEA Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Bahia Honda State Park Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 
FLORIDA

65

Table 3.9 (cont.): National Classification System for Florida’s 82 MPAs 

Site Name 

 Conservation  Focus  Level of  Protection  Permanence of  Protection  Constancy of  Protection  Scale of  Protection  Management  Plan 

Curry Hammock State Park Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Fort Zachary Taylor State 

Historic Site 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Hugh Taylor Birch State 

Recreation Area 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Indian Key State Historic Site Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

John D. MacArthur Beach State 

Park 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

John Pennekamp Coral Reef State 

Park 

Natural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

John U. Lloyd Beach State Park Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Jonathan Dickinson State Park Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Key Largo Hammock State 

Botanical Site 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Lignumvitae Key Botanical State 

Park 

Natural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Long Key State Recreation Area Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Oleta River State Park Natural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

San Pedro Underwater 

Archaeological Preserve State 

Park 

Natural & 

Cultural 

Heritage 

No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Seabranch Preserve State Park Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

St. Lucie Inlet Preserve State Park Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

The Barnacle Historic State Park Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Windley Key Fossil Reef 

Geological State Park 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve Natural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet 

Aquatic Preserve 

Natural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Lignumvitae Key Aquatic 

Preserve 

Natural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Loxahatchee River - Lake Worth 

Creek Aquatic Preserve 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

North Fork, St. Lucie Aquatic 

Preserve 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 
FLORIDA 

66

CITATIONS

Andrews, Katherine, Larry Nall, Chris Jeffrey, and 

Simon Pittman. 2005. The State of Coral Reef 

Ecosystems of Florida. pp. 150-200. In: J. Waddell 

(ed.), The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States 

and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2005. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOS NCCOS 11. NOAA/NCCOS 

Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment’s 

Biogeography Team. Silver Spring, MD. 522 pp. 

Ault, J.S., J.A. Bohnsack and G. Meester. 1998. A 

retrospective (1979-1995) multispecies assessment of 

coral reef fish stocks in the Florida Keys. Fishery Bulletin

96 (3): 395-414. 

Ault, J.S., S.G. Smith, J.A. Bohnsack, J. Luo, D.E. 

Harper, and D.B. McClellan. 2006. Building sustainable 

fisheries in Florida’s coral reef ecosystem: positive signs 

in the Dry Tortugas. Bulletin of Marine Science 78(3): 633-

654.

Boyer, Joseph N. and Henry O. Briceño. 2005. 

Executive Summary, FY2005 Annual Report of the Water 

Quality Monitoring Project. Southeast Environmental 

Research Center. Miami, FL. Available online at: 

http://serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork/FKNMS-CD/ 

index.htm. 

Collier, Chantal. 2006. Fig. 3.13. SEFCRI. 

Constitution of the State of Florida, Article 4, Section 9. 

SUCCESS STORY 

The St. Lucie Inlet Preserve State Park contains a 4.7 mile stretch of reef that is managed by the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) Division of Recreation and Parks. However, the Parks 

department is working cooperatively with FDEP’s Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas (CAMA) 

Southeast Aquatic Preserve Office and Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP), the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission’s (FWC) newly created Division of Habitat and Species Conservation, the local 

commercial fishing community, and an environmentally-minded nonprofit organization in what may be an 

unprecedented partnership for the protection of this thriving reef community. 

In 2004, diver accounts of newly found debris within the state-protected area lead to a public meeting where 

individuals voiced increased concern for reef health. This meeting prompted cleanup events where divers set out 

to locate and remove debris, including recreational and commercial fishing nets, monofilament line, and anchors. 

That year, they collected 120 gallons of marine debris within a few hours. This effort and its amazing results lead 

to the organization of subsequent events. Support for cleanup efforts to date have included a variety of 

governmental agencies (FDEP Division of Recreation and Parks, FDEP CAMA, and FWC), nonprofit 

organizations (Florida Oceanographic Society and Port Solerno Commercial Fishing Dock Authority), and 

concerned citizens. 

In 2005, the Florida Oceanographic Society’s Martin County Reef Research Dive Team received a grant through 

the Mote Marine Laboratory “Protect our Reefs” License Plate Trust Fund to further support this communitybased marine debris removal project. The grant funds are being used to: 1) locate and map marine debris using 

ArcGIS, 2) remove located debris, 3) use maps to identify marine debris hotspots in an effort to set up a long-term 

debris monitoring program, 4) set up a debris hotline that allows people to anonymously report lost debris, and 5) 

create and distribute educational brochures that outline the park boundary, list rules that should be obeyed within 

the state park boundary, and provide information on how to anonymously report lost debris. 

The guidance from the fishermen, who routinely fish these waters between November and April, reduces the 

amount of effort necessary to locate debris from the commercial (and possibly recreational) fishing communities. 

The technical expertise among Florida Oceanographic Society’s Reef Research Dive Team is crucial to the proper 

and safe removal of marine debris from the sensitive reef environment. State agency involvement provides the 

project with support from the managing entity, professional biological expertise, and a platform for efficient 

information sharing. This project is a unique partnership between the commercial fishing community, an 

environmentally-minded nonprofit organization, and state agencies for the protection of the reef community and is 

a model of success for all of our state agencies and partners. 
FLORIDA

67

Crane, Marella. n.d. Fig. 3.16. SEFCRI. 

Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Chapters 18, 62, 

and 68. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP). 

December 2004. Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative: A 

Local Action Strategy. 29pp. Available online at: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/programs/coral/. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) Division of Recreation and Parks. n.d.(a). Fig. 

3.10. Florida Online Parks Guide. FDEP. 

http://www.floridastateparks.org/images/ 

Default.cfm?Region=Southeast. 

–––––––. n.d.(b). Visitor Carrying Capacity Guidelines. 

FDEP. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/ 

default.htm. 

–––––––. February 3, 2000. Jonathan Dickinson State 

Park Management Plan. Tallahassee, FL: FDEP. 

Available online at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/ 

planning/plans.htm. 

–––––––. March 15, 2001. Bill Baggs Cape Florida State 

Park Management Plan. Tallahassee, FL: FDEP. 

Available online at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/ 

planning/plans.htm. 

–––––––. September 1, 2004. John Pennekamp Coral Reef 

State Park Management Plan. Tallahassee, FL: FDEP. 

Available online at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/ 

planning/ plans.htm. 

–––––––. 2005a. Fig. 3.11. John Pennekamp State 

Park Photos. Florida Online Parks Guide. FDEP. 

http://www.floridastateparks.org/pennekamp/PhotosPark.cfm. 

–––––––. 2005b. Fig. 3.12. Curry Hammock State 

Park Photos. Florida Online Parks Guide. FDEP. 

http://www.floridastateparks.org/curryhammock/ 

Photos-Park.cfm. 

–––––––. 2005c. Volunteer at a Florida State Park. 

Florida Online Parks Guide. FDEP. 

http://www.floridastateparks.org/volunteers/ 

default.cfm. 

–––––––. February 11, 2005. Curry Hammock State Park 

Management Plan. Tallahassee, FL: FDEP. Available 

online at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/ 

plans.htm. 

–––––––. April 22, 2005. John D. MacArthur Beach State 

Park Management Plan. Tallahassee, FL: FDEP. 

Available online at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/ 

planning/plans.htm. 

–––––––. August 1, 2006. The Office of Park 

Planning. FDEP. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/ 

planning/default.htm.

Florida Department of Environmental (FDEP) Office 

of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas (CAMA). 1992. 

Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. 

Tallahassee, FL: FDEP. Available online at: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/downloads/ 

management_plans/aquatic/. 

–––––––. October 28, 2005. Living Waters: Aquatic 

Preserves of Florida. FDEP. 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/livingwaters.htm. 

–––––––. March 14, 2006. Public Workshop 

Information. FDEP. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/

coastal/workshop_schedule.htm. 

–––––––. April 24, 2006. Aquatic Preserves at a 

Glance. FDEP. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ 

coastal/downloads/glance/. 

–––––––. June 2006. Florida Aquatic Preserves: A Program 

Overview. Tallahassee, FL: FDEP. Available online at: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/. 

–––––––. October 2006. Fig. 3.14. CAMA Map. 

Tallahassee, FL: FDEP CAMA. 

–––––––. November 2006. Fig. 3.1. CAMA Map. 

Tallahassee, FL: FDEP CAMA. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) Water Quality Standards and Special Projects 

Program. June 30, 2006a. Outstanding Florida Waters 

– Questions and Answers. FDEP. 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/ofwqa.htm. 

–––––––. June 30, 2006b. Surface Water Quality 

Classifications. FDEP. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ 

water/wqssp/classes.htm. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

(FWC). n.d.(a). Florida Endangered and Threatened Species 

Management and Conservation Plan – FY 2004-2005 Progress 

Report. Tallahassee, FL: FWC. Available online at: 

http://myfwc.com/ imperiledspecies/pdf/EndangeredThreatened-Species-Mgmt-Plan-FY-2004-2005.pdf. 

–––––––. n.d.(b). Fig. 3.8. Florida Keys Wildlife and 

Environmental Area. Recreation on Florida’s Wildlife 

Management Lands. FWC. http://myfwc.com/ 

recreation/florida_keys/visitorinfo.asp. 

–––––––. 1999-2005. What are WMAs. Recreation on 

Florida’s Wildlife Management Lands. FWC. 

http://myfwc.com/recreation/ WhatAreWMAs.html. 

–––––––. January 2004. Florida Keys Wildlife and 

Environmental Area Conceptual Management Plan 2004-2014. 

Tallahassee, FL: FWC. Available online at: 

http://www.myfwc.com/wma-planning/default.htm.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

(FWC) Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. n.d. 

Features. DataGlyphics, Inc. 

http://research.myfwc.com/features/. 
FLORIDA 

68

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

(FWC) Manatee Program. 1999-2005. Manatee Signs. 

FWC. http://myfwc.com/manatee/signs/. 

–––––––. n.d. Fig. 3.3. Manatee Photo Gallery. FWC. 

http://www.myfwc.com/manatee/photogallery/ 

manateephotos5.htm. 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). n.d. 

Figs. 3.7, 3.15, and 3.18. FKNMS. 

Florida State Statutes. Chapters 258, 370, 372, 373, and 

403. 

Gilliam, Dave. n.d. Fig. 3.2. SEFCRI. 

Hood, Sharyn. August 17, 2006. Fig. 3.5. News 

Release: “If we build it, the will come” – a seabird 

success story. FWC. http://myfwc.com/whatsnew/ 

06/statewide/tern-photos.html. 

Johns, Grace, M., Vernon R. Leeworthy, Frederick W. 

Bell, and Mark A. Bonn. 2001. Socioeconomic study of reefs 

in southeast Florida: Final Report. Hollywood, FL: Hazen 

and Sawyer P.C., in association with Florida State 

University and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

Kautz, Randy. n.d. Fig. 3.9. FWC. 

http://myfwc.com/recreation/florida_keys/nc_coastal.

asp

Porche, C.E., A.M. Eklund and G.P. Scott. 2003. An 

assessment of rebuilding times for goliath grouper. SEDAR6-

RW-3. 25 pp. 

Rohmann, SO, Hayes, JJ, Newhall, RC, Monaco, ME, 

Grigg, RW. In press. The area of potential shallowwater tropical and subtropical coral ecosystems in the 

United States. Coral Reefs.

Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF). 

August 2001. Tropical Western Atlantic/Northwestern 

Atlantic Data. REEF. http://www.reef.org/data/twa/ 

index.htm

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). 

November 1995. Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement 

and Management (SWIM) Plan. West Palm Beach, FL: 

SWFMD. Available online at: https://my.sfwmd.gov/ 

portal/page?_pageid=2294,5174095,2294_5174096&_d

ad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&project=1301&ou=44

0.

Spoil Island Working Group. n.d. Spoil Island Project. 

Treasure Coast Web Design. 

http://www.spoilislandproject.org/. 

U.S. DOC (Department of Commerce). 1996. Strategy 

for Stewardship: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Final 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Silver 

Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. Available online at: 

http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/regs.
69 

Chapter 4: Guam Coral Reef MPA Summary 

Meghan Gombos, NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

Jay Gutierrez, Guam Department of Agriculture Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources 

Valerie Brown, NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservations 

Contributors: Evangeline Lujan 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S Territory of Guam is the southernmost island 

of the Mariana Archipelago, and the largest and most 

populated island in Micronesia. Guam is surrounded by 

offshore banks, and fringing, patch, submerged, and 

barrier reefs. The coral reef and lagoon area encompass 

approximately 69 square kilometers (km2) in nearshore 

waters between zero and three nautical miles (Hunter 

1995). 

Traditionally, fishing on coral reefs has been an 

important part of local Chamorro culture, and fish were 

valued as an important food source. Today, Guam’s 

reefs also support the island’s tourism industry, which 

accounts for an estimated 60 percent of the 

government’s revenues (Porter, et al. 2005). While 

dependence on the fishery has decreased, these 

resources remain economically and culturally important 

today. 

Guam’s reefs are threatened by several natural and 

anthropogenic impacts, including typhoons, crown of 

thorns starfish outbreaks, land based pollution, 

recreational impacts, fishing pressure, and coral disease 

and bleaching. Geology, human population, level of 

coastal development, types of marine uses, circulation 

patterns, and frequency of natural disturbances 

contribute to the high variability of reef health around 

the island. Overall, the health of Guam’s reefs has 

declined over the past 40 years (Porter, et al. 2005). 

Efforts to address some of these threats are on-going. 

For more than 12 years, Guam has been working 

towards the establishment of MPAs. It has been only 

recently, however, that these efforts have paid off and 

management objectives are being realized with support 

from the public. Guam’s first attempt to create an MPA 

was the establishment of a territorial seashore park in 

1978. This park is still in existence today, and, although 

it was legally established and a master plan was written 

to support it, there has been no management action in 

the park, and no agencies claim responsibility for its 

management. 

Since then, the Guam Department of Agriculture, 

Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR) 

has established a network of marine preserves 

surrounding the island to regulate the take of aquatic life 

to protect coral reef habitat and the related fauna. The 

network was established after the results of 12 years of 

fisheries data collection revealed a 70 percent decrease 

in catch per unit effort values (Gutierrez 2003). In other 

words, nearshore fish stocks were greatly depleted and 

DAWR decided it was time to take action. 

With overfishing and poor land use practices seen as 

major threats to the integrity of Guam’s marine 

ecosystems, DAWR investigated sites around the island 

that could be set aside as marine preserves. Site 

selection for the preserves in this network was based on 

a set of criteria that included habitat diversity, protection 

of spawning stocks, species richness, usage, 

enforceability, cultural practices, and local economic 

benefit (Sherwood 1989). From the nine sites initially 

proposed, five permanent sites were selected for 

conservation. The process to develop the network of 

marine preserves took more than 12 years but the 

establishment of these protected areas has demonstrated 

improved resource health and increased public support 

(Gutierrez 2003). 

Fig. 4.1: Guam’s Marine Preserve System (Davis n.d.)
GUAM 

70 

MPA TYPES 

Marine Preserves 

National Classification: Zoned Multiple-Use and 

No-Take, Sustainable Production MPAs

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The five marine preserves were legally established in 

1997 through Guam Public Law 24-21, An Act to 

Establish Rules and Regulations for the Control of 

Fisheries by the Department of Agriculture. This 

legislation covers a broad array of modifications to 

Guam’s approach to fisheries management, the most 

significant being a new section on marine preserves. On 

April 14, 2006, Public Law 28-107 was passed to further 

strengthen the protection of the marine preserves by 

prohibiting non-fishing activities, such as development, 

construction, drilling, and trenching. 

 

DAWR is the agency responsible for managing and 

enforcing the regulations for the marine preserves. 

 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

The goal of the marine preserves, as defined in Public 

Law (P.L.) 28-107, is to protect, preserve, manage, and 

conserve aquatic life, habitat, and marine communities 

and ecosystems, and to ensure the health, welfare, and 

integrity of marine resources for current and future 

generations. 

 

One way this goal is being accomplished is through the 

protection of important fisheries habitat, including 

spawning, mating, and nursery grounds, and/or by 

providing refugia for species that have been exploited as 

by-catch. To achieve this goal, fishing and other 

activities are limited within the boundaries of the marine 

preserves. 

Given that the preserves were initially established to 

recover food fish stocks, most preserve regulations 

currently revolve around fisheries management. 

Trolling seaward of the reef margin is allowed in all the 

preserves and bottom-fishing from the 100 foot depth 

seaward is allowed within the Tumon Bay Preserve. 

Certain cultural fishing practices that do not threaten the 

restoration goals of the preserve system are allowed 

within the boundaries of the Tumon Bay, Pati Point, Piti 

Bomb Holes, and Achang Bay Marine Preserves to 

sustain local cultural traditions. All other fishing 

activities are prohibited within the marine preserves. 

DAWR is working to develop an eco-permit system 

(P.L. 27-87) that will regulate recreational and other 

non-fishing activities in all MPAs, but several activities 

are already regulated through other means. Permits are 

required from DAWR for development activities within 

the preserves. The use of jet skis within the preserves is 

limited to waters beyond the fore reef slope to prevent 

reef damage in shallow waters, except in Tumon Bay 

Marine Preserve, where they are allowed to traverse the 

channel at no-wake speed (9 GCA §70.25). Other nonextractive activities, including other recreational uses, 

educational uses, and non-extractive research, are 

permitted within the boundaries of the preserves. Local 

mangers are interested in conducting carrying capacity 

studies for some of the marine preserves that are heavily 

used by the recreational diving industry. These studies 

would provide managers with the necessary information 

to adequately manage the intensity of recreational use 

within the preserve system. 

Table 4.1: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Five Marine Preserves 

Marine Preserves 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Mud Flats  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Piti Bomb Holes x x x x x x x x 

Achang Reef Flat x x x x x x x x x x x 

Pati Point x x x x x x 

Sasa Bay x x x x x x x x x x x 

Tumon Bay x x x x x x x 
GUAM

71 

Management Activities: 

Guam’s focus has been on the development of strong 

fisheries and coral reef laws and regulations to support 

the goals of its marine preserve system. Therefore, the 

preserves are subject to specific regulations that have 

been incorporated into the territorial fishing regulations. 

On-going management activities have been thus far 

successful in addressing the goal of the preserves to 

restore food fish populations. DAWR’s current 

management programs include monitoring, 

enforcement, public awareness, permitting, and 

scientific research. Additional program support, 

including a public awareness campaign is provided by 

the Guam Coral Reef Initiative Coordinating Committee 

(GCRICC), which is made up of several agencies that 

work to collaboratively promote coral reef conservation 

and awareness. 

Research and 

Monitoring: 

Guam was 

fortunate to have 

12 years worth of 

detailed baseline 

information on 

annual fish 

extraction before 

the preserves were 

put into effect. 

This data indicated a reduction in fish stocks and major 

shifts in methods of harvest, suggesting the need for 

management actions that resulted in the establishment 

of the marine preserves (Pitlik 1997). A monitoring 

program was launched in 1999 to determine the effect 

of the new regulations on fish biomass and diversity. 

This information is collected through on-going fish 

transect counts and timed swim counts. These activities 

will be included in the comprehensive monitoring 

program being developed by the Coral Reef Monitoring 

Group. Research activities within preserves have been 

conducted by the University of Guam and include 

studies on larval tracking and dispersal, algal abundance, 

seagrass, and recreational impacts to coral reefs. 

Education and Outreach: 

In addition to public involvement during the 

establishment of the preserves, several public awareness 

programs have been implemented to increase public 

understanding and to encourage continued and 

increased support from local communities. These 

programs include radio, television, and newspaper 

announcements about the purpose of the marine 

preserve network and the regulations pertaining to each 

site. School programs and an educational road show to 

the villages have also been 

conducted to educate the 

public about the definition, 

purpose, and rules and 

regulations of the sites. 

Signage posted at each of the 

marine preserves defines the 

boundaries and describes the 

regulations for the sites. 

As previously mentioned, the 

GCRICC has developed a 

public outreach campaign on 

coral reefs, which seeks to increase public support for 

MPAs as a tool to protect local marine resources. The 

campaign includes an official mascot and several public 

events to promote reef-friendly behavior. At these 

events, Guam residents can learn more about the marine 

preserve network. The campaign has also aired 

television ads in several languages to include the diverse 

cultural backgrounds present in Guam’s resident and 

visiting populations. 

Enforcement: 

DAWR enforcement officers, known as conservation 

officers, are primarily responsible for fish and wildlife 

enforcement, which includes the application of specific 

regulations at each of the preserves. Conservation 

officers conduct random site visits to observe activities 

and enforce the laws and regulations in the preserves, 

and respond to reports from the public about illegal 

activities occurring 

within the sites. 

Other enforcement 

officers, such as 

police officers, may 

also enforce the 

marine preserve 

laws and 

regulations. 

Permitting: 

DAWR established a permitting program specific to the 

preserves to regulate commercial uses and the collection 

of species for research purposes within the preserve 

system. Development of an eco-permit system to 

regulate recreational and other non-fishing activities 

within the preserves is underway. Finally, a Seashore 

Clearance Permit Program is administered by the 

Department of Land Management (21 GCA §63). A 

Seashore Reserve Plan and regulations for the permit 

program, which are currently being drafted, will provide 

guidance to the Seashore Protection Commission on 

regulating development activities around Guam while 

protecting the environment. 

Fig. 4.2: Fish surveys (Davis n.d.) 

Fig. 4.3: Kika, Guam’s 

coral reef mascot 

(Galide Group 2002)

Fig. 4.4: Preserve enforcement 

(Davis n.d.)
GUAM 

72 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

DAWR utilized an extensive public participation 

process to obtain public support for the network of 

marine preserves. The establishment document was 

created in 1985, but it took six years for all of the 

involved local agencies to refine and approve the 

document for public release. The original proposal 

included nine marine preserve sites located around the 

island, with five permanent sites and four rotational 

sites. The four rotating preserves were intended to 

serve as an educational tool to inform local fishermen 

and the public about how marine preserves function and 

the impacts of fishing. In 1993, a series of public 

hearings was held to respond to stakeholder concerns 

about the proposed system. Hundreds of community 

members from various districts attended the meetings. 

The public response to the proposed marine reserves 

was largely negative, with the strongest objections 

coming from a local fishing group. In response to this 

opposition, DAWR made a concerted effort to 

understand and address the concerns of almost all of the 

leaders and members of the local fishing groups and 

associations. 

Through these discussions, fishers began to understand 

the results of the fisheries data and the purpose of 

marine preserves. To alleviate the remaining major 

concerns, several revisions were made to the original 

proposal, including the removal of fishery licensing 

requirements and regulations regarding reporting fishery 

catch, and reduction of the number of preserves from 

the original nine sites to five permanent sites. It was 

decided that the four educational rotating sites were no 

longer necessary since local management 

support was attained for the five permanent 

sites. The revised proposal was presented in 

a second round of public hearings and 

encountered little resistance. Additionally, 

one community requested that a proposed 

rotating preserve in Merizo be made 

permanent. This preserve is now the Achang 

Bay Marine Preserve. 

The comments from the second round of 

public hearings were incorporated into the 

proposal for the marine preserve network 

and submitted to the Guam Legislature for 

additional edits. The legislature removed one 

permanent preserve from the proposal, and 

five permanent preserves were eventually 

established. The entire public process took 

seven years and the proposal was finally 

adopted as Guam Public Law 24-21, An Act 

to Establish Rules and Regulations for the 

Control of Fisheries by the Department of Agriculture, 

in January 1997. 

CHALLENGES TO MPA 

EFFECTIVENESS 

The greatest challenges in effectively managing the 

marine preserves, as identified by local managers, are a 

lack of human management capacity and a lack of 

enforcement. One of the major problems in hiring 

additional staff is the lengthy and cumbersome territorial 

government hiring process. For this reason, a number 

of essential staff positions are vacant. Specifically, 

qualified staff is needed to conduct research and 

monitoring programs. It has been very difficult for 

DAWR to locate individuals with adequate research 

expertise to accomplish necessary management 

activities. 

The human capacity shortage also affects Guam’s ability 

to enforce regulations within and around the marine 

preserves. While more enforcement personnel could 

help to address some enforcement issues, several 

enforcement challenges are not related to staffing. The 

location of some sites does not facilitate enforcement 

because they are located in areas that are difficult to 

access by boat or within military bases. Another 

enforcement limitation is the difficulty to observe the 

entire coastline from shore. Enforcement is also a 

challenge because violations of preserve regulations are 

rarely prosecuted and therefore there is little legal 

incentive for resource users to comply with the 

regulations. Lack of enforcement results in continued 

Management Challenges in Guam's MPAs

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Funding/

Resources

Capacity Public

Support 

Monitoring Enforcement Other

Fig. 4.5: Percent of MPAs (out of 5 total MPAs) that identified each issue as a 

management challenge to MPA effectiveness. “Other” challenges included 

the need for the development of a citation system to determine penalties for 

illegal activities. 
GUAM

73 

poaching and other illegal fishing practices, ultimately 

reducing management effectiveness by decreasing public 

support for MPA efforts. The decrease in public 

support happens when use restrictions 

are applied to the area, but inadequate 

enforcement of the sites allows for 

poaching by a few “dishonest” fishers 

while limiting public use. In response to 

these concerns, the Guam Department 

of Agriculture has hired a natural 

resource prosecutor, and is currently 

working to develop a citation system 

(P.L. 26-25) and a volunteer 

conservation program (P.L. 28-30). 

Finally, the coral reef habitat in some of 

Guam’s marine preserves is threatened 

by intense levels of recreational use and land-based 

sources of pollution from adjacent watersheds. To 

address recreational use issues, Guam is working to 

establish an eco-permit system to regulate recreational 

uses other than fishing. There are also efforts to reduce 

the land-based sources of pollution affecting the 

preserve sites, such as using a watershed approach to 

management. All of the island’s watersheds have been 

identified and prioritized, based on importance and data, 

by the Guam Watershed Planning Committee. This 

local group consists of representatives from various 

natural resource and public health agencies. Although 

some of the marine preserves lie adjacent to watersheds 

with high sediment and pollutant levels, other 

watersheds that pose a more direct threat to human 

health have been given a higher priority. 

WORKING TOWARDS A NETWORK

Despite these challenges, Guam designed and 

implemented the marine preserves as part of a formal 

network with the intention of protecting 10 percent of 

Guam’s shoreline and 20 percent of the adjacent reef. 

According to the 2002 The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of 

the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States report, 

the marine preserves "represent approximately 12% of 

the coastline and 28% of the coral reefs" (Richmond 

and Davis 2002). On-going monitoring of the MPAs is 

taking place to determine the effectiveness at restoring 

fish populations. 

NEXT STEPS/ 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Guam has achieved initial success in the establishment 

of its marine preserve system. To build off these 

accomplishments and further improve MPA 

management effectiveness, the following actions are 

recommended: 

Watershed Management: 

 The Guam Watershed 

Planning Committee 

should consider the 

development of a twopronged approach to 

watershed management 

priority setting that takes 

both human health and 

environmental threats 

into consideration when 

identifying priority sites 

for funding support and 

management action. Funding that is intended to reduce 

the environmental effects of land-based pollution 

should be directed at watershed areas that pose the 

greatest threat to Guam’s natural resources. While it is 

imperative to attend to public health issues, other 

sources of funding should be sought to address them. 

Currently, Tumon Bay is the only watershed that has 

been identified as a priority for management funding. 

However, land-based management actions that reduce 

sediment could also significantly improve coral reef 

ecosystems in Piti Bomb Holes and Achang Bay. 

Additionally, addressing the land-based pollution issues 

in these sites could improve support by local fishers 

who are often the sole targets of management action 

while sources of other human impacts to marine 

ecosystems go unregulated. To further protect the 

preserves from development threats, they should be 

listed as selected sensitive areas within the Seashore 

Reserve Plan. 

Community Watch Program: 

It is recommended that Guam build a strong 

community support program for its MPAs to improve 

enforcement capabilities. While community members 

may not be able to legally enforce specific regulations, 

they can provide needed assistance in surveillance, 

monitoring, and outreach at preserves sites adjacent to 

their communities. There are some excellent examples 

of effective community watch programs in the Pacific 

Islands region that empowered communities to take an 

active role in managing local resources. Successful 

community watch programs have been developed in 

Palau, Pohnpei, and Hawaii. It may be feasible to do 

exchange visits between these sites to learn about the 

development and implementation of these programs. 

At a minimum, a part-time staff person would be 

required to develop and run this program, and to work 

directly with communities adjacent to MPA sites. 

Fig. 4.6: Tumon Bay Marine Preserve (Davis n.d.) 
GUAM 

74 

Table 4.2: National Classification System for Guam’s Five MPAs 

Site Name 

Conservation Focus Level of Protection Permanence of Protection Constancy of Protection Scale of Protection Management Plan 

Achang Reef Flat Marine Preserve Sustainable 

Production 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Pati Point Marine Preserve Sustainable 

Production 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Piti Bomb Holes Marine Preserve Sustainable 

Production 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Sasa Bay Marine Preserve Sustainable 

Production No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Tumon Bay Marine Preserve Sustainable 

Production 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

SUCCESS STORY 

One of the main purposes of creating Guam’s network of marine preserves was to restore declining fish stocks. 

After only five years of enforcement, the preserves show signs of improvement. Studies have confirmed that 

limiting fishing in these areas has had a considerable effect on species density and diversity. Research conducted by 

DAWR showed that after only two years of enforcement, the number of fish along transects in the Piti Bomb 

Holes and the Achang Reef Flat Marine Preserves increased by over 100 percent (Gutierrez 2003). In Piti Bomb 

Holes, the number of species increased by 14 percent and the diversity of fish species increased by 38 percent 

(Gutierrez 2003). Data collected by the University of Guam Marine Lab supports these findings, indicating that the 

mean densities of four focal species, Mulloidichthys flavolineatus, Chlorurus sordidus, Naso lituratus, and Naso unicornis, 

were at least 20 percent higher (in many cases, much higher) in the preserves versus control sites. In addition to 

increased density, the data documented a shift in the population structure towards larger individuals in the preserve 

populations of C. sordidus and M. flavolineatus, suggesting that the preserves are indeed working as an egg bank, with 

higher levels of reproductive potential than nearby control sites. Furthermore, the data indicated that the 

orangespine surgeonfish (Naso lituratus) showed a net outflow of biomass from the preserves, with 26 percent of all 

tagged biomass emigrating from MPAs. This data suggests that MPAs have the potential to provide herbivore 

biomass to adjacent areas that may be suffering from algal overgrowth (Tupper in preparation). 

As a result of healthier reefs, and an increased number and size of fish, residents and visitors have recognized the 

benefits of marine preserves. The Guam Visitor’s Bureau (GVB) partnered with the Guam Coastal Management 

Program to promote Tumon Bay Marine Preserve as a Sea Life Park during the summer months of 2005. This 

program included guided snorkel tours for tourists, the production of identification cards for common species 

found in the preserve, and a full color brochure illustrating the bay. The preserve also has three kiosks that remind 

visitors to safely enjoy the beauty of this unique bay. In addition to growing interest from the tourism industry, the 

Guam Legislature and DAWR continue to support the preserves. Realizing that it may become necessary to limit 

recreational uses within the preserves, the legislature passed Public Law 27-87, which authorized the Department of 

Agriculture to regulate non-fishing activities within the five marine preserves. Through the development of an ecopermitting program, DAWR will be able to keep recreational uses within limits that are compatible with the goal of 

fisheries restoration. The regulations are currently awaiting final approval. 
GUAM

75 

CITATIONS 

Davis, Gerry. n.d. Figs. 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, and 4.6. NOAA 

Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation. 

Government of Guam, Department of Agriculture, 

Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources. 

Galide Group. 2002. Fig. 4.3. 

Guam Code Annotated (GCA). 9 GCA §70.25. Jet Ski 

Operation, Tumon Bay. 

Guam Code Annotated (GCA). 21 GCA §63. Guam 

Territorial Seashore Protection Act of 1974. 

Guam Public Law 24-21. An Act to Establish Rules and 

Regulations for the Control of Fisheries by the 

Department of Agriculture. 

Guam Public Law 26-85. An Act to Authorize the 

Department of Agriculture to Issue Citations for 

Fishing and Wildlife Violations. 

Guam Public Law 27-87. An Act to Create a Marine 

Preserve Eco-Permitting System. 

Guam Public Law 28-30. An Act to Create a Civilian 

Volunteer Conservation Officer Reserve Program. 

Guam Public Law 28-107. An Act to Expand the 

Protection of Guam’s Marine Preserves.

Gutierrez, J.T. 2003. Two-year Report on the Effects of 

Guam’s Marine Preserves. Government of Guam, 

Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and 

Wildlife Resources. 

Hunter, C.L. 1995. Review of coral reefs around American 

flag Pacific islands and assessment of need, value, and feasibility of 

establishing a coral reef fishery management plan for the western 

Pacific region. Honolulu, Hawaii : Western Pacific 

Regional Fishery Management Council. 

Pitlik, Todd J. 1997. Inshore Creel Survey Annual Report. 

Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources. 

Porter, Val, Trina Leberer, Mike Gawel, Jay Gutierrez, 

David Burdick, Victor Torres, and Evangeline Lujan. 

2005. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of Guam. 

pp. 442-487. In: J. Waddell (ed.), The State of Coral Reef 

Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated 

States: 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS 

NCCOS 11. NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal 

Monitoring and Assessment’s Biogeography Team. 

Silver Spring, MD. 522 pp. 

Richmond, Robert H., and Gerry W. Davis. 2002. 

Status of the Coral Reefs of Guam. pp. 189-194. In: 

The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and 

Pacific Freely Associated States: 2002. National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean 

Service/National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 

Silver Spring, MD. 265 pp.

Sherwood, T. 1989. Establishing Permanent Marine 

Conservation Areas in Guam. Project Progress Report. 

pp. 110-118. In: Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources 

Annual Report Fiscal Year 1989. Government of Guam, 

Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and 

Wildlife Resources. 

Tupper, M. In preparation. Piti Bomb Holes Preserve, 

Achang Reef Flat Preserve, and Tumon Bay Marine 

Preserve. WCPA-Marine/WWF MPA Management 

Effectiveness Initiative, Draft Preliminary Report. 
76 
77 

Chapter 5: Hawai‘i Coral Reef MPA Summary 

Jill Komoto, Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources 

Meghan Gombos, NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

Contributors: Athline Clark, Alton Miyasaka, and Matthew Ramsey 

INTRODUCTION 

As one of the most isolated archipelagos on earth, 

Hawai‘i has estimated rates of endemism of 25 percent 

or greater for most coral species. This unique marine 

life is found no where else in the world (DLNR DAR 

2005). These isolated islands consist of two regions, the 

Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) and the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). The MHI, where 99 percent 

of the state’s 1.3 million residents reside, consists of 

“high volcanic islands with non-structural reef 

communities and fringing reefs abutting the shore” 

((Friedlander, et al. 2005c). In contrast, the NWHI 

remains mostly uninhabited atolls, islands, and banks 

that span over 2,000 kilometers (km) northwest of the 

MHI. 

Historically, coral reefs played an important role in 

Hawaiian culture and were recognized as the building 

blocks of the islands (Friedlander, et al. 2005b). To this 

end, native Hawaiians had intimate knowledge of their 

ocean resources and employed a relatively sophisticated 

system to manage resources that reduced waste and 

ensured long-term use. Some of these methods 

included a “kapu” system in which the chiefs would 

decree an area off limits to regulate fishing during 

certain times (e.g., spawning season); other methods 

reserved certain species (DLNR DAR 2005). 

Over time, these practices have eroded due to cultural, 

political, and demographic changes that have affected 

water rights, land use, and land ownership. These 

changes have disrupted ecosystem functions and 

sustainable management practices over just a few 

generations (Friedlander 2004). Today, Hawai‘i’s reefs 

are threatened by a number of factors, including fishing 

pressure, land based pollution, coastal development, 

aquatic invasive species, and recreational overuse. 

However, these reefs remain an important part of 

Hawai‘i’s way of life. In addition to providing 

protection from large ocean swells and providing food 

for sustenance, it is estimated that the state’s coral reefs 

generate approximately $800 million annually in added 

value to the state’s economy (Friedlander, et al. 2005b). 

To address some of the threats facing coral reefs and 

accommodate tourism needs, the state has been 

establishing and managing MPAs for 40 years. The first 

MPA, the Hanauma Bay Marine Life Conservation 

District, was designated in 1967 to provide a place 

where people could view a variety of marine life. Many 

of the initial MPAs were designated for socio-economic 

reasons, including local community support, reducing 

conflicts between user groups, ease of public access, 

ease of establishing and marking boundaries, cultural 

value, and/or scenic beauty. Some secondary goals of 

the MPAs included fishery enhancement or habitat 

protection. While Hawai‘i’s MPA types are currently 

separated into several categories, each individual site has 

a unique set of rules, regulations, management actions, 

and reasons for establishment. Because of the 

numerous types of MPAs, and the fact that many do not 

have clearly articulated goals and objectives that can be 

used to measure their effectiveness, Hawai‘i’s 

Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), 

Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) is currently 

working to develop a new framework of MPAs. See 

“Working Towards a Network” section. 

Hawai‘i has established 39 MPAs that contain coral reef 

resources and habitats. These sites are categorized into 

the following types: marine life conservation district 

(MLCD), fishery management area (FMA), regional 

fishery management area with fisheries replenishment 

areas (FRAs), bottomfish restricted fishing area (BRFA), 

natural area reserve (NAR), cultural reserve, wildlife 

sanctuary, marine laboratory refuge, and marine refuge. 

Fig. 5.1: Hanauma Bay MLCD (Komoto n.d.) 
HAWAI‘I 

78

MPA TYPES 

Marine Life Conservation Districts 

National Classification: No-Take, Zoned MultipleUse with No-Take Areas, Zoned Multiple-Use, and 

Uniform Multiple-Use, Natural Heritage MPAs

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The Marine Life Conservation Program was established 

under Hawai‘i Revised Statute (HRS) Chapter 190 

(1995). Under this statute, all of the state’s marine 

waters comprise a marine life conservation area, which 

is administered by DLNR. DLNR has the authority to 

establish and modify the limits of conservation districts 

in each county. Additionally, HRS Chapter 190 

instructed DLNR to adopt rules that may “prohibit 

activities that may disturb, degrade, or alter the marine 

environment, establish open and closed seasons, 

designate areas in which all or any one or more of 

certain species of fish or marine life may not be taken, 

prescribe and limit the methods of fishing, including the 

type and mesh and other description of nets, traps, and 

appliances, and otherwise regulate the fishing and taking 

of marine life” (HRS 190-3). Under HRS Chapter 190-

4, DLNR has the ability to administer, and revoke, 

permits for scientific, education, or other public 

purposes on such terms and conditions that are 

necessary to minimize any adverse effects within the 

MLCDs. This chapter also instructs DLNR to adopt 

rules to regulate anchoring and mooring, and it 

establishes penalties for violations of this statute or rule. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

The main criteria used to establish the MLCDs included: 

• significant resources – the site supported abundant 

marine life, geological features that needed 

protection, etc; 

• the site was in a relatively pristine state; and, 

• there was future potential for the area to recover or 

flourish. 

Additional criteria that were considered included: 

• ease of establishing boundaries (e.g., across the 

mouth of an embayment); and, 

• ease of access to the resources for ocean recreation 

activities. 

Because MCLDs are designated to conserve and 

replenish marine resources, the taking of any marine life 

(fish, eggs, shells, corals, algae, etc.) and non-living 

habitat material (sand, rocks, coral skeletons, etc.) is 

Fig. 5.2: Map of MPAs in Hawai‘i (DLNR DAR 2005) 
HAWAI‘I

79

generally restricted, or prohibited entirely. Thus, the 

regulations may foster non-consumptive uses, such as 

swimming, snorkeling, and diving. Fishing may be 

allowed subject to certain gear restrictions, based on 

input received during the public meeting process. 

However, DAR acknowledges that, “from a 

conservation standpoint (and to avoid confusion about 

the rules), it may be desirable to prohibit all 

consumptive use in future MLCDs” (DLNR DAR n.d.). 

Boating is also regulated within the MLCDs under HRS 

190-4.5 and HRS 200, which enable DLNR to establish 

rules to regulate anchoring and mooring. Many sites 

have anchoring regulations or non-motorized boating 

zones to protect the marine resources from anchor 

damage. 

When Hanauma Bay MLCD was created in 1967, 

regulations prohibited the taking of marine life, shells, 

coral, rocks, or sand. As a result of these restrictions, 

fish populations increased and the bay became popular 

for snorkeling and diving. Most MLCDs were 

established in the 1970s and 1980s in response to a 

noticeable impact on resources from overuse by 

recreational users (such as anchor damage), or from 

increasing consumptive uses that were threatening the 

scientific, recreational, or educational value of the 

natural resources at the sites. In more than half of the 

MLCDs, it is prohibited to fish for, catch, take, injure, 

kill, possess, or remove any marine life, or to take, alter, 

deface, destroy, possess, or remove any sand, coral, 

rock, or other geological feature. In addition to these 

protections, each MLCD has more specific regulations, 

such as anchoring restrictions or designated allowable 

fishing methods (e.g., fishing for finfish for home 

consumption is permitted from shore using thrownet or 

pole and line without reel). Some MLCDs are divided 

into two subzones that allow different uses (e.g., 

subzone A = no-take, subzone B = hook and line and 

thrownet for finfish allowed). 

Since the late 1970s, three MLCDs have been 

established (Pupukea in 1983, Old Kona Airport in 

1992, and Wai‘Opae in 2003). Wai’Opae is the only 

MLCD that prohibits commercial tourism activities. 

DLNR’s DAR manages all of the MLCDs. However, 

many of these areas are accessed through county or state 

beach parks, requiring cooperation with other entities. 

The Hanauma Bay Nature Preserve is a good example 

of a co-managed area. The waters are managed by the 

state, but all access to the site is through a city and 

county of Honolulu nature preserve. 

Management Activities: 

Currently, only the Hanauma Bay MLCD has an active 

management plan, which was developed by the city and 

county of Honolulu. Wai‘Opae Tidepools MLCD has a 

draft management plan, but it has not yet been 

Table 5.1: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the 11 

Marine Life Conservation Districts (MLCDs) 

Marine Life Conservation 

Districts (MLCDs) 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Hanauma Bay x x x 

Honolua-Mokule‘ia Bay x x x 

Kealakekua Bay x x x x x x x 

Lapakahi x x x x x 

Manele-Hulopo‘e x x x x x 

Molokini Shoal x x x x x x 

Old Kona Airport x x x x x x x 

Pupukea-Waimea x x x x x x 

Waialea Bay x x x x x 

Waikiki x x x x x 

Wai‘Opae Tidepools x x 
HAWAI‘I 

80

approved by DAR. At a recent Coral Reef Alliance 

workshop, attendees highly recommended the 

development of a management plan for both the 

Honolua-Mokule‘ia Bay and Molokini Shoal MLCDs. 

Research and Monitoring: 

DAR has been collecting fish and habitat data in all of 

the MLCDs since the 1970s. These data sets were 

incorporated into the Coral Reef Monitoring and 

Assessment Program (CRAMP), which provides over 30 

years of data in some locations. In addition to the data 

sets included in CRAMP, there is an MHI monitoring 

program that has been monitoring sites continuously in 

West Hawai‘i and Maui for many years. The program is 

also beginning to do comparative monitoring in 

protected and adjacent sites on O‘ahu. A report from 

this work showed that abundance and distribution of 

species and assemblages was strongly tied to habitat 

type. To date, all of the regularly monitored MLCDs 

have higher fish biomass than adjacent sites, and have 

higher values for most other fish assemblages (e.g., 

diversity, size, and species richness) (Friedlander, et al. 

2005b). Apex predators and other target species were 

more also abundant and larger in the MLCDs than in 

adjacent sites (Friedlander, et al. 2005a). 

Education and Outreach: 

Outreach and education programs vary by site. At a 

minimum, signs are located at each MLCD to indicate 

boundaries and describe regulations for the area. Some 

MLCDs have more active outreach programs (e.g., 

Hanauma Bay, Wai‘Opae Tidepools, Pupukea-Waimea, 

and Honolua-Mokule‘ia Bay), which range from 

community outreach programs that utilize volunteers to 

distribute information to users, to a formal education 

center equipped with educational videos, interactive 

displays, on-going events, and outreach staff. 

Enforcement: 

All MLCDs are enforced by DLNR’s Division of 

Conservation and Resources Enforcement (DOCARE). 

DOCARE officers have full police powers, and enforce 

all state laws and rules involving state lands, state parks, 

historical sites, forest reserves, aquatic life and wildlife 

areas, coastal zones, conservation districts, state shores, 

boating and ocean recreation activities, and small boat 

harbors. Therefore, DOCARE is responsible for 

enforcing both land and marine activities. This task is 

tremendous, considering that Hawai‘i has the fourth 

largest coastline in the nation, including 23,000 acres of 

inland surface waters, three million acres of state ocean 

waters, and 410,000 acres of coral reef around the MHI. 

There are currently 103 assigned officers to carry out 

these functions. Officers are not divided into 

marine/land officers, but are responsible for enforcing 

all regulations. Much of their responsibilities include 

outreach and education (DLNR DOCARE n.d.). 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

The Hawai‘i Legislature and the public can suggest an 

area for establishment as an MLCD. DAR may also 

recommend sites for establishment based on data 

gathered from regular surveys of marine ecosystems 

throughout the state, and where areas demonstrate 

unique characteristics in need of protection. Once an 

area is recommended for designation as an MLCD, it is 

evaluated by DAR with regard to the following criteria: 

• public accessibility, 

• marine life and future potential values, 

• safety from a public usage standpoint, 

• compatibility with adjoining area usage, and 

• minimal environmental or ecological changes from 

the undisturbed natural state. 

• The area should have clearly defined boundaries so 

that it is easily recognizable for compliance and 

enforcement. 

• The area must also be of suitable size. In other 

words, it must be large enough so that fish 

populations can be restored even with on-going 

fishing activity outside the MLCD, but small 

enough so that fishermen are not denied the use of 

unreasonably vast fishing areas. 

If the recommended area meets the above criteria, DAR 

conducts a thorough investigation consisting of bottom 

habitat and fish surveys. Input from the public, citizen 

groups, and governmental and private agencies is also 

considered, usually with the establishment of a task 

force of citizens representing different user groups and 

the affected community. The community group works 

with DAR to develop recommendations to manage the 

area, which are then presented at public meetings. 

Subsequently, regulations for the area are drawn up and 

another public hearing is held on the proposed 

regulations. Final approval is obtained from the Board 

of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) and the 

governor. 

Fig. 5.3: View from Diamond Head (Komoto n.d.)
HAWAI‘I

81

Fishery Management Areas 

National Classification: Zoned Multiple-Use and 

Uniform Multiple-Use, Sustainable Production MPAs

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The authority for DLNR to designate areas as FMAs 

comes from HRS 188-53 and 187A-5. Under HRS 188-

53, which was passed in 1985, DLNR may establish, 

maintain, manage, and operate marine fishing reserves, 

refuges, and public fishing areas, and may make, adopt, 

and amend rules and issue permits to manage these 

areas. DLNR also has the authority to adopt, amend, 

and repeal rules for the conservation and allocation of 

the natural supply of aquatic life in any area under HRS 

187A-5. 

DAR is the primary agency responsible for managing 

the FMAs. However, many of the FMAs have 

boundaries that overlap with ocean recreation 

management areas, which have rules to reduce conflicts 

among ocean users. These areas are managed by the 

Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DOBOR). 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

HRS 188-53 states that fishing reserves, refuges, and 

public fishing areas are established for the purpose of 

managing, preserving, protecting, conserving, and 

propagating fish or marine life.

Fishery management areas (FMAs) are established to 

address user conflicts among various fisher groups and 

other user groups (e.g., recreational and commercial 

fishers, boaters, tour operators, and aquarium fish 

collectors). The 10 FMAs in this report were also 

established to provide increased protection to one or 

more resources, such as endangered species. 

FMAs have zones that restrict uses by user type, or 

areas that are closed to certain fishing gears (e.g., net 

fishing) or activities (e.g., boating) to reduce conflict and 

avoid depletion of resources. Each FMA has detailed, 

site-specific rules that target the issue(s) that it was 

established to address. 

Management Activities: 

While there are no management plans for the FMAs, 

several programs are used to manage the sites. 

Monitoring: 

Most FMAs are not monitored on a consistent basis, 

except in the Waikiki-Diamond Head FMA and FMAs 

along the West Hawai‘i coastline. These sites have been, 

or are, monitored by DAR on a continuous basis to 

assess their effectiveness. In some sites, such as 

harbors, project-related (e.g., dredging) surveys are 

conducted. 

Table 5.2: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the 10 

Fishery Management Areas (FMAs) 

Fishery Management Areas 

(FMAs) 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Hilo Bay, Wailoa River, Wailuku 

River x x 

Kahului Harbor x x 

Kailua Bay x x x x 

Keauhou Bay x x x x x x 

Kiholo Bay x x x x 

Kona Coast x x x x 

Nawiliwili Harbor x 

Puako Bay, Puako Reef x x x x x 

South Kona (Miloli‘i) x x x x x x x 

Waikiki-Diamond Head x x x x x x 
HAWAI‘I 

82

Education and Outreach: 

Outreach and education 

activities are carried out by 

DLNR and many of its 

partners, especially along the 

West Hawai‘i coastline. 

Numerous presentations are 

given to the public by DLNR, 

University of Hawai‘i (UH) Sea 

Grant, and the Hawai‘i Coral 

Reef Initiative. UH Sea GrantWest Hawai‘i conducts 

ReefTalks and ReefWatches on 

a monthly basis. Some local 

community groups, such as the Save Kahului Harbor 

Coalition, or community associations bring individuals 

together who are interested in protecting resources in 

areas with FMAs. 

Enforcement: 

All FMA sites are enforced by DOCARE. See the 

“MLCD” section for more information on enforcement. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

New FMAs may be suggested by the Hawai‘i 

Legislature, the public, and DAR. After meeting with 

the community to determine the area and parameters for 

the new FMA, public meetings are held. All public 

input is incorporated into the new rules, which are then 

submitted to DLNR and the governor for approval. 

West Hawai‘i Regional Fisheries 

Management Area with Fisheries 

Replenishment Areas 

The West Hawai‘i Regional Fisheries Management Area 

(WHRFMA), off the Kona coast of Hawai‘i, consists of 

a network of nine fisheries replenishment areas (FRAs) 

that include over 30 percent of the Kona coastline. The 

nine FRAs are: 

• North Kohala 

• Puako-Anaehoomalu 

• Kaupulehu 

• Kaloko-Honokohau 

• Kailua-Keauhou 

• Red Hill 

• Napoopoo-Honaunau 

• Hookena 

• Miloli’i 

In the early 1970s, multiple-use conflicts 

between collectors and recreational dive 

tour operators raised concerns over 

diminishing nearshore fish stocks. DAR 

suspended aquarium fish permits briefly in 

July 1973, but then lifted the suspension 

and required permittees to submit 

monthly aquarium catches to DAR. The 

documented increase in aquarium fisheries 

catch, and the perceived decline in 

numbers of fish by the public over several 

years, escalated into a contentious debate 

between the recreational dive industry and 

aquarium industry. The two groups met 

in July 1987 and reached an informal agreement 

whereby aquarium collectors would refrain from 

collecting in certain areas and the dive operators would 

not initiate legislation to restrict collecting. 

When the agreement expired after one year, the groups 

agreed to permanently close the previously agreed upon 

areas. These areas were incorporated into the Kona 

Coast FMA, effective in October 1991 (Antolini 2003). 

The FMA worked well at reducing the user conflict for a 

while, but increased pressure from the dive tour sector 

and the aquarium fishery perpetuated the conflict over 

the next several years. In May 1996, the West Hawai‘i 

Reef Fish Working Group convened to develop a 

management plan to regulate the collection of aquarium 

fish. Many of the group’s recommendations were 

included in DAR’s 1997 legislative package, but only 

one recommendation passed, the establishment of 

licenses for aquarium fish exporters. In 1999, after 

significant public involvement, the WHRFMA and the 

nine FRAs were established. 

National Classification: Zoned Multiple-Use, 

Sustainable Production MPAs 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

In addition to the enabling legislation for all FMAs, the 

Hawai‘i Legislature enacted Act 306, codified as HRS 

188F, which established the WHRFMA in 1998. The 

act instructed DLNR to establish the WHRFMA to 

improve the management of consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of aquatic resources along the West 

Hawai‘i coastline. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

HRS 188F-3 outlined the following purposes of the 

WHRFMA: 

1) “Ensure the sustainability of the state’s 

nearshore ocean resources; 

2) Identify areas with resource and use conflicts; 

Fig. 5.4: Community members participate 

in marine algae restoration project 

(Community Conservation Network n.d.) 
HAWAI‘I

83

3) Provide management plans as well as 

implementing regulations for minimizing user 

conflicts and resource depletion, through the 

designation of sections of coastal waters in the 

West Hawai‘i regional fishery management 

areas as fish replenishment areas and where 

certain specified harvesting activities are 

prohibited and other areas where anchoring and 

ocean activities are restricted; 

4) Establish a system of day-use mooring buoys; 

5) Identify areas and resources of statewide 

significance for protection; 

6) Carry out scientific research and monitoring of 

the nearshore resources and environment; and, 

7) Provide for substantive involvement of the 

community” (HRS 188F-3). 

In addition, HRS 188F-4 required DLNR to develop a 

WHRFMA plan that identifies and designates areas of 

the WHRFMA as follows: 1) designates a minimum of 

30 percent of coastal waters as FRAs, in which aquarium 

fish collection is prohibited, 2) establishes a day use 

mooring buoy system and high-use areas where no 

anchoring is allowed, 3) establishes a portion of FRAs as 

fish reserves where no fishing of reef-dwelling fish is 

allowed, and 4) designates areas where the use of gill 

nets as set nets is prohibited. The 30 percent 

determination was deemed necessary based on MPA 

and fisheries research that stated that 20 percent of 

fisheries habitat needed to be placed in reserves while 

the remaining 80 percent be managed using other 

traditional fisheries management tools. However, since 

adequate fisheries management measures were not 

believed to be in place for the open areas, a higher 

percentage (35.2 percent) was considered appropriate 

for the Kona Coast (Walsh 1999). 

The resulting regulations for the WHFMA were 

established through Hawai‘i Administrative Rule (HAR) 

13-60.3. The rule also identifies the boundaries of the 

FRAs, and penalties for violations. Within the nine 

FRAs, it is prohibited to take aquatic life for aquarium 

purposes, or to engage in or attempt to engage in fish 

feeding (HAR 13-60.3-3). Other restrictions may apply 

to specific FRAs. For example, in some areas, gill nets 

are regulated or banned. It is also important to note 

that the WHRFMA does not provide additional 

protection to the waters between the nine FRA sites. 

However, other state MPAs (e.g., MLCDs and FMAs) 

are situated within the WHRFMA and provide increased 

protection to the waters between some of the FRAs. 

Management Activities: 

While the WHFMA has defined purposes and 

supporting regulations, it does not have a management 

plan. 

Research and Monitoring: 

When the West Hawai‘i Reef Fish Working Group 

convened in 1996, DAR and UH began a joint research 

project called the West Hawai‘i Aquarium Project 

(WHAP). This project is monitoring sites to evaluate 

the effectiveness of FRAs as they apply to the 

management of aquarium fish collecting impacts in 

West Hawai‘i. The surveys for the project were 

developed to capture population data before and after 

closures, and to compare closed sites and open access 

areas along the 100 km west coastline of the island of 

Hawai‘i. 

HRS 188F-5 mandates that DAR, in cooperation with 

UH, review the effectiveness of the WHRFMA every 

five years. To meet this mandate, the Hawai‘i Coral 

Reef Initiative Research Program (HCRI-RP) and DAR 

Table 5.3: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the West Hawai‘i 

Regional Fishery Management Area (RFMA) 

Regional Fishery Management 

Area (RFMA) 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

West Hawai‘i x x x x x 

Fig. 5.5: Regulatory signs posted at an FRA (Bos n.d.) 
HAWAI‘I 

84

used annual NOAA coral reef grants to fund a 

monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of 

the FRAs in significantly improving fish stocks. 

After five years, the monitoring data show significant 

increases in the overall abundance of fish targeted by 

collectors. These results demonstrate that MPAs can 

effectively aid in the recovery of exploited fish stocks in 

Hawai‘i. The studies also show that there were no 

significant changes in aquarium fish species outside of 

the FRAs, indicating that the abundance of fish outside 

of MPAs will not necessarily decline due to increased 

fishing pressure in open areas. In addition to the 

increase in overall abundance within the FRAs, there 

has been a decrease in the fishing effort outside the 

FRAs. Since the FRAs went into effect, fishermen are 

able to catch more fish in less time for a higher value 

(DLNR DAR 2004). 

Education and 

Outreach: 

An outreach liaison 

for local advisory 

committees (LACs) 

has been hired with 

grant funding to do 

outreach work with 

communities within 

the WHRFMA. 

These committees 

voice the concerns 

and management 

goals of the local community to the West Hawai‘i 

Fisheries Council (WHFC) (Herkes 2006). See the 

“FMA” section for information about other efforts. 

Enforcement: 

All FRA sites are enforced by DOCARE. See the 

“MLCD” section for more information on enforcement. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

There has been strong public participation since the 

designation of these sites. While their establishment 

was initiated by user conflicts, the underlying reason was 

that the public perceived a decline in the resource and 

was motivated to do something about it. 

One of the purposes of the WHRFMA, as identified in 

HRS 188F-3, is to provide for substantive stakeholder 

involvement in decision making from local residents and 

resource users. DLNR worked with UH Sea Grant to 

develop a process to ensure significant community input 

into the development and designation of FRAs. The 

WHFC was established as the basis of this community 

input process, and it was set up to include 24 voting 

members, as well as non-voting members, ex-officio 

members, and resource members representing a wide 

variety of stakeholders in the area. While DAR is the 

agency responsible for managing and monitoring the 

FRAs, the WHFC serves as a primary source for 

developing and recommending West Hawai‘i 

management actions to DLNR. In 1998, WHFC 

proposed the location and size of the nine FRAs in the 

WHRFMA and developed a management plan, which 

was presented at a public hearing April 1999. The 

public hearing was one of the largest ever held in 

Hawai‘i on a natural resource issue, and there was 

overwhelming public support for FRAs. The nine 

FRAs were closed to aquarium fish collecting on 

December 31, 1999. 

The council has also recommended amendments to 

the rules to extend the regulations to other fishing 

activities besides the aquarium fishery. Some of 

these rules include setting aside certain areas for 

cultural practices, establishing mooring areas, 

banning gear specific fishing activities such as 

SCUBA spearfishing, and banning commercial 

netting activities while providing for subsistence 

netting. 

Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Areas 

According to statistics on commercial landings of 

fish kept by DAR since 1948, catch rates of onaga 

and ehu (highly valued fish species) have declined 

steadily since the early 1950s, with an even steeper drop 

in the last 10 to 15 years. Additionally, the proportion 

of mature fish in the landings has decreased. In 2000, 

approximately 84 percent of the commercial landings of 

onaga from the MHI were cited as immature, meaning 

they had not yet spawned. This data may indicate that 

the large, mature fish are being depleted from the 

population around the MHI. Based on this information 

and the dynamic spawning potential ratio (SPR), NOAA 

Fisheries scientists reported that the bottomfish fishery 

was in a state of overfishing and had probably been so 

since at least 1989. The SPR uses catch rates and sizefrequencies to calculate a number that compares the 

estimated spawning biomass of the current year's fish 

population to an estimate of the virgin spawning 

biomass (DLNR DAR 2002). 

Bottomfish restricted fishing areas (BRFAs) were 

developed to address the above issues, and to conserve 

the spawning populations of bottomfish. 

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use, 

Sustainable Production MPAs

Fig. 5.6: Young community members 

learning about species identification and 

biological monitoring in Miloli’i FRA 

(Philibotte n.d.)
HAWAI‘I

85

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The authority for DLNR to designate areas as 

bottomfish restricted fishing areas (BRFAs) was 

established through HRS 187A-5 (1993), which allows 

DLNR to adopt, amend, and repeal rules for the 

conservation and allocation of the natural supply of 

aquatic life in any area. More specifically, under HAR 

13-94, effective in 1998, DLNR “will restrict fishing in 

certain areas to conserve the spawning populations of 

bottomfish” (HAR 13-94-8). 

DAR manages all BRFAs. The sites are enforced by 

DOCARE. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

BRFAs were established throughout the MHI based on 

several factors. DLNR considered the location of good 

bottomfish habitat areas and the most effective 

distribution of the areas, recognizing the potential 

benefits and limiting negative impacts. Consideration 

was also given to suggestions from bottomfish fishers. 

In an effort to develop a comprehensive management 

program to protect these deep water species, 20 percent 

of bottomfish spawning areas were included in BRFAs. 

Lastly, to improve compliance and enforcement, the 

inshore boundary for BRFAs was set at the 100 fathoms 

contour (based on NOAA benthic habitat maps). 

To conserve the spawning populations of bottomfish, 

BRFAs prohibit fishing for the following species: 

Ula‘ula koa‘e or onaga (red snapper); Ula‘ula or ehu 

(ruby snapper); Kalekale; Opakapaka; Ukikiki or gindai; 

Hapu‘u; and Lehi. Specifically, HAR 13-94 states that 

“it is unlawful for any person to take or possess 

bottomfish while in a vessel that is drifting or anchoring 

within any BRFA, except in times of emergencies or as 

may be otherwise authorized by law” (HAR 13-94-8(b)). 

Most bottom-fishing is prohibited in BRFAs, except for 

consumptive recreational and subsistence fishing, which 

are allowed with restrictions or permits. It is unlawful 

for any person, without a current commercial marine 

license issued pursuant to HAR 13-74-20, to take or 

possess more than five onaga, five ehu, or a combined 

total of five of both. Fishing for species other than 

bottomfish is allowed. 

 

DAR and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) have reviewed the location of the BRFAs to 

evaluate their effectiveness. NMFS recently determined 

that bottom-fishing effort in the MHI needed to be 

reduced by an additional 15 percent to ensure that the 

stocks were not placed in an overfished state. To 

address this issue, DAR worked with the University of 

Table 5.4: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the 12 

Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Areas (BRFAs) 

Bottomfish Restricted Fishing 

Areas (BRFAs) 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Site A x x 

Site B x x 

Site C x x x 

Site D x x x 

Site E x x x x 

Site F x x 

Site G x x x 

Site H x x 

Site J x x x 

Site K x x x 

Site L x x 

Site M x x 

NOTE: Recent amendments to the sites include areas that have shown indications of presence by adult and juvenile fish. 

However, further research is needed to confirm that these sites are, in fact, spawning areas. 
HAWAI‘I 

86

Hawai‘i to map areas with bottomfish resources, 

including identifying bottomfish habitat areas where 

there were indications of presence by adult and juvenile 

fish. This information was used in conjunction with 

commercial fish landings and fishermen interviews to 

determine the effectiveness of the original 19 BRFAs 

and to make recommendations for revising those areas. 

The recent amendments reduce the number of areas 

from 19 sites to 12, while increasing the total area 

designated as BRFAs. Many of the 12 new sites consist 

of old sites that were expanded or slightly modified. 

However, the amendments also completely eliminate 

some old sites and create some entirely new areas. 

The recent amendments are meant to address “the 

requirements to achieve the mandated 15% reduction in 

fishing mortality and other considerations, such as areas 

likely to do the most good with respect to larval export, 

protecting probable breeding habitat and areas utilized 

by juveniles” (DLNR 2006). DLNR and NOAA’s 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center are preparing to 

conduct an assessment of the proposed sites before they 

are closed to determine what specific resources are 

within the sites and to provide a baseline for future 

evaluation of their effectiveness at meeting their 

objectives. 

Management Activities: 

There are no management 

plans for the BRFAs and 

management activities are 

limited within the areas. 

Research and Monitoring: 

The NOAA Pacific Island 

Fisheries Science Center 

conducts research on the life 

history, ecology, and stock 

status of bottomfish in the 

Pacific Islands region. Research funded by DAR has 

enabled the UH Undersea Research Laboratory to use 

the Pisces' submersibles to visit 22 different sites since 

1998, and to record the difference between the bottom 

characteristics of locations where bottomfish existed 

and did not exist. Scientists from UH and federal and 

state agencies collaborated to study the onaga (Ula‘ula 

koa‘e, Etelis coruscans) and ehu (Ula‘ula, E. carbunculus), 

including identifying critical habitat, performing genetic 

analyses, developing methods to maintain live fish in 

captivity, and learning about their interactions with 

introduced ta’ape. 

As previously mentioned, DAR has been keeping 

statistics on commercial landings since 1948. Reports 

indicate that the catch rates of onaga and ehu have 

declined steadily since the early 1950s, and have 

dropped even more steeply in the last 10 to 15 years. 

DAR is currently reviewing the BRFAs with bottomfish 

data obtained from the UH Undersea Research 

Laboratory, including essential habitat and nursery areas, 

species distribution, and abundance. In addition to this 

data, the review is incorporating current catch statistics, 

impact on fishers, and enforcement aspects. 

Education and Outreach: 

To inform the public about the bottomfish rules, DAR 

distributed 30,000 brochures with a foldout map of the 

BRFAs and a summary of the regulations. Flyers for 

bottomfish vessel registration were disseminated 

through DAR offices and fishing supply stores 

statewide. The proposed BFRA site maps were also 

mailed to all fishermen who expressed interest in the 

new sites. A bottomfish management webpage was 

developed, and local newspapers published numerous 

articles about the new regulations. DAR staff gave 

several talks to fishing clubs, DOCARE officers, the 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 

and others. DAR staff also gave television and radio 

interviews, participated in live television shows, and 

presented at international workshops on the new 

BRFAs. 

Enforcement: 

All BRFA sites are enforced by DOCARE. See 

the “MLCD” section for more information on 

enforcement. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

In 1995, to address the overfishing conditions, 

DLNR established an ad hoc advisory panel of 

recreational and commercial fishermen from all 

over the state, representatives from the fishing 

industry, and fishery managers, scientists, and 

enforcement personnel from other government 

agencies. The purpose of this panel was to develop a 

comprehensive management plan for MHI bottomfish 

(i.e., onaga and ehu). Throughout 1995, DAR and the 

advisory panel developed a set of management 

proposals, which were presented to select groups of 

fishermen in statewide roundtable discussions. Using 

the input from these discussions, DAR turned the 

proposals into a draft administrative rule. 

The rule was presented at statewide public informational 

meetings with fishermen, and in formal public hearings. 

In all, more than 42 meetings were held to incorporate 

input and recommendations from fisherman and the 

public, many of which were utilized by the department 

prior to the establishment of the BRFAs in 1998. 

Fig. 5.7: Onaga and other fish species 

observed at a bait station during a 

UH Undersea Research Laboratory 

dive (Moffitt 2004)
HAWAI‘I

87

DAR has also encouraged public participation in the 

current effort to revise the BRFAs to improve their 

effectiveness. In early 2006, DAR held informational 

meetings to share and discuss the boundaries of the 

newly proposed sites. This information was used by the 

agency to help modify the boundaries of the BRFA 

sites. 

Natural Area Reserves 

Natural area reserves (NARs) aim to protect complex 

ecosystems that support native plants and animals, many 

of which are threatened with extinction. There is one 

natural area reserve with a marine component, the Ahihi 

Kina‘u Natural Area Reserve, which is also the first 

reserve established under the 1973 natural area reserves 

system (NARS) statute. The reserve includes 

submerged lands extending beyond Cape Kina‘u, which 

contain unique geological features and a diverse marine 

community associated with lava flows. Communities 

protected by the reserve include anchialine ponds, 

subterranean lava tubes, and aeolian systems on the 

surface of the flows that are host to many rare native 

plants and animals. 

National Classification: No Impact, Natural 

Heritage MPA

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The NARS was established under HRS 195, which 

defines the powers and duties of DLNR, authorizes the 

department to make, amend, and repeal rules, 

establishes a natural areas reserves system commission, a 

natural area reserve fund, and requires the development 

of a comprehensive management plan for the NARS. 

DLNR’s Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) 

manages the natural area reserves. DLNR’s Division of 

Boating and Recreation (DOBOR) establishes rules for 

ocean use in the area, and DAR provides management 

and monitoring support for the marine portion. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

The main purpose of the NARS is to preserve and 

protect representative samples of unique Hawaiian 

biological ecosystems and geological formations that are 

vulnerable to loss. The reserves were also established 

for the enjoyment of future generations, and to provide 

a baseline against which other native ecosystems can be 

measured (HRS 195). 

To support these purposes, DLNR adopted regulations 

for all NARs, which state that it is prohibited to remove, 

injure, kill, or introduce any form of plant and animal 

life, or to remove, damage, or disturb any geological or 

paleontological feature or substance (HAR 13-209-4). 

Additionally, HAR 13-244-32 prohibits the operation of 

any motorized water vehicle on or in the waters of Ahihi 

Kina‘u Natural Area Reserve. 

The following objectives have been established for 

‘Ahihi-Kina‘u Natural Area Reserve (DLNR DOFAW 

2006): 

A. Preservation – The NAR will ensure that all 

user activities and management changes are 

consistent with NARS rules and regulations. 

B. User Levels - The number of people utilizing 

the NAR is reasonable and controlled to 

minimize impacts to the resources and to 

provide a safe and enjoyable experience. 

C. Education - Meaningful educational and 

interpretive opportunities are provided in the 

areas of conservation, history, rules and 

regulations, and safety. 

D. Maintenance - Maintenance of infrastructure 

(e.g., portable toilets, roads, and trails) is 

provided in a cost-effective manner to minimize 

impacts to the NAR’s resources and to ensure 

the health and safety of its users. 

E. Safety - Safety rules and regulations, signs, and 

safety services are available to ensure safety for 

all users. 

Table 5.5: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the 

Ahihi Kina‘u Natural Area Reserve (NAR) 

Natural Area Reserve (NAR) 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Ahihi Kina‘u x x x x 
HAWAI‘I 

88

Management Activities:

A draft management plan was completed in 2003, but it 

has not yet been adopted by BLNR. Another plan has 

been presented to the NARS Commission; it is still 

undergoing revisions as of August 2006. 

Research and Monitoring: 

A volunteer group conducts human use surveys. 

Surveys have also been done to document the presence 

of invasive species, such as crown-of-thorns starfish. 

DAR has been conducting coral reef surveys since 1999 

to characterize the nearshore fish and invertebrate 

community, and coral cover. In 1985, the Marine 

Option Program at UH completed a baseline survey of 

the Ahihi Bay area. The survey identified ten species of 

coral, with 16.4 percent coral cover, and 66 species of 

fish (University of Hawai‘i Marine Option Program 

1985). 

Education and Outreach: 

As part of the Makai Watch Program (see “Working 

Towards a Network” section), volunteers with a 

nonprofit organization are trained to provide outreach 

to visitors at a key entry station during high use times. 

The outreach includes coral reef etiquette, and 

information about the NAR’s cultural elements and 

biological resources. In addition, two DOFAW rangers 

walk around 

the reserve to 

assist stranded 

hikers, 

provide 

education 

about the 

reserve, and 

patrol the area 

for potential 

violations of 

the rules. 

Enforcement: 

All NARS 

sites are enforced by DOCARE. See the “MLCD” 

section for more information on enforcement. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

A NARS site can be nominated by commission 

members, DOFAW, or other scientists and individuals. 

Public hearings are held to receive input on the proposal 

and site regulations. In addition to hearings about the 

proposed site, informational meetings are held on the 

island where the site is located. 

Volunteers with the Makai Watch Program continue to 

staff the education table and to provide visitors with 

information about the reserve. They also conduct 

human use surveys to determine the high use areas, 

what activities visitors are involved in, and when the 

high use times are. 

Cultural Reserves: 

In 1976, a group of 50-60 islanders challenged the 

federal government’s occupation of the island of 

Kaho‘olawe, intending to occupy the island to halt the 

bombing that had been occurring since 1941. Nine 

made it to shore and the grassroots group, known as the 

Protect Kaho‘olawe Ohana (PKO), filed a federal civil 

suit seeking to halt the Navy’s bombing activities on the 

island. In 1977, the court ordered the Navy to conduct 

an environmental impact statement and to supply an 

inventory of, and to protect, the historic sites on the 

island. In 1980, a consent decree was reached in the 

suit, where the Navy agreed to do the following: 1) 

survey and protect historic and cultural sites on the 

island, 2) clear surface ordnance from 10,000 acres, 3) 

continue soil conservation and re-vegetation programs, 

4) eradicate the goats from the island, 5) limit ordnance 

impact training to the central third of the island, and 6) 

allow monthly PKO accesses to the island. 

In November 1994, after more than five decades of 

control by the U.S. Navy, Kaho’olawe was conveyed 

back to the state of Hawai‘i. While the Navy was 

responsible for the cleanup of unexploded ordnance, 

there still remains an imminent peril to public health and 

safety on the island and in the surrounding waters. 

Kaho’olawe is of tremendous cultural and historical 

significance to native Hawaiians. 

National Classification: Zoned Multiple-Use, 

Cultural Heritage MPA 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

Kaho‘olawe Island Reserve was established under HRS 

6K-4 (1993), which also created the Kaho‘olawe Island 

Reserve Commission (KIRC) within DLNR to manage 

the reserve and adopt, amend, and repeal rules. The 

reserve includes the island of Kaho‘olawe and the waters 

extending two miles from its shoreline. The statute also 

provides that the reserve be held in trust as part of the 

public land trust and that “the State shall transfer 

management and control of the island and its waters to 

the sovereign native Hawaiian entity upon its 

recognition by the United States and the State of 

Hawai‘i” (HRS 6K-9). 

Fig. 5.8: Rangers at the NAR observe 

recreational users and conduct outreach 

(Ramsey n.d.) 
HAWAI‘I

89

KIRC is responsible for the policy and management 

oversight of Kaho‘olawe Island Reserve. The 

commission is administratively attached to DLNR and 

consists of members from various stakeholder groups, 

including governmental agencies and non-governmental 

native Hawaiian groups. KIRC uses the federal funds 

designated for state responsibilities to carry out 

management activities in the reserve. The primary 

management activities are the administration and 

enforcement of policies that support the restoration of 

the island’s natural resources for their traditional and 

cultural values.

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

The reserve was established for the purposes of 

preservation, and practice of, native Hawaiian rights for 

cultural, spiritual, and subsistence purposes; 

preservation of the island’s archaeological, historical, 

and environmental resources; rehabilitation, habitat 

restoration, and revegetation; and, education (HRS 6K4). 

Regulations for the reserve were adopted through HAR 

13-261, which states that it is prohibited to enter the 

reserve for any purpose unless authorized to do so 

(HAR 13-261-10). This prohibition includes diving, 

surfing, swimming, snorkeling and walking in shallow 

waters. Entry into the reserve must be consistent with 

its purpose, and is allowed only by application to KIRC. 

The regulations also prohibit the removal or disturbance 

of any aquatic life, wildlife, natural or geological 

resource, archeological artifact, or mineral. Commercial 

activities and fishing are not permitted. Specifically, no 

person may possess “any fishing gear or device, 

including, but not limited to, any hook-and-line, rod, 

reel, spear, trap, net, crowbar, or other device, or 

noxious chemical that may be used for the taking or 

altering of any aquatic life” (HAR 13-261-14). Within 

one zone, trolling is permitted two weekends per 

month, which is based on the Hawaiian fishing calendar. 

The vision for Kaho‘olawe is “The kino of Kanaloa is 

restored. Forests and shrub lands of native plants and 

other biota clothe its slopes and valleys. Pristine ocean 

waters and healthy reef ecosystems are the foundation 

that supports and surrounds the island. Na po‘e Hawai‘i 

care for the land in a manner which recognizes the 

island and ocean of Kanaloa as a living spiritual entity. 

Kanaloa is a pu‘uhonua and wahi pana where native 

Hawaiian cultural practices flourish. The piko of 

Kanaloa is the crossroads of past and future generations 

from which the native Hawaiian lifestyle spreads 

throughout the islands” (Kaho‘olawe Island Reserve 

Commission 2004). 

 

KIRC’s four strategic priorities are leadership, 

stewardship, restoration, and perpetuation and 

education. The first priority of KIRC is the cleanup and 

restoration of Kaho’olawe and its surrounding waters 

(PBR Hawai‘i 1995). 

Management Activities: 

The reserve has several different operational plans, 

including a strategic plan, use plan, environmental 

restoration plan, cultural resources, ocean recreation 

management plan, access and risk management plan, 

and an access policy. The use plan was developed 1994 

in accordance with Section VI of the Memorandum of 

Understanding with the U.S. Navy. PKO has developed 

an Access Plan and Procedures based on 23 years 

experience conducting trips to the island. 

Research and Monitoring: 

The Coral Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program, 

DAR, and several research institutions conduct 

monitoring on the island. Numerous agencies have 

monitoring efforts focused the reserve’s waters, 

including fish and algae monitoring and benthic habitat 

mapping. KIRC’s Ocean Resource Management 

Program has initiated an apex fish-tagging project. This 

non-lethal tag and release program will assist scientists 

in the monitoring and understanding of fish growth 

rates, migratory patterns, and possible spillover effects 

Table 5.6: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the 

Kaho‘olawe Island Cultural Marine Reserve 

Cultural Marine Reserve 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Kaho‘olawe Island Reserve x x x x 
HAWAI‘I 

90

the reserve may have on 

neighboring waters. 

KIRC, with assistance 

from the UH Marine 

Option Program, 

completed an additional 

survey of the fish and 

marine life of 

Kaho‘olawe in August 

of 2006. 

Education and Outreach: 

KIRC maintains staff to assist in the management of the 

reserve, including a volunteer and outreach coordinator. 

The reserve conducts restoration field trips and beach 

clean-ups on a regular basis, writes a newsletter about 

reserve activities, and creates videos about the reserve 

and the restoration efforts. Staff also give presentations 

at various conferences and public meetings around the 

state. 

PKO is a grassroots organization whose mission is “to 

perpetuate Aloha ‘Aina throughout our islands through 

cultural, educational and spiritual activities that heal and 

revitalize the cultural and natural resources on 

Kaho‘olawe” (PKO 2006). This group has been 

conducting cultural and spiritual activities on the island 

since 1980, and developed the 2004 Access Plan and 

Procedure to guide access and appropriate conduct for 

the island. 

Enforcement: 

The reserve is enforced by DOCARE. See the 

“MLCD” section for more information on enforcement. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

KIRC conducts monthly meetings that are open to the 

public. The public can also get involved with the 

restoration activities conducted by PKO, which are 

usually held February through November during the full 

moon. 

Wildlife Sanctuaries 

Wildlife sanctuaries include state owned or controlled 

lands, surface water areas, islands, islets, and rocks. The 

sanctuaries are where native and endangered waterbirds, 

as well as migratory seabirds roost, nest, or rest on their 

way to other areas. Some sanctuaries contain protected 

environments for native coastal vegetation, including 

naupaka and ilima. There are four wildlife sanctuaries in 

the state, but only the Paiko Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary 

includes coastal habitat. 

The Paiko Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary is located in East 

O‘ahu, and it includes all of the state owned land areas 

adjacent to Paiko Lagoon and water areas within Paiko 

Lagoon. Paiko Lagoon, formerly a coastal fishpond, is 

fed by a freshwater spring and Kuliouou Stream. The 

lagoon's water level varies with the tides and 

occasionally exposes the saline mudflats. The silt and 

mudflat habitat within the lagoon provides important 

resting, nesting, and feeding sites for native shorebirds 

and migratory waterbirds. The site was designated in 

1974 as a bird sanctuary for the native endangered 

Hawaiian stilt and other native birds. 

While the lagoon (a former fishpond) acts as a de facto 

MPA, it has never been managed as such because the 

benthic habitat has been significantly altered due to 

coastal development. The proximity of residential uses 

and intrusions by humans and domesticated animals 

may threaten the sanctuary. 

National Classification: No-Take, Natural Heritage 

MPA 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The Paiko Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary was established 

through the HRS 183D-4 (1993), which states that 

DLNR may establish, maintain, manage, and operate 

wildlife sanctuaries for the purpose of preserving, 

protecting, conserving, and propagating wildlife. Under 

HRS 183D-3, DLNR was given the authority to adopt, 

Table 5.7: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Paiko Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary 

Wildlife Sanctuary 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Paiko Lagoon x 

Fig. 5.9: Underwater surveying 

with the UH Marine Option 

Program (Stanton n.d.) 
HAWAI‘I

91

amend, and repeal rules concerning the preservation, 

protection, regulation, extension, and utilization of, and 

entry into wildlife sanctuaries. 

DOFAW is responsible for the management of this site. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections: 

Rules for the sanctuaries were established under HRS 

13-125 for the purpose of conserving, protecting, and 

managing indigenous wildlife. More specifically, the 

rules prohibit the removal, disturbance, injury, killing, 

possessing, or introduction of any form of plant or 

wildlife. It is also prohibited to enter or remain on any 

surface water area (HRS 13-125-4). Permits may be 

issued by BLNR for access related to scientific, 

educational, or conservation purposes. 

 

Management Activities: 

DOFAW has overall management guidelines to address 

the desired levels of human use activities on its managed 

lands. The guidelines are in draft form, but they are 

intended to provide administrative policy direction, and 

to prioritize resource management activities, with 

recognition of the importance and sustainability of 

native ecosystems. With the goal of ensuring the 

perpetuity of native habitats, DOFAW determined the 

appropriate levels of intensity within each of the 

vegetation classes for three activities (forest products, 

recreation, and game management). 

Research and Monitoring: 

While birds are monitored extensively by 

UH students and scientists, and other 

agencies, the marine portion of the 

sanctuary is not monitored on a regular 

basis. Some surveys of alien algae have 

been done by UH Botany Department 

students, and DAR staff. Students from 

the local high school are conducting alien 

algae surveys, water quality monitoring, 

and limu (native seaweed) restoration. 

The Bishop Museum did a survey to 

determine if non-indigenous species could 

have an impact on sport fishing in the 

stream and estuarine areas. The museum 

found that areas more marine in character, 

like Paiko Lagoon, had more native species (Englund, et 

al. 2000). 

Education and Outreach: 

Signs indicate that the area is a wildlife sanctuary, with 

no access allowed. The Hawai‘i Audubon Society 

conducts bird surveys and trips to the sanctuary to view 

the endangered birds. 

Enforcement: 

The sanctuary is enforced by DOCARE. See the 

“MLCD” section for more information on enforcement. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

As mentioned above, the public may enter the area with 

the Hawai‘i Audubon Society to view endangered birds. 

Volunteer opportunities in the sanctuary include nonnative plant (e.g., mangrove) control, trash removal, 

predator control, and restoration. 

Marine Laboratory Refuge 

In 1936, Christian Holmes, heir to the Fleischmann 

yeast fortune, purchased Moku O Lo‘e (a.k.a., Coconut 

Island) from the Bishop Estate and made extensive 

modifications that resulted in a larger island. These 

modifications included seawalls, rocks, lagoons, spits, 

piers, and fishponds, which are utilized by UH today. 

Significant dredging, grading, and fill created the lagoons 

and most of the flatter sections of the island. In 1947, 

the Edwin Pauley family purchased the island; in 1951, 

they allowed the use of one of the old Army buildings as 

a field station for UH’s Marine Lab. After the building 

burned down, the family provided funding for the 

island’s original laboratory. 

Moku O Lo‘e (Moku means “island” or 

“splitting,” and Lo‘e means “bend in a 

fish hook”) is speculated to have been 

used as a lookout by fishermen, who had 

temporary residences on the island. The 

island is surrounded by 64 acres of coral 

reef, designated by the state as the 

Hawai‘i Marine Laboratory Refuge. The 

island itself covers around 29 acres, with 

six acres enclosed in lagoons that are 

used for keeping organisms in captivity 

for study by Hawai‘i Institute of Marine 

Biology (HIMB) faculty and students. 

In the early 1950s, tuna that were being 

used in an experimental project were 

captured and transferred alive to the 

ponds of the Hawai‘i Marine Laboratory at a substantial 

cost. The captive tuna were speared out of the ponds 

and stolen. Because fishers could come close to the 

ponds to fish on the reefs, it was difficult to properly 

patrol the area. In response, the site was established as a 

marine laboratory refuge in Kane‘ohe Bay to create a 

protective area around the laboratory. 

Fig. 5.10: Fishponds around 

Coconut Island (Kozlowski 

2006) 
HAWAI‘I 

92

National Classification: No Access, Natural 

Heritage MPAs

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The Hawai‘i Marine Laboratory Refuge was established 

through HRS 188-36 (1993), which defines the refuge as 

consisting of “the reefs and bay waters surrounding the 

island of Moku-o-loe located in Kaneohe Bay, island of 

Oahu, from the high water mark on the island extending 

outward to "twenty-five feet beyond the outer edges of 

the reefs"”(HRS 188-36). DLNR manages the refuge 

and enforces its regulations. 

Goals, Objectives, 

Policies, and 

Protections: 

Under HRS 188-36, it 

is unlawful for any 

unauthorized person to 

take any aquatic life 

within the refuge. 

Only researchers 

associated with HIMB 

are allowed to collect specimens from the refuge. 

Outside scientists must coordinate with an HIMB 

faculty member in order to conduct research at the 

refuge. Other visitors must have an HIMB sponsor, 

sign a waiver/release form, and access the island via 

scheduled boat service. Other access is strictly limited, 

although kayakers and boaters informally access the 

southern point (Maile Point) for picnics and rest. 

Conflicts occur when unauthorized visitors enter areas 

of active research. 

Management Activities: 

The Coconut Island Long Range Development Plan was 

developed in 2001 to address future facilities, research, 

access, and other related management issues. 

Research and Monitoring: 

CRAMP conducts monitoring of the area. A recent 

survey found that the refuge, along with other no-take 

areas, had the highest values for most fish assemblage 

characteristics (species richness, size, diversity). In 

addition to CRAMP, the staff and students at HIMB 

utilize the area for their research. Research topics 

include coral disease and bleaching, marine mammal 

bioacoustics, molecular ecology, gene flow of corals, 

spectral analysis via aircraft and satellite-based remote 

sensing of coral reef ecosystems, and ecology of coral 

reefs in relation to other geographic areas. 

Education and Outreach: 

HIMB staff conduct educational outreach 

programs, tours, and other programs for 

school groups. These programs provide 

visitors with a history of the island, its current 

uses and protections, and types of research 

occurring on the island. 

Enforcement: 

The site is enforced by DOCARE. See the 

“MLCD” section for more information on 

enforcement. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

The public is allowed access to the island if they have an 

HIMB sponsor. Various educational programs and 

workshops are offered for students and the public. 

Marine Refuge 

In September 2006, the governor of Hawai‘i created the 

largest single conservation area in the history of the state 

(either marine or terrestrial) by creating the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) State Marine 

Refuge. This marine refuge includes all state waters, 

Table 5.8: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Moku O Lo‘e Island (Coconut Island)

Marine Laboratory Refuge 

Marine Laboratory Refuge 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Moku O Lo‘e Island (Coconut 

Island) x x 

Fig. 5.11: Aerial photo of Coconut Island 

and surrounding reefs (Daniel n.d.) 
HAWAI‘I

93

from the shoreline to three miles offshore, of all the 

islands and atolls in the 1,200 mile chain of islands to 

the northwest of Kauai and Niihau, except Midway 

Atoll. 

On June 15, 2006, President Bush created the NWHI 

Marine National Monument by signing a proclamation. 

In so doing, he created the 

largest conservation area in the 

world. The NWHI Marine 

National Monument 

incorporated the previously 

established national wildlife 

refuges, the NWHI Coral Reef 

Ecosystem Reserve, and the 

NWHI State Marine Refuge, and 

called for the creation of a new 

form of governance whereby the 

U.S. Departments of the 

Interior, Commerce, and State 

would cooperatively manage the area. 

National Classification: No Impact, Natural 

Heritage MPA 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The NWHI State Marine Refuge was established 

through HAR 13-60.5, which states that DLNR intends 

to establish a marine refuge “for the long-term 

conservation and protection of the unique coral reef 

ecosystems and the related marine resources and 

species, to ensure their conservation and natural 

character for present and future generations” (HAR 13-

60.5-1(1)). 

The marine resources within the NWHI State Marine 

Refuge are managed by several agencies. DAR has 

specific management responsibility for all marine 

resources out to three nautical miles from all emergent 

lands, with the exception of Midway Atoll. DOFAW is 

a related management agency that manages Kure Atoll 

as a state wildlife sanctuary. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service manage the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge on eight of the islands and atolls, and claims 

administrative boundaries to a depth of 10 or 20 

fathoms around these islands. NOAA Fisheries and the 

National Marine Sanctuary Program manage the waters 

out to 50 miles offshore. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and 

Protections: 

The purpose of the refuge, as detailed in 

HAR 13-60.5-1, is to: 

• manage, preserve, protect and 

conserve the unique resources in the 

marine refuge, using the best available 

science and a precautionary 

management approach to resource 

protection to minimize risks of 

possible adverse impacts to the 

regional ecosystem, its biodiversity or its indigenous 

wildlife, especially where data is limited; 

• implement a permit entry program that is consistent 

with the management programs in the adjacent 

Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge and the 

NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve; 

• support, promote, and coordinate appropriate 

scientific research, assessment and monitoring of 

refuge resources, and the impacts of threats thereto 

from human and other activities; 

• allow native Hawaiian cultural, subsistence, and 

religious practices that are consistent with the longterm conservation and protection of the resources; 

and, 

• coordinate management among state and federal 

agencies in the region to provide comprehensive 

conservation of the resources. 

To support these objectives, the regulations prohibit 

entry into the reserve without a permit, including setting 

foot on shore or any emergent land or reef. Vessel 

discharge and any activities that can result in damage to 

coral, including anchoring, are prohibited. 

Table 5.9: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands Marine Refuge 

Marine Refuge 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands x x x x x x x x x 

Fig. 5.12: Reef fish in the NWHI State 

Marine Refuge (Watt n.d.) 
HAWAI‘I 

94

It is also illegal to take marine life for the purpose of 

sale (HAR 13-60.5-4). A person may enter the refuge 

only with a permit for “scientific or education purposes; 

non-extractive purposes undertaken to further the 

knowledge of resources or which provide for enhanced 

resources protection or benefit resource management; 

and subsistence, traditional and customary practices by 

Native Hawaiians consistent with the long-term 

preservation of the refuge resources” (HAR 13-60.5-

5(b)). 

Management Activities: 

The state is working cooperatively with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Sanctuary 

Program to develop a joint management plan for the 

newly created and designated NWHI Marine National 

Monument. 

Research and Monitoring: 

Monitoring and research are conducted by various local 

and federal partners by permit only. 

Education and Outreach: 

Outreach and education are done jointly through the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine 

Sanctuary Program, and the state of Hawai‘i. 

Enforcement: 

While DOCARE has primary responsibility for 

enforcing the NWHI Marine Refuge, enforcement of 

the region is also done jointly by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the NOAA Office of Law 

Enforcement, and the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

The rules demonstrate DLNR’s 

responsiveness to the conservation 

measures requested by considerable public 

comment. Two rounds of public hearings 

held statewide over the last three-and-a-half 

years resulted in over 25,000 public 

comments received. 

“The public input on these proposed rules 

has been outstanding,” Young said. “We 

heard loud and clear from the public that 

they feel that the NWHI is a special place 

worthy of the highest levels of protection” 

(Gonser 2006). 

CHALLENGES TO MPA 

EFFECTIVENESS 

Public Support: 

While there have been several successes with Hawai‘i’s 

MPAs, there remains strong opposition to the use of 

MPAs as a management tool. This dissent has affected 

the state’s ability to pass regulations establishing new 

sites or supporting MPA networks. 

Enforcement: 

DOCARE has been stretched thin due to a lack of 

funding, drug enforcement and crime prevention duties, 

and tasks associated with homeland security. With 

officers responsible for both land and marine activities 

for the entire island, there are simply not enough 

officers to witness and catch every violator. An audit 

conducted by the state auditor office found that 

DOCARE does not have enough officers to patrol the 

land and waterways, and to respond to hotline calls. 

The audit suggested that the lack of officers contributes 

to the overuse and abuse of Hawai‘i’s resources. 

The audit included recommendations to: develop a 

long-term strategic plan and meaningful performance 

measures, actively seek more federal grants, establish 

cross-divisional working groups, and periodically 

schedule field supervisors and enforcement officers to 

work late night and early morning shifts. 

In response to the audit, DLNR has placed more 

rangers at selected natural area reserves and state parks, 

Management Challenges in Hawai‘i’s MPAs

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Funding/

Resources

Capacity Public

Support 

Monitoring Enforcement

 Fig. 5.13: Percent of MPAs (out of 18 total responses) that identified each 

 issue as a challenge to effective MPA management. Data reported for the 

 Ahihi Kina‘u NAR, Kaho‘olawe Island Reserve, Paiko Lagoon Wildlife 

 Sanctuary, Moku O Lo‘e Island (Coconut Island) Marine Laboratory Refuge, 

 Northwestern Hawaiian Islands State Marine Refuge, West Hawai‘i Regional 

 FMA, 3 out of 10 FMAs, and 9 out of 11 MLCDs. No BRFAs responded to 

 the question.
HAWAI‘I

95

and has worked with several non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs) and coastal community groups to 

develop the Makai Watch Program. Communities 

participating in the Makai Watch Program work closely 

with local DOCARE officers to provide outreach and 

education to users in the area and report violations, 

thereby making DOCARE efforts more effective. 

MPA Management Capacity: 

While there are numerous MPAs in Hawai‘i, there is 

limited implementation of management programs or 

activities in these areas. Few MPAs have on-site 

managers and many of the DAR staff responsible for 

MPA management have other duties. DAR only has 

one staff member working on the comprehensive review 

of MPAs as a part of the new MPA framework process, 

and this position is a temporary contract position. 

Monitoring occurs regularly at some sites, but other sites 

are only visited occasionally, as staff and resources are 

available. Most of the MPAs have undergone rule 

changes over the years as new issues have been raised, 

and DAR has attempted to integrate adaptive 

management into the overall management of these sites. 

However, no management plans or system site 

assessments have been done. 

Funding: 

Many of the challenges identified above are linked to a 

lack of adequate funding and staffing. Again, the Makai 

Watch Program is improving this situation by 

encouraging community support for management 

efforts. NGOs in Hawai‘i have been particularly active 

in raising funds for this program to complement the 

state’s limited funds and partnering with the state to 

support MPA management. Many MPA management 

activities in the state have also been funded through the 

NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. 

Despite these challenges, it is important to note that 

Hawai‘i has been using MPAs as a management tool for 

several decades. One of the greatest challenges comes 

with the fact that existing sites were mainly established 

to provide the public and Hawai‘i’s visitors with unique 

places to see marine resources in a natural state 

(specifically the no-take MLCDs). In this light, the state 

has been very successful in achieving the goals of the 

sites. However, as our understanding of MPAs as a 

management tool to improve natural resource health has 

increased, these sites have been held to a different 

standard of effectiveness than what they were 

established to achieve. In many ways, the success of the 

MPAs in achieving the goal of providing recreational 

benefits has been an obstacle to gaining further support 

for existing and future sites. Hawai‘i’s fishermen view 

the establishment of new sites, or new regulations in 

existing sites, as an effort to take the sites away from 

them for tourist use. 

WORKING TOWARDS A NETWORK 

West Hawai‘i Regional Fisheries Management Area 

(WHRFMA):

The WHRMA is a network of MPAs that was 

established after several years of user conflicts and 

noted depletion to aquarium fish resources on the Big 

Island of Hawai‘i. While there was initially extensive 

opposition to the establishment of the WHRFMA, years 

of community and stakeholder meetings and 

negotiations eventually resulted in support for the 

network. 

The WHRFMA was established through Act 306 in 

1998, which called for DLNR to improve the 

management of consumptive and non-consumptive uses 

of aquatic resources along the West Hawai‘i coastline by 

placing a minimum of 30 percent of the Kona Coast in 

fish replenishment areas (FRAs). The nine FRAs were 

designated after reviewing existing protected areas on 

the West Hawai‘i coast to determine what additional 

sites were needed to address the mandates of Act 306. 

Factors used to select the sites included the location of 

use conflict areas, enforceability, and known biological 

research. However, several key pieces of information 

were not available during the site selection, such as 

recruitment and current patterns. Therefore, it was 

anticipated that spreading the sites over a large area 

would account for some of the scientific uncertainty and 

allow for further monitoring to better understand fish 

populations along the coast and the effectiveness of the 

sites. More information about this network can be 

found on pp. 82-84 and in the “Success Story” on p. 99. 

Other MPA Efforts: 

In recent years, legislation calling for the 

implementation of a network of sites has been 

proposed, but has note been passed because of strong 

public dissent, mainly from local fishermen. The 

Fig. 5.14: Honolua Bay MLCD (Komoto n.d.) 
HAWAI‘I 

96

current efforts described below have focused on 

improving the effectiveness of existing sites, and 

garnering stronger public support for MPAs as a tool 

for marine resource management. 

Makai Watch Program: 

To engage the public in management, DLNR has 

partnered with local NGOs and communities to 

implement the Makai (meaning “seaward”) Watch 

Program. This program encourages communities to 

actively participate in the management of local nearshore resources through education, monitoring, and 

surveillance. Communities work to develop goals and 

objectives and a work plan to carry out management 

activities in their local area. Most communities that 

participate in the Makai Watch Program are adjacent to 

an MPA and support the management of those sites by 

monitoring human use and biological factors, fostering 

awareness of resource users on regulations and natural 

history, and reporting violations to a DOCARE officer 

who can respond more efficiently to sites. This 

program has been very successful in engaging the public 

in local resource management. Through collaboration 

with the state and NGOs, communities have been able 

to provide greater protections to local resources and 

even pass additional rules. DAR recently published a 

new community 

stewardship guide, Getting 

Involved in Carrying for 

Hawaii’s Coastal Resources: 

A Community Guidebook, 

to provide communities 

with step-by-step 

instructions on how to 

get engaged and/or 

become a Makai Watch 

community. 

Development of a New 

Framework: 

DLNR is currently working on a new framework for 

MPAs in Hawai‘i that will establish categories that group 

together areas with similar management goals and 

objectives, and biological and socio-economic criteria. 

The draft framework was presented to 13 small focus 

groups in different communities around the state to 

obtain their input. Most comments focused on 

increased and improved outreach and education, 

enforcement, and preservation of traditional methods. 

A revised draft is currently being circulated around 

DLNR, and a final draft will be presented to BLNR for 

approval. 

Fisheries Outreach: 

DAR is working with NOAA and NGO partners to 

develop a full-time fisheries outreach liaison. 

Recognizing that fishermen feel under-represented in 

management processes, and perceive themselves as 

being targeted as the cause of marine resource 

degradation, a position is being developed to improve 

communication between fishers and managers. This 

full-time position will work in the fishing community to 

engage fishers in discussions, listen to their concerns, 

and exchange information between the state and the 

community. Through this position, DAR is making an 

effort to incorporate fishers more directly into 

management decisions and to address their needs. 

NEXT STEPS/ 

RECOMMENDATIONS

MPA Capacity: 

With so many different marine resource users in 

Hawai‘i, the state is faced with the challenge of 

balancing resource protection and sustainable use. To 

support MPA management among various user groups, 

the state should, at a minimum, establish a permanent 

MPA coordinator position and increase staff capacity 

for MPA management. Specifically, management plans 

need to be developed in conjunction with a stakeholder 

participatory process to ensure support for the goals and 

objectives, and to allow for more involvement in 

MPA management by local users. The process 

would also lead to the development of 

effectiveness measures that are appropriate, can be 

shared with the public, and foster adaptive 

changes. It is also important for the state to look 

to the future and develop more focused goals and 

objectives to support conservation of marine 

resources, and to determine how MPAs can be 

utilized to achieve those goals based on the best 

available science. 

Sustainable Financing: 

Because of the wide range of users of marine resources, 

and high revenue of tourism based on marine activities, 

the state should work with the tourism authority and 

other agencies to develop a sustainable financing 

mechanism to support marine conservation. Securing 

long-term funding should be a priority because 

inadequate resources have severely limited the amount 

of effort put towards protecting the MHI nearshore 

resources, and therefore limiting the effectiveness of 

those efforts. Several islands with tourism based 

economies can provide useful examples of sustainable 

financing tools that may be applicable to Hawai‘i. 

Agency Collaboration: 

Like many jurisdictions, Hawai‘i would benefit from 

improved collaboration between agencies to address 

MPA issues. It is important to prioritize upland 

management efforts adjacent to MPAs so that there is 

Fig. 5.15: Coral Reef Awareness Day 

(Komoto n.d.) 
HAWAI‘I

97

an integrated approach to marine management. This 

approach would also facilitate better support from 

fishermen. Fishermen often feel that they are the only 

ones who are restricted 

from certain sites while 

the impacts of landbased pollution from 

development and 

recreational users 

remain relatively less 

managed near those 

sites. Current efforts 

through the local action 

strategy (LAS) initiative 

are beginning to address 

this issue, but the state 

may benefit from an MPA working group and 

potentially an MPA LAS that focus on employing an 

integrated coastal zone management approach to 

improve the effectiveness of existing MPA 

management. This approach should focus on short and 

long-term strategies for improving MPA effectiveness, 

and should prioritize projects that address all impacts to 

marine resources and management effectiveness. 

Education and Outreach: 

While outreach and education efforts are improving in 

Hawai‘i, MPAs are relatively misunderstood by the 

public, especially their regulations. It is widely 

believed that all MPAs are no-take areas, and 

there are many myths regarding current site 

protections. To address this issue, DAR is 

working to make more information available 

about MPAs, including posting additional 

information on its web site. DAR recently 

created an MPA insert for the local newspaper 

that was distributed to over 150,000 households 

statewide and was put in hundreds of classrooms 

for students and teachers. A small four-color 

brochure explaining MPAs was also developed by 

DAR. 

MPA outreach is also improving through community 

based programs such as the Makai Watch Program. 

However, a larger campaign may be necessary to 

improve the public’s understanding of current sites and 

to improve support and compliance with existing site 

regulations. Therefore, more public outreach is 

recommended to continue to address these issues. 

Fig. 5.16: Bluefin Trevally and coral reef 

in the NWHI (Watt n.d.)

Table 5.10: National Classification System for Hawai‘i’s 39 MPAs 

Site Name 

Conservation Focus Level of Protection Permanence of Protection Constancy of Protection Scale of Protection Management Plan 

Hanauma Bay MLCD Natural 

Heritage No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Honolua-Mokule‘ia Bay MLCD Natural 

Heritage No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Kealakekua Bay MLCD Natural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use 

With No-Take 

Areas 

Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Lapakahi MLCD Natural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use 

With No-Take 

Areas 

Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Manele-Hulopo‘e MLCD Natural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Molokini Shoal MLCD Natural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use 

With No-Take 

Areas

Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Old Kona Airport MLCD Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Pupukea-Waimea MLCD Natural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use 

With No-Take 

Areas

Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 
HAWAI‘I 

98

Table 5.10 (cont.): National Classification System for Hawai‘i’s 39 MPAs 

Site Name 

Conservation Focus Level of Protection Permanence of Protection Constancy of Protection Scale of Protection Management Plan 

Waialea Bay MLCD Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Waikiki MLCD Natural 

Heritage No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Wai‘Opae Tidepools MLCD Natural 

Heritage No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Hilo Bay, Wailoa River, Wailuku 

River FMA 

Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Seasonal Focal resource No 

Kahului Harbor FMA Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Kailua Bay FMA Sustainable 

Production 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Keauhou Bay FMA Sustainable 

Production 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Kiholo Bay FMA Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Kona Coast FMA Sustainable 

Production 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Nawiliwili Harbor FMA Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Puako Bay, Puako Reef FMA Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

South Kona (Miloli‘i) FMA Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Waikiki-Diamond Head FMA Sustainable 

Production 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Seasonal Ecosystem No 

West Hawai‘i Regional FMA 

(includes a series of FRAs) 

Sustainable 

Production 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource Yes 

Site A Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Conditional Year-round Focal resource No 

Site B Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Conditional Year-round Focal resource No 

Site C Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Conditional Year-round Focal resource No 

Site D Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Conditional Year-round Focal resource No 

Site E Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Conditional Year-round Focal resource No 

Site F Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Conditional Year-round Focal resource No 

Site G Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Conditional Year-round Focal resource No 

Site H Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Conditional Year-round Focal resource No 

Site J Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Conditional Year-round Focal resource No 
HAWAI‘I

99

 

Table 5.10 (cont.): National Classification System for Hawai‘i’s 39 MPAs 

Site Name 

Conservation Focus Level of Protection Permanence of Protection Constancy of Protection Scale of Protection Management Plan 

Site K Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Conditional Year-round Focal resource No 

Site L Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Conditional Year-round Focal resource No 

Site M Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Conditional Year-round Focal resource No 

Ahihi Kina‘u NAR Natural 

Heritage No Impact Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Kaho‘olawe Island Reserve Cultural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Paiko Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary Natural 

Heritage No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Moku O Lo‘e Island (Coconut 

Island) Marine Laboratory Refuge 

Natural 

Heritage No Access Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

State Marine Refuge 

Natural 

Heritage No Impact Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

SUCCESS STORY 

After several years of public concern over declining fish stocks, and heated debate among recreational users and 

aquarium fishers about the decline, Act 306 was passed in 1998 to establish the West Hawai‘i Regional Fisheries 

Management Area (WHRFMA). The act sought to improve fisheries resources by placing 35.2 percent of West 

Hawai‘i’s coastline into a network of fisheries replenishment areas (FRAs). Some of the act’s goals include: 1) 

development of a management plan to improve resources for consumptive and non-consumptive use, 2) 

establishment of a monitoring protocol to determine the effectiveness of the regulations, 3) reduction of user 

conflicts, and 4) incorporation of substantial public input in the process. While DAR is the agency responsible for 

managing the FRAs, the West Hawai‘i Fisheries Management Council also provides management support. The 

council, which is made up of 24 voting members representing various stakeholders in the area, provides on-going 

guidance in the development, management, and monitoring of the sites. 

The Hawai‘i Coral Reef Initiative Research Program funded a monitoring program, the West Hawai‘i Aquarium 

Project, to determine the effectiveness of the network of FRAs at significantly improving fish stocks. The project 

included the collection of population data before and after closures, and a comparison of closed sites and open 

access areas. Results from the project’s five-year monitoring studies have recently been published. 

Results show that seven of the ten most heavily collected species (representing 94 percent of all collected fish) have 

increased in overall density, and that the number one most collected species (yellow tang) increased by 49 percent 

relative to control sites. Overall, the results also showed positive effectiveness in reaching FRA goals in seven of 

nine sites. Additionally, the impact on the aquarium fishery has been positive. There has been an increase in the 

average number of fishers, the catch per unit effort is higher in West Hawai‘i than it is in any other area of the state, 

and collectors receive a higher price per fish for yellow tangs. These changes have led to economic benefits and an 

increasing economic value of the West Hawai‘i aquarium fishery. Finally, while some user conflicts remain, there is 

a much higher level of compliance by collectors, and overall less contention between user groups. 
HAWAI‘I 

100

CITATIONS 

Antolini, Denise. April 30, 2003. Hawai’i Marine 

Protected Areas Governance Study. Prepared for the 

Division of Aquatic Resources, State of Hawai’i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources. 

Bos, Melissa. n.d Fig. 5.5. Alliance for Coastal 

Technologies. 

Community Conservation Network. n.d. Fig. 5.4. 

Daniel, Brain. n.d. Fig. 5.11. 

Englund, R.A., K. Arakaki, D.J. Preston, S.L. Coles and 

L.G. Eldredge. February 2000. Nonindigenous freshwater 

and estuarine species introductions and their potential to affect 

sportfishing in the lower stream and estuarine regions of the south 

and west shores of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Final report prepared for 

the Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources, 

Division of Aquatic Resources, Bishop Museum 

Technical Report # 17. Honolulu, HI: Bishop Museum, 

The State Museum of Natural and Cultural History. 

Friedlander, Alan M. 2004. Status of Hawai‘i’s coastal 

fisheries in the new millennium.: proceedings of the 2001 Fisheries 

Symposium. Honolulu, HI: American Fisheries Society, 

Hawaii Chapter. 

Friedlander, A., E. Brown, M.A. Monaco, and A. Clark. 

2005a. Fish Habitat Utilization Patterns and Evaluation of 

the Efficacy of Marine Protected Areas in Hawai‘i: Integration 

and Evaluation of NOAA Digital Benthic Habitats Mapping 

and Coral Reef Ecological Studies. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOS NCCOS 23. 210p. 

Friedlander, Alan, Greta Aeby, Eric Brown, Athline 

Clark, Steve Coles, Steve Dollar, Cindy Hunter, Paul 

Jokiel, Jennifer Smith, Bill Walsh, Ivor Williams, and 

Wendy Wiltse. 2005b. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of 

the Main Hawaiian Islands. pp. 222-269. In: J. Waddell 

(ed.), The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United 

States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2005. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 11. 

NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and 

Assessment’s Biogeography Team. Silver Spring, MD. 

522 pp. 

Friedlander, Alan, Greta Aeby, Russell Brainard, Athline 

Clark, Edward DeMartini, Scott Godwin, Jean Kenyon, 

Randy Kosaki, Jim Maragos, and Peter Vroom. 2005c. 

The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. pp. 270-311. In: J. 

Waddell (ed.), The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the 

United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2005. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 11. 

NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and 

Assessment’s Biogeography Team. Silver Spring, MD. 

522 pp. 

Gonser, James. 2006. Refuge status sought for 

northwest islands. Honolulu Advertiser, May 6, 2006. 

Available online at http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/ 

article/2005/May/06/ln/ln14p.html. 

Hawai‘i Administrative Rule (HAR) 13-60.3. West 

Hawaii Regional Fisheries Management Area. 

Hawai‘i Administrative Rule (HAR) 13-60.5. 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine Refuge. 

Hawai‘i Administrative Rule (HAR) 13-94. Bottomfish 

Management. 

Hawai‘i Administrative Rule (HAR) 13-125. Rules 

Regulating Wildlife Sanctuaries. 

Hawai‘i Administrative Rule (HAR) 13-209. Rules 

Regulating Activities within Natural Area Reserves. 

Hawai‘i Administrative Rule (HAR) 13-244-32. Ahihi 

Kina’u Ocean Waters. 

Hawai‘i Administrative Rule (HAR) 13-261. 

Kaho'olawe Island Reserve. 

Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources 

(DLNR). 2006. Hawai‘i’s Bottomfish Fishery. Land Board 

Briefing Paper, December 8, 2006. Honolulu, HI: 

DLNR. Available online at http://www.hawaii.gov/ 

dlnr/dar/pubs/BLNR_Bottomfish.pdf. 

Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources 

(DLNR) Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR). n.d. 

Marine Life Conservation Districts. DAR. 

http://www.hawaii.gov/dlnr/dar/mlcd/index.htm. 

–––––––. 2002. Bottomfish. DAR. 

http://www.hawaii.gov/dlnr/dar/bottomfish/ 

index.htm. 

–––––––. 2004. A Report on the Findings and 

Recommendations of Effectiveness of the West Hawai‘i Regional 

Fisheries Management Area. Report to the Twenty-Third 

Legislature Regular Session of 2005. Available online at 

http://www.hawaii.gov/ dlnr/dar/pubs/ 

ar_hrs188F5.pdf. 

–––––––. 2005. Marine Protected Areas in Hawai‘i. 

Custom Publishing Group of the Honolulu Advertiser, 

March 9, 2005. Available online at 

http://www.hawaii.gov/dlnr/dar/ library/index.htm. 
HAWAI‘I

101

Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources 

(DLNR) Division of Conservation and Resources 

Enforcement (DOCARE). n.d. DLNR. 

http://www.hawaii.gov/dlnr/ dcre/dcre.html. 

Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources 

(DLNR) Hawai‘i Division of Forestry and Wildlife 

(DOFAW). August 2006. Ahihi Kina‘u Draft Management 

Plan. Honolulu, HI: DOFAW. 

Hawai‘i Revised Statute (HRS) 6K-4. Kaho'olawe 

Island Reserve. 

Hawai‘i Revised Statute (HRS) 183D. Wildlife. 

Hawai‘i Revised Statute (HRS) 188F. West Hawaii 

Regional Fisheries Management Area. 

Hawai‘i Revised Statute (HRS) 188-53. Fishing Rights 

and Regulations. Fishing reserves, refuges, and public 

fishing areas. 

Hawai‘i Revised Statute (HRS) 187A-5. Aquatic 

Resources. Rules. 

Hawai‘i Revised Statute (HRS) 188-36. Hawaii marine 

laboratory refuge. 

Hawai‘i Revised Statute (HRS) Chapter 190. Marine 

Life Conservation Program. 

Hawai‘i Revised Statute (HRS) 195. Natural Area 

Reserves System. 

Hawai‘i Revised Statute (HRS) 200. Ocean Recreation 

and Coastal Areas Programs. 

Herkes, Marni. 2006. Personal communication. West 

Hawai‘i Fisheries Council. 

Kaho‘olawe Island Reserve Commission (KIRC). 2004. 

Kaho‘olawe Island Reserve Strategic Plan 2004 - 2008. 

Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission, Wailuku, HI. 

Available online at http://kahoolawe.hawaii.gov/ 

stratplan/EE10-StrategicPlan2.pdf. 

Komoto, Jill. n.d. Figs. 5.1, 5.3, 5.8, 5.14, and 5.15. 

Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources.

Kozlowski., Jennifer 2006. Fig. 5.10. NOAA Office of 

Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. 

Moffitt, Bob. 2004. Fig. 5.7. NOAA Fisheries. 

PBR Hawai‘i. 1995. Kaho’olawe Use Plan. Kaho’olawe 

Island Reserve Commission, Wailuku, HI. Available 

online at http://kahoolawe.hawaii.gov/plans/use.htm. 

Philibotte, Jason. n.d. Fig. 5.6. NOAA Fisheries 

Office of Habitat Conservation. 

Protect Kaho’olawe Ohana (PKO). 2006. Protect 

Kaho’olawe Ohana. http://www.kahoolawe.org/. 

Ramsey, Matt. n.d. Figure #. Department of Land and 

Nature Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

Stanton, F. n.d. Fig. 5.9. UH Marine Option Program. 

University of Hawai‘i Marine Option Program. 1985. A 

Baseline Survey of Ahihi Bay. Available online at 

http://www.dofaw.net/nars/files/ 

MOPBaselineSurvey1985.pdf. 

Walsh, W.J. 1999. Community based management of a 

Hawai‘i aquarium fishery. Proceedings of the Marine 

Ornamentals '99. Waikoloa, Hawaii. Pp. 83-87. 

Watt, James. n.d. Figs. 5.12 and 5.16. Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. 

http://www.hawaiireef.noaa.gov/imagery/photos.html. 
102 
103 

E. Soto

Fig. 6.2: Coral community in Isla 

Desecheo Marine Reserve (Soto 

2005) 

 Fig. 6.1: Map of Puerto Rico showing the location of the MPAs (Álvarez 2006a) 

Chapter 6: Puerto Rico Coral Reef MPA Summary 

Dana Wusinich-Mendez, NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

María del Mar López-Rivera, Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources and NOAA Coral Reef 

Management Fellowship Program 

Ernesto Díaz, Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources 

Contributors: Aida Rosario, Nora Álvarez, Robert Matos, Clarimar Díaz, Nancy Vázquez, Nuria Mercado, Wendy 

Boneta, Lisamarie Carruba, and Manuel Valdés-Pizzini 

 

INTRODUCTION 

The commonwealth of Puerto Rico is part of a volcanic 

island platform that includes Puerto Rico and the Virgin 

Islands. To the east of the main island of Puerto Rico 

are the smaller island municipalities of Culebra and 

Vieques. Three uninhabited oceanic islands, Mona, 

Monito, and Desecheo, are located off the west coast. 

South of the main island lies Caja de Muertos Island and 

several keys and mangrove islets. 

Puerto Rico’s 620 kilometer (km) coastline is 

surrounded by over 5,000 km2 of easily accessible (less 

than 20 meters depth) coral reef ecosystems (CSCOR 

2005). Although there are coral communities 

throughout the entire insular shelf, they are most 

developed along the southwestern and northeastern 

shelves. Ninety-three species of coral taxa, including 

octocorals and hydrocorals, have been identified. While 

fringing reefs are the most common reef structure 

found in Puerto Rico, barrier, patch, and shelf-edge 

formations can also be found. Reefs with the highest 

live coral cover are generally found at the offshore 

islands (e.g. Desecheo, Mona, Vieques, and Culebra), 

the mainland shelf edge in the south, and the southwest 

and west coasts of 

the main island 

(García-Sais, et al. 

2005). Puerto Rico 

also has extensive 

sea grass beds, 

mangrove forests, 

and colonized 

hardgrounds. 

Puerto Rico has a 

population of 

approximately 3.8 million people. The high population 

density (more than 1,000 people per square mile) and a 

shift of population to coastal areas have increased landbased pollution and runoff associated with coastal 

development, placing significant pressure on coral reef 

ecosystems. During the past 50 years, more than 50 

percent of living coral in Puerto Rico has been lost, and 

the rate of loss of reef areas has accelerated during the 

past 20 years (Morelock, et al. 2001). The commercial 

and recreational fisheries and the collection of 

ornamentals have put reef fish populations under 

intense pressure. Between 2001 and 2003, 82 percent of 

the entire commercial harvest was represented by reefassociated fisheries (García-Sais, et al. 

2005). 

Dramatic decreases in catch per unit of 

effort have also been documented in the 

recreational fishing industry, with a 40 

percent drop between 2000 and 2002 

(Lilyestrom and Hoffmaster 2002). 

Export of marine organisms for the 

aquarium trade has occurred in Puerto 

Rico for over three decades and the 

export of over 100 species has been 

documented (Mote Environmental 

Services Inc. 2002). Vessel groundings, 

land-based sources of pollution, 

recreational overuse impacts, coral 

diseases, bleaching due to increasing sea 

temperatures, and invasive species have 

all contributed to the decline in the health 

of Puerto Rico’s coral reef ecosystems. 
PUERTO RICO 

104

In 2004, 1,600 km2 of Puerto Rico’s jurisdictional waters 

were included in a NOAA initiative to map benthic 

habitats in the U.S. Caribbean (Kendall 2004). It is 

estimated that twenty-five percent (25%) of this area 

falls within the borders of Puerto Rico’s MPAs (DNERCZMP 2005, unpublished data). The government of 

Puerto Rico has established 35 MPAs that fall within 

three categories: natural reserves, marine reserves, and 

state forests (Fig. 6.1). There are 32 natural reserves, 27 

of which the Department of Natural and Environmental 

Resources (DNER) administers. The Conservation 

Trust of Puerto Rico, a local non-governmental 

organization, administers four natural reserves, and the 

National Parks Company administers one. DNER also 

manages two marine reserves and a coastal state forest. 

In addition to the 35 sites under Puerto Rico’s 

jurisdiction, there are four MPAs that the Puerto Rico 

government jointly manages with the federal 

government. These MPAs are the Jobos Bay National 

Estuarine Research Reserve (JOBANERR), jointly 

managed with NOAA; and, three seasonal closure areas 

for spawning aggregations of red hind grouper 

(Epinephelus guttatus): Tourmaline Bank, Bajo de Cico, 

and Abrir La Sierra. The closure areas are located off 

the west coast of Puerto Rico and were established in 

conjunction with the Caribbean Fisheries Management 

Council. All fishing is prohibited within federal waters 

in these areas from December 1st through February 28th

on an annual basis. The regulations do not apply to the 

territorial waters in these areas. Since these four MPAs 

are managed in conjunction with the federal 

government, they are not included in this analysis of 

state and territory MPAs. 

MPA TYPES 

Natural Reserves: 

National Classification: 

The 32 sites in this system fall into six different 

national classification categories: 

• Uniform Multiple-Use, Natural Heritage 

• Uniform Multiple-Use, Cultural Heritage 

• Uniform Multiple-Use, Sustainable 

Production 

• Zoned Multiple-Use, Natural Heritage 

• No-Take, Natural Heritage, and 

• Zoned Multiple-Use with No-Take Areas, 

Natural Heritage 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

Twenty-seven natural reserves (NRs) were proposed by 

DNER and designated by the Puerto Rico Planning 

Board through Law No. 75, which gives the board the 

authority to establish these sites, and by Puerto Rico 

Planning Board Resolution PU-002, which includes the 

official declaration for each site. Five additional NRs 

have been designated by the Puerto Rico Legislature, 

providing specific recognition to their high ecological 

value and importance: Cayo Ratones and adjacent 

waters, Ecosystems adjacent to the Laguna Joyuda, 

Manglar Punta Tuna, Ciénaga Las Cucharillas, and 

Seven Seas. The latter was legally established through 

the enactment of Law No. 228 of August 12, 1999 

known as “Law of the Seven Seas Natural Reserve”; 

Cayo Ratones and adjacent waters NR was legally 

established by Law No. 36 of April 17, 1979, and 

Ecosystems adjacent to the Laguna Joyuda NR was 

established by Law No. 201 of August 25, 2001. 

Manglar Punta Tuna NR was established through Joint 

Legislative Resolution 449 of August 21, 2000, and 

Ciénaga Cucharillas was established through Executive 

Order OE – 2004-49 of August 25, 2004. 

Of the 32 sites in the NR system, 27 are administered by 

DNER, which is the primary natural resource 

management authority in the commonwealth and 

includes the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management 

Program (PRCZMP) and the Coral Reef Initiative 

Program. There are two divisions within DNER that 

oversee the management of these sites: the Natural 

Reserves and Wildlife Refuges Division and the Forest 

Management Division. 

Table 6.1: Proportion of Benthic Habitats in Puerto Pico’s 

MPAs (DNER-CZMP 2005; Kendall, et al. 2004) 

MAPPED BENTHIC HABITAT TYPES

PROPORTION FOUND 

WITHIN MPAS (%) 

Jurisdictional waters of Puerto Rico 25.15% 

Coral Reefs 50.19% 

Seagrass Beds 33.33% 

Macroalgae 47.31% 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 35.20% 

 These data were calculated using the benthic habitat maps of Puerto Rico 

 developed by NOAA and the GIS shapefiles for all of Puerto Rico’s MPAs 

 produced by the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program. An 

 overlay analysis was completed with these two data sources revealing the 

 proportion of each benthic habitat type from the NOAA maps which are 

 found within the borders of the 35 MPA sites included in this chapter. 
PUERTO RICO 

105

Table 6.2: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the 32 Natural Reserves * 

Natural Reserves (NRs) 

Coral Reefs Mangroves Seagrass or Algal Beds Wetlands Bays and Estuaries Fish Spawning Areas Commercial Finfish Recreational Finfish Shellfish Sea Turtles Marine Mammals Threatened or Endangered Birds Bioluminescent Bays 

Arrecifes de Guayama x x x x x x x x x x 

Arrecifes de la Cordillera x x x x x x x x x x x 

Arrecifes de Tourmaline x x x x x x x x 

Bahías Bioluminiscentes de 

Vieques x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Boquerón State Forest x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Cabezas de San Juan x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Caja de Muertos x x x x x x x x x x x 

Canal Luis Peña x x x x x x x x x 

Caño La Boquilla x x x x x x x x x x x 

Caño Martín Peña x x x x x x x 

Caño Tiburones x x x x x x x 

Cayo Ratones x x x x x x x 

Ceiba State Forest x x x x x x x x x x x 

Ciénaga Las Cucharillas x x x x x x x 

Cueva del Indio x x x x x x x x x x 

Ecosystems adjacent to the 

Laguna Joyuda x x x x x x x x x x x 

El Pantano, Bosque de Pterocarpus,

Lagunas Mandry y Santa Teresa x x x x x x x x 

Finca Belvedere x x x x x x x x x x x 

Guanica State Forest NR and 

Biosphere Reserve x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Hacienda La Esperanza x x x x x x x 

Islas de Mona y Monito x x x x x x x x x x x 

La Parguera x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Laguna Joyuda x x x x x x x x x x 

Laguna Tortuguero x x x x x x x x 

Manglar Punta Petrona x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Manglar Punta Tuna x x x x x x x x x x x 

Pantano Cibuco x x x x x x x x x 

Piñones State Forest x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Punta Guaniquilla x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Punta Yeguas x x x x x 

Río Espíritu Santo x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Seven Seas x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

* Resource information was extracted from National MMA Inventory and Ventosa-Febles, et al. 2005.

 
PUERTO RICO 

106

Fig. 6.3: Photograph of Culebra Island, PR 

and delineation of the boundaries of the Canal 

Luis Peña Natural Reserve (Álvarez 2006b) 

There are five state forests with marine components. 

Four of these forests are classified within the NR 

system: Piñones State Forest NR, Boquerón State Forest 

NR, Ceiba State Forest NR, and Guanica State Forest 

NR, which is also a Biosphere Reserve designated under 

the United Nations Man and Biosphere Program. The 

remaining coastal state forest is Aguirre State Forest, 

which is administered by DNER’s Forest Management 

Division and is further discussed in the State Forest 

section below. 

 

Four sites (Cabezas de San Juan NR, Hacienda La 

Esperanza NR, Punta Yeguas NR, and Punta 

Guaniquilla NR) are administered by the Conservation 

Trust of Puerto Rico, a non-profit institution working to 

protect Puerto Rico’s natural resources (Conservation 

Trust of Puerto Rico 2006). The Puerto Rico National 

Parks Company has primary management responsibility 

for the Seven Seas NR. The National Parks Company is 

a commonwealth government agency with the 

responsibility of managing public parks, beaches, and 

other recreational areas for public enjoyment as well as 

providing education and outreach services to increase 

public awareness of environmental issues (Compañia de 

Parques Nacionales n.d.). 

Goals, Objectives, Policies and 

Protections: 

The goals and management objectives of 

the NR system are abundant and diverse 

and include the conservation, preservation, 

and restoration of the physical, ecological, 

geographic, social, and environmental 

value of the natural resources found in the 

reserves. Specific keys and islands have 

been designated as NRs to protect critical 

habitat for coastal and marine species; 

targeted habitats such as coral reefs, 

seagrass meadows, mangroves, wetlands, 

bioluminescent bays, and nesting and 

foraging habitat for seabirds, sea turtles, and the West 

Indian manatee; reef fish spawning aggregations; and 

endangered, threatened, rare, and endemic species and 

their habitats. Other significant objectives include the 

protection of cultural and archeological sites used by the 

Taíno Indians who inhabited the Greater Antilles during 

pre-Columbian times; the promotion of educational 

activities and ecotourism in the area; the improvement 

of community participation in natural resource 

management; aquifer conservation; and the protection 

of the largest hawksbill sea turtle rookery in the 

Caribbean Basin, which is located on Mona Island. 

Two NRs contain no-take areas in which all commercial 

and recreational fishing activity is prohibited. The 

waters of the Canal Luis Peña NR at Culebra Island are 

completely no-take (Fig. 6.3). This NR, designated in 

1999, became the first no-take area in Puerto Rico in 

December 2003 when an Administrative Order 2003-14 

was passed by the Secretary of DNER. In 2004, Puerto 

Rico Fishing Regulations No. 6768 established a no-take 

zone in the Isla de Mona NR that includes an area of 0.5 

nautical miles from the shoreline of the majority of the 

coast surrounding the main island of Mona and the 

smaller island of Monito. There is one area on the 

northwest side of Mona, Playa Sardinera, in which hook 

and line recreational fishing is permitted. In all of the 

NRs, fishing is prohibited in areas that have been 

designated as swimming areas by the Puerto Rico 

Planning Board. There are no other fisheries 

restrictions in the remaining reserve sites beyond those 

provided by the fisheries regulations, Puerto Rico 

Fishing Regulations No. 6768, which apply to all of 

Puerto Rico’s waters. 

Other activities that are regulated within individual NRs 

include mangrove cutting, dredging, waste discharge and 

disposal, camping, vehicle transit, boat transit, 

commercial sales, anchoring, recreational boating, 

hunting, education, and research. Fishery regulations 

include restrictions on the 

harvest of berried female 

lobsters, seasonal shellfish 

closures, and seasonal reef 

fish closures. Regulation 

of these activities is 

specific to each NR site. 

Collection of terrestrial 

flora and fauna is 

prohibited in all of the 

reserves, including the 

harvest of land crabs, 

Cardisoma guanhumi, which 

are a popular Puerto 

Rican dish. 

Management Activities: 

Over the past few years, DNER has worked to prioritize 

sites in the NR system for the development of 

comprehensive management plans. The management 

planning process in Puerto Rico is complicated and 

entails coordinated plan development between DNER 

and Puerto Rico’s Environmental Quality Board, a series 

of public hearings and public comment periods, and 

final approval by the Planning Board and adoption as 

part of the Island-wide Land Use Plan. 

Two sites (Bahías Bioluminiscentes de Vieques NR and 

Seven Seas NR) have management plans awaiting 

approval from the Planning Board. There are on-going 
PUERTO RICO 

107

Fig. 6.4: Coloring book about the 

protection and conservation of 

the ocean (Green-Cáceres 2005)

efforts to develop draft plans in several other natural 

reserve sites, including Canal Luis Peña NR, Caño 

Tiburones NR, Isla de Mona y Monito NR, and 

Arrecifes de la Cordillera NR, which has a preliminary 

plan that is being updated. 

Some of the priority NRs that have been identified for 

near-term management plan development are La 

Parguera NR, Guanica State Forest NR, Arrecifes de 

Guayama NR, Río Espíritu Santo NR, and Caja de 

Muertos NR. The latter has a draft management plan 

that has been used by DNER as an operational plan for 

reserve management. Three NRs, La Parguera, Laguna 

Tortuguero, and Piñones State Forest, are part of larger 

special planning areas (coastal areas subject to 

conflicting uses that require special management 

attention) that have approved management plans. 

However, more specific management plans are needed 

for these NRs. 

In summary, none of the 32 sites discussed in this 

section has an approved management plan. However, 

there is a significant amount of management activity 

occurring on the ground. Many sites have management 

officials assigned to them who serve as 

reserve managers and oversee day-to-day 

management activities, and who are often 

physically located in the vicinity of the 

reserves. Management officials also 

develop and implement operational plans 

for their reserves. DNER leadership in 

San Juan, PR in the Natural Reserves and 

Wildlife Refuges Division and the Forest 

Management Division is actively involved 

with all of the sites and spends a lot of 

time in the field addressing both sitespecific and systemic management issues. 

Other efforts aim to zone the reserves by 

identifying important benthic habitats and 

the locations of different marine oriented 

activities. Eleven NRs have field officers 

and managers, and all the state forests in 

the NR system have field officers and 

forest managers. 

Research: 

Most research on MPAs is conducted by 

the University of Puerto Rico and DNER. 

DNER’s Natural Resources 

Administration has several units that 

conduct research and coordinate research 

activities with public and private 

universities, federal agencies, and 

individual investigators. Research projects 

related to endangered species, such as sea 

turtles and Mona Island’s iguanas, are led 

by DNER and funded by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. NOAA has also funded research 

on acroporid corals and sea turtle nesting, foraging, and 

population dynamics on Mona, Desecheo, and Culebra. 

DNER’s Fisheries Laboratory maintains an information 

system and database for fisheries and marine stranding. 

Through professors, consultants, and graduate students, 

the University of Puerto Rico and DNER conduct coral 

reef characterizations and monitoring activities. 

NOAA’s Biogeography Program has been instrumental 

in mapping Puerto Rico’s coral reefs, submerged aquatic 

vegetation, seagrass beds, and benthic habitats. 

Monitoring: 

DNER’ s Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program 

has on-going monitoring programs in six NRs, including 

monitoring of environmental indicators such as coral 

reef coverage, fisheries abundance/diversity, and water 

quality, and socioeconomic indicators such as public use 

of reserve areas. The University of Puerto Rico, 

Mayagüez Campus hosts the Caribbean Coral Reef 

Institute (CCRI), which was established in cooperation 

with NOAA to promote scientific research and to 

monitor and improve knowledge about coral reefs and 

associated ecosystems. The CCRI, other University of 

Puerto Rico investigators, and 

DNER carry out most of the 

monitoring and research activities in 

the reserves. 

Education and Outreach: 

The PRCZMP supports an 

environmental education and 

outreach task that includes salaries 

for four educators, and funding for 

equipment, supplies, and outreach 

material. While this task includes a 

broad array of activities, the 

PRCZMP specifically targets the 

NRs as a key component of its 

education and outreach strategy. The 

strategy also supports Coral Reef 

Initiative outreach activities, most of 

which are part of the local action 

strategy (LAS) initiative. Some of the 

outreach and education activities 

include a public awareness media 

campaign focused on tourists 

traveling to Puerto Rico, 

development of a series of DVDs 

with coral reef awareness messages 

and images for television and internet 

broadcasts, and production and 

placement of visual media near areas 

of intense use in NRs. Outreach 

publications are distributed islandwide at conferences, fairs, public 

libraries, and visits to K-12 schools, 
PUERTO RICO 

108

Fig. 6.5: Location of marker buoys indicating reserve boundaries and fishing closure in 

Isla Desecheo Marine Reserve (DNER - Reserves and Refuges Division 2006) 

and are available online. Management officers also give 

talks in the NRs and at schools and other places about 

the NR resources and management and conservation of 

the protected areas. 

DNER, through the Coral Reef Conservation and 

Management Program, provides capacity building 

opportunities on diverse themes related to coral reef 

conservation, such as watershed protection workshops 

and coral and fish species identification trainings for 

enforcement officers in NRs. NOAA also supports 

outreach and education activities implemented by the 

National Parks Company and the Conversation Trust of 

Puerto Rico. 

Enforcement: 

DNER has a Maritime Ranger Unit 

of approximately 195 rangers that 

enforce local coral reef, navigation, 

and fisheries regulations as well as 

the regulations that are specific to 

individual NRs. Within this unit, 

there is an eight-member Coral 

Reef Ranger Task Force and ninemember NOAA Fisheries Task 

Force. The NOAA Fisheries Task 

Force is deputized to enforce 

federal fisheries regulations and 

local regulations. A Joint 

Enforcement Agreement was 

signed between NOAA and DNER 

that increases the number of 

rangers in the Fisheries Task Force 

and provides more funds to implement the regulations. 

The Coral Reef Ranger Task Force members are 

responsible for special projects such as ship groundings 

and coral reef restoration work. All of the rangers are 

assigned to regions, and most are assigned to large areas 

that can include several NRs. 

DNER has installed marker buoys to delineate the NRs 

and to indicate fishing prohibitions in the NRs that have 

such designations (Fig. 6.5). It has also installed 

mooring buoys in several sites, and will continue to 

install more buoys in priority coral reef areas and areas 

of intense boating activity. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

DNER has worked to involve local communities in the 

management plan development process for two NRs, 

the Canal Luis Peña NR and Arrecifes de la Cordillera 

NR. Local non-governmental organization (NGO) 

partners are leading the charge and have been meeting 

with stakeholders in the surrounding communities to 

develop the plans and ensure that the communities’ 

concerns are addressed. In the Canal Luis Peña NR on 

the island of Culebra, the federal government (NOAA 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), the 

commonwealth government (DNER), and the local 

government of Culebra are working with the local 

fishers’ association, NGOs, and researchers in a unique, 

collaborative effort to develop a plan for the site. This 

initiative started in 2003 and it has been a long, slow 

process, but significant progress has been made in 

identifying priority threats to the natural resources in the 

NR and developing targeted management actions to 

address those threats. The development of 

opportunities for stakeholder and community 

participation in the implementation of these plans once 

they are approved is also being explored. 

Marine Reserves 

Puerto Rico has two MPAs that are locally classified as 

marine reserves (MRs). The Tres Palmas MR is located 

in the municipality of Rincón, at the northwest corner 

of the main island of Puerto Rico. The Isla de Desecheo 

MR comprises 0.5 nautical miles around the Desecheo 

Island, which is an oceanic island located off the 

northwest coast of Puerto Rico. The island itself is a 

national wildlife refuge of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use and 

No-Take, Natural Heritage MPAs

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

In March of 2000, the Puerto Rico Legislature passed 

Law No. 57, which declared the waters surrounding 

Desecheo Island, one-half of a nautical mile from the 

coastline, as a marine reserve. DNER subsequently 

passed Administrative Order number 2003-22 in 
PUERTO RICO 

109

Fig. 6.6: Tres Palmas Marine Reserve informational and educational 

poster (Surfrider Foundation 2005) 

October of 2003 and Puerto Rico Fishing Regulations 

No. 6768 in February 2004, which established the entire 

reserve as a no-take area. 

In January of 2004, the Puerto Rico Legislature passed 

Law No.17, which designated the Tres Palmas reef as a 

marine reserve. In contrast to Desecheo Island, Tres 

Palmas is not a no-take marine reserve. An 

administrative order of the secretary of DNER or an 

amendment to Puerto Rico Fishing Regulations No. 

6768 declaring a no-take zone within the reserve would 

need to be passed in order to provide that level of 

protection. 

In addition to legally establishing the reserves, both Law 

No. 57 of 2000 and Law No. 17 of 2004 order the 

secretary of DNER to develop management plans and 

regulations to guide the administration and conservation 

of the areas. DNER’s Reserves and Wildlife Refuges 

Division is the responsible management authority for 

both reserves. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies and Protections: 

The Isla de Desecheo MR was established to protect 

the coral reefs, fishes, and associated habitats of 

Desecheo Island. The island’s coral reef communities 

are considered to be the highest quality reefs found in 

all of Puerto Rico’s waters (Law No. 57, March 2000) 

(Fig. 6.2). According to DNER Administrative Order 

2003-22, the reserve was also established with the 

goal of “protecting all of the species of fish, 

crustaceans and mollusks during their growth and 

reproduction, and to enable the restoration of these 

populations as well as all of the marine life in this 

protected area” (Puerto Rico DNER 2003). Tres 

Palmas MR was designated to protect a priority focal 

species, the elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata), which 

dominates the shallow marine component of the 

reserve. This coral reef species, along with the 

staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis), was listed as 

threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act 

on May 9, 2006. 

The Isla de Desecheo MR is a no-take area. Any type of 

fishing or other extractive activities are completely 

prohibited throughout the reserve. The implementation 

of a no-take designation is currently being explored for 

the Tres Palmas MR. Puerto Rico Fishing Regulations 

No. 6768 prevents the use of spear guns in both marine 

reserve sites. 

Management Activities: 

DNER is currently in the process of developing a 

management plan for Tres Palmas in conjunction with 

the Surfrider Foundation, a national NGO that is very 

active in the Rincón area of Puerto Rico, known for its 

popular surf break during the winter months. An 

intense outreach and education campaign has been a key 

component of the Tres Palmas MR establishment 

process (Fig. 6.6). The Isla de Desecheo MR has been 

selected by DNER as a priority area for management 

plan development and a preliminary first draft of the 

management plan has been completed. 

Table 6.3: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Two Marine Reserves 

Marine Reserves (MRs) 

Coral Reefs Mangroves Seagrass or Algal Beds Wetlands Bays and Estuaries Fish Spawning Areas Commercial Finfish Recreational Finfish Shellfish Sea Turtles Marine Mammals Threatened or Endangered Birds Bioluminescent Bays 

Isla de Desecheo x x x x x x x x x 

Tres Palmas x x x x x x x x 
PUERTO RICO 

110

Table 6.4: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Aguirre State Forest 

State Forest 

Coral Reefs Mangroves Seagrass or Algal Beds Wetlands Bays and Estuaries Fish Spawning Areas Commercial Finfish Recreational Finfish Shellfish Sea Turtles Marine Mammals Threatened or Endangered Birds Bioluminescent Bays 

Aguirre x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

The local community of Rincón, with support from the 

Surfrider Foundation, has been very involved in the 

process to establish the Tres Palmas MR and to develop 

a management plan for the site. The process has been 

led by a steering committee representing different 

interests, and a complete draft plan for the site is in 

review. 

State Forests 

Of the five state forests with marine components, 

Aguirre State Forest is the only site that is administered 

by DNER’s Forest Management Division. The other 

four sites are managed under the natural reserve system 

as described above. 

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use, 

Natural Heritage MPA 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

State forests are established by Gubernatorial 

Proclamation. This authority is established in the 

Forestry Law of Puerto Rico, Law No. 133 of July 1, 

1975. Aguirre State Forest is the oldest MPA in Puerto 

Rico as it was inherited from the Spanish Crown 

Authority and legally established in May of 1918. All 

state coastal forests are administered by DNER.

Goals, Objectives, Policies and Protections: 

The main goals of the Aguirre State Forest are to 

preserve the coastal wetlands, mangroves, and keys 

found within its boundaries. This site is also significant 

because it abuts the Jobos Bay National Estuarine 

Research Reserve. Activities that are regulated within 

this site include mangrove cutting, dredging, waste 

discharge and disposal, camping, vehicle transit, boat 

transit, commercial sales, anchoring, recreational 

boating, hunting, education, and research. There are 

also seasonal shellfish closures within the site. 

Management Activities: 

The Aguirre State Forest does not have an approved 

management plan and no management activities are 

reported for this area. All of the four state forests 

within the NR system have management officers 

assigned to their areas. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

There is no reported stakeholder involvement in the 

management of the Aguirre State Forest. 

CHALLENGES TO MPA 

EFFECTIVENESS 

The chart depicts the number of MPAs for which the 

issues of funding/resources, capacity, public support, 

monitoring, and enforcement were identified as 

challenges to MPA effectiveness in the National MMA 

Inventory (Fig. 6.7). Among the 35 sites that responded 

to the question, funding/resources and enforcement 

were identified as the greatest challenges to MPA 

effectiveness. Addressing the lack of funds should be a 

top priority, as there is an imperative need to designate 

management officials for the MPAs. These officials 

would serve as facilitators between the communities and 

the government and help to establish possible 

collaborative management strategies for the protected 

areas. 

Staff’s capacity and monitoring were also identified as 

common challenges, with public support identified as 

the least prevalent challenge to MPA effectiveness. 

“Other” challenges include poor land management and 

land-based pollution, lack of existing infrastructure and 

facilities to support existing staff, lack of support from 
PUERTO RICO 

111

Management Challenges in Puerto Rico's MPAs

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Funding/

Resources

Capacity Public

Support

Monitoring Enforcement Other

Fig. 6.7: Percent of MPAs (out of 35 total MPAs) that identified each issue as 

a challenge to effective MPA management. 

Fig. 6.8: Management plan development 

training for Puerto Rico’s MPAs (Parks 2005) 

local governments, lack of coordination 

between government agencies, lack of public 

awareness, and conflicts with private land 

owners. 

Additional issues identified as threats to MPA 

success include poaching in no-take areas, 

direct fishing effects, recreational use 

impacts, vessel based sources of pollution, 

and coral damage (Schärer and AlmodóvarRamírez 2005). 

WORKING TOWARDS A 

NETWORK 

The PRCZMP established a natural reserves 

network in 1978, which consisted of existing 

and proposed coastal and marine sites that needed to be 

protected. New NR designations and the designation of 

special protection areas as buffer zones for the NRs are 

geared towards increasing the ability of the sites to 

achieve preservation, conservation, and restoration 

management objectives. New areas being evaluated for 

designation as NRs include Faro de los Morillos in the 

municipality of Arecibo, Pterocarpus Forest in the 

municipality of Dorado, and Espinar Swamp in the 

municipality of Aguadilla. Other agencies and quasipublic organizations, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico, 

manage important coastal and marine protected areas on 

the main island of Puerto Rico and the islands of 

Culebra, Vieques, and Desecheo. At present, there is 

strong coordination between these organizations and 

DNER to effectively manage the MPAs as a network. 

Recognizing that there is an intrinsic relationship 

between land-based activities and coastal and marine 

resources, especially coral reefs and associated 

ecosystems, DNER, the Conservation Trust of Puerto 

Rico, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have joined 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s International 

Institute of Tropical Forestry in the Biodiversity 

Conservation Initiative. This initiative aims to improve 

data and information sharing between key biodiversity 

conservation organizations, and offers opportunities for 

academia, researchers, and NGOs to collaborate in the 

decision making process regarding MPA management 

and biodiversity conservation. 

NEXT STEPS/ 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

As Puerto Rico works to complete and approve 

management plans for the MPAs discussed in this 

chapter, implementation of the plans must be 

simultaneously addressed. This effort entails the 

assignment of management officials and other key 

personnel that are essential to the effective 

implementation of the plans. DNER also needs to 

strengthen its enforcement efforts by building the 

capacity of DNER’s rangers to enforce regulations 

within the MPAs, and by assigning specific rangers to 

each site that are not personally connected with local 

resource users so as to avoid conflicts of interest. 

Targeted outreach initiatives for these MPAs will help to 

increase local awareness of, and support for, Puerto 

Rico’s MPA systems. 
PUERTO RICO 

112

 Table 6.5: National Classification System for Puerto Rico’s 35 MPAs 

Site Name 

 Conservation  Focus  Level of  Protection  Permanence of  Protection  Constancy of  Protection  Scale of  Protection  Management  Plan 

Arrecifes de Guayama NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Arrecifes de la Cordillera NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem In development1

Arrecifes de Tourmaline NR Natural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use 

with No-Take 

Areas

Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Bahías Bioluminiscentes de 

Vieques NR 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem In development2

Boquerón State Forest NR Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Cabezas de San Juan NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Caja de Muertos NR Natural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Canal Luis Peña NR Natural 

Heritage No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem In development1

Caño La Boquilla NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Caño Martín Peña NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Caño Tiburones NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem In development1

Cayo Ratones NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Ceiba State Forest NR Natural 

Heritage No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Ciénaga Las Cucharillas NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Cueva del Indio NR Cultural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Ecosystems adyacent to the 

Laguna Joyuda NR 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

El Pantano, Bosque de 

Pterocarpus, Lagunas Mandry y 

Santa Teresa 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal Resource No 

Finca Belvedere NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Guánica State Forest NR and 

Biosphere Reserve 

Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Hacienda La Esperanza NR Cultural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

1 Management plan final document awaiting approval from the Puerto Rico Planning Board 2 Management plan in preparation 
PUERTO RICO 

113

Table 6.4 (cont.): National Classification System for Puerto Rico’s 35 MPAs 

Site Name 

 Conservation  Focus  Level of  Protection  Permanence of  Protection  Constancy of  Protection  Scale of  Protection  Management  Plan 

Islas de Mona y Monito NR Natural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem In 

development1

La Parguera NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Laguna Joyuda NR Natural 

Heritage No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Laguna Tortuguero NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Manglar Punta Petrona NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Manglar Punta Tuna NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal Resource No 

Pantano Cibuco NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Piñones State Forest NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Punta Guaniquilla NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal Resource No 

Punta Yeguas NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource No 

Río Espiritu Santo NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Seven Seas NR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem In development2

Isla de Desecheo MR Natural 

Heritage No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Tres Palmas MR Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Focal resource 

In 

development1

Aguirre State Forest Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

1 Management plan final document awaiting approval from the Puerto Rico Planning Board 2 Management plan in preparation 

 
PUERTO RICO 

114

CITATIONS 

Álvarez, N. 2006a. Fig. 6.1. Natural Protected Areas 

GIS layer from the Coastal Zone Division, DNER. 

–––––––. 2006b. Fig. 6.3. 

Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research 

(CSCOR). 2005. Caribbean Coral Reef Institute. 

NOAA/NOS/NCCOS/CSCOR. www.cop.noaa.gov/ 

ecosystems/coralreefs/current/ccri-factsheet-cr.html.

Compañia de Parques Nacionales. n.d. Información 

General. www.parquesnacionalespr.com. 

Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico. 2006. Mission. 

www.fideicomiso.org. 

Department of Environmental and Natural Resources – 

Coastal Zone Management Program (DNER – CZMP). 

2005. Alvarez, N. and E. Díaz. Estadísticas sobre los 

Arrecifes de Coral y Ecosistemas Bénticos Asociados de 

Puerto Rico, Draft. 

Department of Environmental and Natural Resources 

(DNER) – Reserves and Refuges Division. 2006. Fig. 

6.5. 

Executive Order OE-2004-49 of August 25, 2004. 

Ciénaga Cucharillas Natural Reserve. 

García-Sais, J.R., Appeldorn,R., Bruckner, A., Caldow, 

C., Christensen, J.D., Lilyestrom, C., Monaco, M.E., 

Sabater, J., Williams, E. and E. Díaz. 2005. The State of 

Coral Reef Ecosystems of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In: 

J. Waddell (ed.), The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of 

the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 

2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 

11. NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and 

Assessment’s Biogeography Team. Silver Spring, MD. 

522 pp. 

SUCCESS STORY 

The fishing community on the small island of Culebra, well aware of the imminent threats that their reefs were 

facing, began promoting the establishment of an MPA around the island in the 1980s. In 1999, the Asociación de 

Pescadores de Culebra (Culebra Fisherman’s Association), with the support of the community, academia, scientists, 

and NGOs, finally succeeded in their conservation efforts. In that year, the Puerto Rico Planning Board, following 

the recommendation of the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER), designated the 

ecologically important area that comprises the Luis Peña Channel as a natural reserve (NR). This reserve was the 

first marine NR that was originally petitioned by a fishing community in Puerto Rico, and it subsequently became 

the first NR with a no-take zone by virtue of the Puerto Rico Fishing Regulations (Article 8 (i)). The initial 

involvement of the fishermen and other stakeholders in the community has continued, with management plan 

development and implementation being driven by a bottom-up process (Hernández-Delgado 2003). 

Culebra’s efforts, and others simultaneously occurring throughout the world, motivated a small community in the 

municipality of Rincón to take action to protect the Tres Palmas reef. This reef has one of the few remaining large 

populations of healthy elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) in the Caribbean. Several groups began lobbying for the 

designation of Tres Palmas as a marine reserve in 2001, and the leading group of stakeholders joined to form the 

Coalición Pro-Calidad de Vida de Rincón in 2002. Through an effective and efficient outreach and education 

campaign focused on the local community, the group was able to obtain public and government support for the 

marine reserve. The Puerto Rico Legislature approved the designation of the Tres Palmas Marine Reserve by 

passing Law No. 17 of January 8, 2004. This law also ordered DNER to develop a co-management plan (Article 5) 

and to establish coordination and management agreements (Article 6). Following the path taken by the community 

of Culebra, including the creation of steering and technical advisory committees, the Tres Palmas group is 

developing a well-organized management plan based on collaborative management between the community, 

DNER, and other groups. They are also promoting stakeholder participation in every stage of management plan 

development and implementation. In the interim, steps are being taken to designate the Tres Palmas Marine 

Reserve as a no-take area. 

In 2002, the Culebra and Rincón efforts were recognized by the Coral Reef Task Force with awards. The 

community of Tres Palmas is applying the “lessons learned” from Culebra to the development of management 

plans for other MPAs. These examples will serve as models for collaborative management in Puerto Rico. 
PUERTO RICO 

115

Green-Cáceres, Astrid J. 2005. Fig. 6.4. DNER. 

Adaptation of publication by the University of the 

Virgin Islands sponsored by the University of the Virgin 

Islands and the Sea Grant Program. 

Kendall, M.S., Kruer, C.R., Buja, K.R., Christensen, 

J.D., Diaz, E., Warner, R.A. and M.E. Monaco. 2004. 

A characterization of the shallow-water coral reefs and 

associated habitats of Puerto Rico. Gulf and Caribbean 

Research Vol. 16 (2): 172-184. 

 

Hernández-Delgado, E.A. 2003. Suplemento técnico al 

plan de manejo para la Reserva Natural del Canal Luis 

Peña, Culebra, Puerto Rico. Departamento de Recursos 

Naturales, San Juan, PR and National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

Joint Legislative Resolution 449 of August 21, 2000. 

Manglar Punta Tuna. 

Law No. 17 of January 8, 2004. Tres Palmas Marine 

Reserve Law. 

Law No. 36 of April 17, 1979. Cayo Ratones and 

Adjacent Waters Law. 

Law No. 57 of March 10, 2000. Law to designate as a 

Marine Reserve one half mile of the territorial waters 

around Desecheo Island. 

Law No. 75 of June 24, 1975. Organic Law for the 

Planning Board of Puerto Rico as amended. 

Law No. 133 of July 1, 1975. State Forests Law of 

Puerto Rico as amended. 

Law No. 201 of August 25, 2000. Ecosystems adjacent 

to the Laguna Joyuda Law. 

Law No. 228 of August 12, 1999. Law of Seven Seas 

Natural Reserve. 

Lilyestrom, C.G. and E. Hoffmaster. 2002. Recreational 

fishery statistics of coral reef fisheries in Puerto Rico. In: 

Proceedings, Coral Reef Fisheries, Caribbean Regional 

Workshop on Coral Reef Fisheries Management: 

Collaboration on Successful Management, Enforcement 

and Education Methods.

Matos, Robert. 2006. Fig. 6.5. DNER – Reserves and 

Refuges. 

Morelock, Jack, Wilson R. Ramírez, Andy W. Bruckner, 

and Milton Carlo. 2001. Status of Coral Reefs in 

Southwest Puerto Rico. Caribbean Journal of Science, 

Special Online Publication. Available online at 

http://www.uprm.edu/biology/cjs/reefstatuspdf.pdf. 

Mote Environmental Services Inc. 2002. A description 

of the export industry for marine ornamental fish and 

invertebrates in Puerto Rico. Unpublished report to 

Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental 

Resources’ Coral Reef Advisory Committee. 85pp. 

Parks, John. 2005. Fig. 6.8. NOAA Office of Ocean 

and Coastal Resource Management. 

Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental

Resources (DNER). 2003. Administrative Order 2003-

22. 

Puerto Rico Fishing Regulations No. 6768. February 

10, 2004. 

Puerto Rico Planning Board Resolution PU-002 and 

extensions. 

Schärer, M. and M. Almodóvar-Ramírez. 2005. Marine 

Managed Areas Inventory of Puerto Rico: A 

comprehensive database of coastal resources. COSTAS. 

Soto, Elliot. 2005. Fig. 6.2. DNER – Enforcement 

Division. 

Surfrider Foundation. 2005. Fig. 6.6. 

http://www.surfrider.org/. 

U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal 

Ocean Science Biogeography Program. 2001. Benthic 

Habitats of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

CD-ROM. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

Ventosa-Febles, E.A., Camacho-Rodríguez, M., 

Chabert-Llompart, J.L., Sustache-Sustache, J. and 

Dávila-Casanova, D. 2005. Puerto Rico Critical 

Wildlife Areas. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, 

Bureau of Fish and Wildlife, Territorial Resources 

Division. 392pp. 
116 
117 

Fig. 7.1: Threatened elkhorn coral in St. 

Croix (Weatherall 2005) 

Chapter 7: U.S. Virgin Islands Coral Reef MPA Summary 

Dana Wusinich-Mendez, NOAA, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

Susan Curtis, USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Management Division 

Contributors: Wes Toller, Toby Tobias, Barbara Kojis, Paige Rothenberger, Nick Drayton, Mark Drew, Shona 

Paterson, Bill Rohring, and Lisamarie Carruba 

INTRODUCTION 

The U. S. Virgin Islands (USVI) is comprised of the 

three main islands of St. Croix, St. John, and St. 

Thomas, and 54 small islands and keys. Several types of 

coral reefs, including patch, bank, barrier, and fringing 

reefs can be found in the waters surrounding this island 

system. Spur and groove formations dominate many 

forereefs. Other prevalent components of the USVI’s 

coral reef ecosystem that provide habitat for many 

different coral reef species include non–coralline 

hardbottom, mangrove systems represented by four 

different mangrove species, salt ponds created by the 

growth of coral reefs across the mouths of enclosed 

bays, large algal plains, and extensive seagrass beds. 

Over 350 species of fish have been observed among the 

coral reefs and in surrounding waters of the USVI 

(Drayton 2004). 

Human activities, natural storm events, the impact of 

disease on corals, and the 1980’s mass mortality of the 

black-spined sea urchin have significantly reduced the 

health and diversity of coral reef ecosystems in the 

USVI. Concentrated tourism 

pressure from the cruise ship 

industry; improper 

construction and wastewater 

management practices 

associated with the prolific 

development of private 

homes, hotels, and large 

resorts on the steep terrain of 

the three main islands; and 

increased fishing and marine 

recreation activity have had a 

severe impact on the coral 

reefs of the Virgin Islands. 

Coral reef ecosystem monitoring efforts of the federal 

government (NOAA, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of the 

Interior), the territorial government (the USVI 

Department of Planning and Natural Resources), and 

the University of the Virgin Islands have revealed major 

declines in coral reef coverage, health, species diversity, 

and fish population abundance in the USVI. Over the 

past 25 years, living coral coverage has declined on some 

reefs from over 40 percent to under 20 percent, and 

small colonies outnumber major reef building species 

(Drayton 2004). Monitoring assessments in and around 

the federal protected areas of the Virgin Islands 

National Park and Coral Reef Monument on St. John 

and the Buck Island Reef National Monument off of 

St. Croix have revealed similar decreases in live coral 

cover over a four-year period from 1997 to 2001 

(Jeffrey, et al. 2005). Observations of Acropora palmata, 

an important reef building species, in the official 2005 

report on the State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the US 

Virgin Islands, have revealed continued loss of this 

species due to disease and physical breakage (Jeffrey, et 

al. 2005). Over the past 12 years, the National Park 

Service has also documented significant declines in reef 

fish abundance, including key reef species like gray 

angelfish (Pomacanthus arcuatus), queen angelfish 

(Holacanthus ciliarus), red hind (Epinephelus guttatus), and 

Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) (Beets and 

Friedlander 2003). Intense fishing pressure, habitat loss 

and degradation, and tropical storm events have resulted 

in the demise of the large grouper and snapper species 

in the USVI (Olsen and LaPlace 1978; Beets and 

Friedlander 1992; and Rogers and Beets 

2001). 

The U.S. federal government and the 

territorial government of the USVI have 

recognized that measures must be taken to 

protect remaining coral reef resources in 

the islands, and for almost 50 years they 

have made efforts to conserve coral reef 

ecosystems through the establishment of 

MPAs. In 1959, the Virgin Islands 

government joined forces with the U.S. 

Department of the Interior to support a 

survey of recreational needs, sites, and 

services in the USVI. This study was done specifically 

to encourage the development of a territorial park 

system, and many of the existing MPAs in the USVI 

were first identified by this survey (Island Resources 

Foundation 2002). 

The government of the USVI has established 24 MPAs 

on St. Croix, St. John and St. Thomas that contain coral 

reef resources and habitats. These sites represent three 

types of MPAs in the USVI: territorial marine parks, 

areas of particular concern (APCs), and marine reserve 
USVI 

118

Table 7.1: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the St. Croix East End Marine Park 

Territorial Marine Park 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wet lands  Bays and Estuaries  Salt Ponds  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

St. Croix East End x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

and wildlife sanctuaries (MRWSs). There is also a 

fisheries spawning area closure in the USVI, the St. 

Croix Mutton Snapper Closure Area, which is jointly 

managed by the federal and territorial government. As 

described in the report’s introduction, this report is an 

accounting of areas that are managed by state and 

territory governments; therefore, this fisheries closure is 

not further discussed in this chapter. 

MPA TYPES 

Territorial Marine Parks: 

Although the USVI has expressed a goal of establishing 

a system of territorial marine parks, the St. Croix East 

End Marine Park is the only park currently in this MPA 

category. 

National Classification: Zoned Multiple-Use with 

No-Take Areas, Natural Heritage MPA 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The USVI Department of Planning and Natural 

Resources (DPNR), Division of Coastal Zone 

Management (CZM) has management authority over the 

St. Croix East End Marine Park (STXEEMP), which 

was established by the 24th Legislature of the USVI on 

January 15, 2003 through the creation of Act No. 6572 

of the Virgin Islands Code Title 12, Chapter 1, Sections 

97 and 98. This act also gave DPNR the authority to 

establish other territorial marine parks.

Goals, Objectives, Policies and Protections: 

According to the official mission statement, the 

STXEEMP was “established for the purpose of 

managing the resources within the boundaries of the 

park. These natural and cultural resources provide 

environmental, economic and social benefits to 

residents and visitors. Increased demand for 

recreational, educational, and commercial uses require 

the resources be managed in a manner that guarantees 

the benefits are available for present and future 

generations” (STXEEMP 2005-06a). The legislative 

authority establishing the park states that the park’s goal 

is “to protect territorially significant marine resources, 

promote sustainability of marine ecosystems, including 

coral reefs, seagrass beds, wildlife habitats and other 

resources, and to conserve and preserve significant 

natural areas for the use and benefit of future 

generations...” (Virgin Islands Code, Title 12, Ch. 1, § 

97-98). 

Official rules and regulations for the park were adopted 

by the VI CZM Commission on April 4, 2006. Once 

the governor of the USVI signs the rules and 

regulations, they will be legally enforceable. The 

commission may revise the rules and regulations at any 

time, but the changes must be adopted by the 

commission and signed by the USVI governor. 

Within the boundaries of the STXEEMP, there are four 

types of managed areas, or zones, including recreational 

management areas, a turtle wildlife preserve area, notake areas, and open areas. Recreational management 

areas, which make up 2.8 percent of the park, were 

established to allow for the enjoyment of marine 

resources by local Virgin Islanders and visitors to 

Fig. 7.2 : St.Croix East End Marine Park zonation map (USVI 

Department of Planning and Natural Resources 2006b) 
USVI 

119

Table 7.2: STXEEMP Zone Regulations (USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources 2006a) 

Park Wide Regulations Wildlife Preserve 

Zone (Turtle Area) No-Take Zone Recreational Zone Open Fishing Area 

Removal, injury, or possession of 

any coral or live rock not allowed 

Alteration or construction on the 

sea bed not allowed 

Discharge or deposit of materials 

such as oil or trash not allowed 

Use of a vessel in a manner that 

damages marine habitats not 

allowed 

All vessels must be anchored or 

moored in accordance with marine 

park regulations 

Diving without a flag not allowed 

Damage or removal of markers 

not allowed

Commercial activity, scientific 

research, or other activity that 

involves extraction, alteration, or 

addition requires a permit 

Gill and trammel nets 

not allowed 

Additional regulations 

may be implemented 

at a future date 

Vessels longer than 

150 feet. not 

allowed 

Fishing not allowed 

Removal of, or 

injury to, any living 

marine resource not 

allowed 

Personal watercraft, 

airboats, and 

waterskiing not 

allowed

Recreational 

activities such as, 

but not limited to, 

swimming, 

snorkeling, diving, 

kite boarding, 

windsurfing, and 

boating, allowed 

Shoreline 

recreational line 

fishing (keep catch) 

allowed 

Catch and release 

guide fishing 

allowed 

Cast netting to 

catch bait fish 

allowed 

All other traditional 

fishing methods not 

allowed

Existing territorial 

regulations apply 

Removal of coral 

or live rock not 

allowed 

NOTE: The above referenced information is an extract of highlights from the draft STXEEMP Rules and Regulations. 

This list is not exhaustive nor inclusive of all the prohibitions cited in the rules and regulations. 

St. Croix, while minimizing the disturbance to marine 

life and their habitats. These areas were designated for 

uses such as snorkeling, diving, catch and release fishing, 

cast net bait fishing, shoreline fishing, and boating. The 

intent of the turtle wildlife preserve area is to protect 

primary turtle nesting beaches as well as transit and 

foraging areas for green, hawksbill, and leatherback 

turtles. The public is permitted to use these areas for 

recreation, but no cars, horses, or fires are permitted on 

the beaches. A prohibition on gill and trammel nets for 

the harvest of baitfish in this area also offers protection 

for turtles feeding in the park waters. This zone 

represents 7 percent of the total STXEEMP area. 

Approximately 8.6 percent of the STXEEMP is made 

up of no-take areas that prohibit all commercial and 

recreational fishing. These areas were established to 

protect spawning, nursery, and residence habitat for 

important reef species. A majority of the STXEEMP 

area, over 80 percent, has been designated as open area. 

This area prohibits the removal of coral or live rock. 

The USVI government has a joint enforcement 

agreement with NOAA to support and enforce both 

local and federal regulations pertaining to the protection 

of important fisheries habitat and managed species. 

Management Activities: 

A comprehensive management plan for the park was 

formally adopted by the Virgin Islands Legislature in 

2002. The plan was developed by the Virgin Islands 

chapter of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and was 

based on a participatory process involving many 

different stakeholders on St. Croix. TNC used their site 

conservation planning framework for the development 

of this plan, which resulted in a series of management 

strategies and action plans to achieve the identified goals 

and objectives of the park. 

The STXEEMP currently has an administrative 

assistant, a chief of interpretive rangers, and a marine 

resource ecologist. Efforts are underway to fill 

additional positions for the park including a marine park 

coordinator, outreach and education coordinator, and 

interpretive rangers. These staff positions answer to the 

director of the VI CZM Program and are responsible 

for the day-to-day management of the park, including 

the implementation of all park programs and 

management activities. Upon signature of the rules and 

regulations by the governor of the USVI, environmental 

enforcement officers from DPNR’s Division of 

Environmental Enforcement will be able to enforce the 
USVI 

120

Fig. 7.3: STXEEMP and Buck 

Island (Wusinich-Mendez 2005) 

adopted regulations. Listed below are some of the 

programs that are being implemented, or are in 

development. 

Monitoring: 

In partnership with 

NOAA, the 

National Park 

Service, the 

University of the 

Virgin Islands, and 

DPNR’s Division 

of Fish and Wildlife 

(DFW), the CZM 

Program has been monitoring long-term trends in 

benthic habitat and fishery resources in the USVI, with 

a focus on the development of a comprehensive 

baseline measure of marine resources within the 

STXEEMP. The CZM Program and DFW are also 

working together to monitor populations of Caribbean 

spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) within the park. 

Education and Outreach: 

The STXEEMP has a strong outreach and education 

program that seeks to “promote a holistic view of the 

park ecosystem as an interrelated and interdependent 

system of habitats, encourage and promote a sense of 

user stewardship regarding the marine environment, and 

promote the awareness of and support for the St. Croix 

East End Marine Park” (STXEEMP 2005-06b). Several 

products and on-going programs have been developed 

to achieve these goals. They include snorkel clinics, 

summer camps, a marine park video, an outreach and 

information center, a mobile outreach and education 

van, and the on-going development of outreach 

products for hotels, private tour operators, and the 

public. DPNR is working with NOAA Fisheries and 

the Nature Conservancy to create an interpretive plan 

for the park that includes training of interpretive 

rangers. A STXEEMP visitor’s center is currently under 

development. Outreach staff are also involved with the 

Virgin Islands Network of Environmental Educators 

(VINE), a network of natural resource and cultural 

outreach specialists working to build capacity for 

environmental education in the USVI. The network 

includes members of 26 territorial agencies and 

organizations dedicated to managing territorial cultural 

and natural resources. 

Other: 

As a part of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, the USVI is 

participating in an initiative to develop and implement 

local action strategies (LAS) that address priority threats 

to U.S. coral reef ecosystems. The USVI chose to focus 

their LAS effort completely on the STXEEMP, and has 

developed a series of over 60 projects to address 

overfishing, land-based sources of pollution, recreational 

overuse and misuse, and a lack of public awareness of 

coral reef issues, all of which are major threats to the 

park’s coral reef resources. Twenty-four of these 

projects are currently being implemented. 

The CZM Program has installed 45 day-use mooring 

buoys and is permitted to install a total of 55 throughout 

the park. Buoy locations were selected based on high 

use areas and benthic habitat surveys throughout the 

STXEEMP, and were installed to protect seagrass beds 

and coral reefs in areas with heavy recreational use. 

Federal funds have also been obtained by the CZM 

Program for the installation of navigational aids, 

boundary markers, and park signage; an economic 

valuation of coral reef resources with the STXEEMP, a 

user survey, and a vessel assessment; and, development 

of standard operating procedures for the day-to-day 

management of the park. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

The USVI has recognized the importance of involving 

local stakeholders in the development and management 

of the STXEEMP. In the initial stages of developing 

the park boundaries and identifying different use zones, 

DPNR and TNC worked with local fishermen in 

community workshops. The fishermen identified the 

proposed no-take areas for the park as light commercial 

fishing areas and agreed that they would be appropriate 

for no-take areas because of their importance as nursery 

areas for recreational and commercial fisheries (TNC 

2002). The management plan development process was 

a highly collaborative one. The management strategies 

and action plans that are the core of the STXEEMP 

Management Plan are the result of a series of 

community workshops held on St. Croix in 2001. The 

workshops were attended by representatives of DPNR’s 

Divisions of CZM, Fish and Wildlife, Environmental 

Enforcement, Comprehensive and Coastal Zone 

Planning, and Environmental Protection, the University 

of the Virgin Islands, the National Park Service, The 

Ocean Conservancy, the Island Resources Foundation, 

the St. Croix Fisheries Advisory Committee, the 

commercial fishing industry, and local dive operators. 

The STXEEMP has an official advisory committee, the 

Virgin Islands Marine Park Advisory Committee 

(VIMPAC) that was created to support effective 

management of the park (see success story on p. 128). 

The committee's work has been crucial to the successful 

development of the STXEEMP. Members worked with 

the territorial government to establish the park and 

develop the management plan and rules and regulations. 

VIMPAC has members representing territorial and 
USVI 

121

Fig. 7.4: Map of APCs on St. Thomas and St. John (Grigg 2000) 

federal government agencies, international, national and 

local non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the 

University of the Virgin Islands, commercial fishers, 

private businesses, and interested stakeholders. The 

committee’s role has evolved and the group now 

provides advice and technical assistance on MPA issues 

in the USVI beyond the STXEEMP. 

Areas of Particular Concern

The CZM Program Development Regulations, Section 

305 (b)(3) and 15 CFR Part 923, provide criteria that 

each state or territory may use when designating or 

nominating areas of particular concern (APCs). Areas 

may be designated under a number of categories (see 

Table 7.3). These categories were used by the territorial 

government in 1979 to select the 18 APCs, and include 

significant natural areas (SNAs), culturally important 

areas, recreational areas, prime industrial and 

commercial areas, developed areas, hazard areas, and 

mineral resources. Half of the APCs are located on St. 

Croix, and half are split between the other two main 

islands, with three on St. John and six on St. Thomas. 

Table 7.3 lists the APCs for each island and their 

original categories for selection. 

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use, 

Natural Heritage and Cultural Heritage MPAs 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Act of 

1978 declared that certain areas of the USVI’s coastal 

zone are of special significance, and called for an 

inventory and designation of APCs within the coastal 

zone. In 1979, the Virgin Islands Department of 

Conservation and Cultural Affairs conducted an 

inventory of sites for nomination as areas of particular 

concern (APCs) and areas for preservation and 

restoration (APRs). Based on technical review by 

government staff and public review and input, 18 land 

and water areas were designated as APCs and APRs. 

On June 9, 1994, the Legislature of the Virgin Islands, 

through Bill No. 20-0252, legally designated all 18 areas 

as APCs within the coastal zone. The bill designates the 

APCs by name and geographic boundary only. There 

are currently no areas designated as APRs. 

The CZM Division of DPNR is responsible for the 

management of these 18 areas. Upon the development 

and approval of management plans and rules and 

regulations for these areas, DPNR’s Division of 

Environmental Enforcement will be responsible for 

enforcement. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies and 

Protections: 

The areas included within the APC 

system possess an abundance of 

biological diversity. Almost all of the 

APCs include both a terrestrial and 

marine component, and ten include a 

significant marine component that 

extends from the shoreline to the 

three-mile territorial limit. These 

areas contain critical coral reef 

habitat areas, such as mangroves, 

seagrass beds, fish spawning areas, 

fish and shellfish nursery areas, 

wetlands, estuaries, and salt ponds. 

The APCs were originally developed 

as a land use planning tool rather 

than for the purpose of managing marine resources. 

Therefore, there is some debate as to whether these sites 

actually qualify as MPAs. The APC system is included 

in this report for several reasons, including the fact that 

the APCs were included by the USVI in the National 

MMA Inventory and that most APCs include significant 

marine components that will be addressed in 

management plans and managed through the 

development of rules and regulations for the system. 

Specific goals and objectives for the APCs have yet to 

be established or adopted by the territorial government, 

but general guidelines and use recommendations were 

outlined for the system (DOC 1979). These guidelines 

recommend the protection of natural functions, 

protection of marine ecosystems and resources, wildlife 

conservation, habitat protection, protection of 

endangered species, watershed management, marine 

pollution management, support of recreational activities 
USVI 

122

Fig. 7.5: Map of APCs on St. Croix (Grigg 2000) 

NOTE: Map does not include the St. Croix Coral Reef Ecosystem APC. 

Table 7.3: APC Selection Criteria (U.S. Department of Commerce 1979) 

Criteria for Selection 

1979 designation St. Croix APCs St. Thomas APCs St. John APCs 

Prime Commercial /Recreational Area Christensted Waterfront Vessup Bay – East End 

Commercial Frederiksted Waterfront Enighed Pond 

Territorial Park System East End Botany Bay Coral Bay-Lagoon Point

Wildlife, Educational and Natural Area Great Pond 

Natural, Scientific, Educational, Scenic 

and Historic Area 

Salt River Bay and 

Watershed 

Significant Natural Area Sandy Point Chocolate Hole-Great 

Cruz Bay 

Wildlife Educational and Research Area Southgate Pond 

Industrial Area Southshore Industrial Area 

Underwater Park/Territorial Park 

System 

St. Croix Coral Reef 

Ecosystems 

Archeological, Cultural, Educational, 

Recreational Area Magens Bay and Watershed 

Wildlife and Scenic Park Mandahl Bay 

Mangrove Protection/Restoration Mangrove Lagoon – 

Benner Bay 

Industrial and Commercial Area 

St. Thomas-Charlotte 

Amalie Harbor and 

Waterfront 

and water-based commerce, protection of cultural and 

historic resources, and research and education. Each of 

the 18 APCs has at least one recommendation related to 

natural resource conservation. 

Management Activities: 

There have been numerous attempts to create 

management plans for the APCs. In 1981, draft 

management plans for various APCs were developed by 

the Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs. 

In 1993, analytic studies for all 18 APCs were completed 

that provided background information for the areas. In 

2001, draft management plans were produced for Coral 

Bay, Benner Bay, and Christiansted 

Waterfront APCs. These plans were deemed 

unacceptable by DPNR because they 

proposed a restructuring of the territorial 

government, were very general, and did not 

include site-specific management approaches. 

In 2002, portions of four APCs on St. Croix 

(East End, St. Croix Coral Reef Ecosystems, 

Great Pond, and Southgate Pond/Chenay 

Bay) were combined and elevated in status to 

become the St. Croix East End Marine Park 

(STXEEMP). Since the STXEEMP 

encompasses significant marine components 

of four APCs, the park’s management plan 

could be considered a successfully adopted 

APC-related management plan. Apart from 

being an APC, the Sandy Point area of St. 

Croix is also a national wildlife refuge and is 

managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A 

portion of the Southgate Pond APC is privately owned 

by the St. Croix Environmental Association (SEA). 

SEA has prepared a conservation management plan for 

the pond and surrounding area that encompass their 

private land holdings. The Magens Bay Beach Authority 

manages the beach portion of the Magens Bay APC and 

collects user fees to maintain the beach facilities and 

provide lifeguards. 

As far as the remaining APCs, there are no management 

plans or rules or regulations that prohibit or limit any 

activities within the areas beyond the existing territorial 

and federal laws and rules and regulations. To date, 
USVI 

123

Table 7.4: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the 18 Areas of Particular Concern (APCs) 

(STX = St. Croix, STJ = St. John, STT = St. Thomas) 

Areas of Particular Concern 

(APCs) 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass and  Algal Beds  Wet lands  Bays and Estuaries  Salt Ponds  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Botany Bay - STT x x x x x x x 

Christiansted - STX x x x x x x x x x x 

Chocolate Hole - STJ x x x x x x x x 

Coral Bay - STJ x x x x x x x x x 

East End - STX x x x x x x x x x x x 

Enighed Pond - STJ x x x x x x x x x x 

Frederiksted - STX x x x x 

Great Pond - STX x x x x x x x x x 

Magens Bay - STT x x x x x x x 

Mandahl Bay - STT x x x x x x x x x x 

Mangrove Lagoon - STT x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Salt River - STX x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Sandy Point - STX x x x x 

Southgate - STX x x x x x x x x x 

Southshore Industrial - STX x x x x x x x x 

St. Croix Coral Reef - STX x x x x x x x x 

St. Thomas Harbor - STT x x x x x x x x x 

Vessup Bay - STT x x x x x x x 

Fig. 7.6: Coral Bay watershed and 

APC (Wusinich-Mendez 2005)

none of the 1981 draft management plans, 1993 analytic 

studies, or 2001 draft management plans have been 

adopted by the territorial government. In 1980, there 

was an attempt to incorporate the 

APC management recommendations 

outlined in the 1979 Virgin Islands 

Coastal Management Program and 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement into the CZM permitting 

process. However, it is unclear how 

extensively these recommendations 

have been applied. In 1994, in Virgin 

Islands Conservation Society, Inc. v. 

Virgin Islands Board of Land Use 

Appeals and Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management 

Commission et al. 857 F. Supp.1112, the U.S. District 

Court found that APC management plans are nonbinding unless approved and adopted by the legislature. 

DPNR has recently designated a coordinator for the 

APC system who will work with other divisions of local 

government, stakeholder groups on all three islands, and 

involved federal partners to identify strategies and 

attempt to make the APC system functional. This effort 

may lead to the prioritization of areas for 

management action, including the 

development of management plans and 

regulations. 

Stakeholder Involvement and 

Public Participation: 

Due to the lack of progress in 

implementing the APC system, there has 

been little opportunity to involve local 

stakeholders and minimal public involvement in 

management, with the exception of the Coral BayLagoon Point APC on St. John. The residents of Coral 

Bay have formed the Coral Bay Community Council to 

provide a forum whereby local residents can participate 

in planning for development. The council is involved in 

several activities that seek to increase general awareness 
USVI 

124

Table 7.5: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Five Marine Reserve and Wildlife 

Sanctuaries (MRWSs) (STX = St. Croix, STJ = St. John, STT = St. Thomas)

Marine Reserves and Wildlife 

Sanctuaries (MRWSs) 

 Coral Reefs  Mangroves  Seagrass or  Algal Beds  Wetlands  Bays and Estuaries  Salt Ponds  Fish Spawning Areas  Commercial Finfish  Recreational Finfish  Shellfish  Sea Turtles  Marine Mammals  Threatened or  Endangered Birds 

Cas Cay/Mangrove Lagoon - 

STT x x x x x x x 

Compass Point Pond - STT x x x x x x x 

Frank Bay - STJ x x x x x x x 

Salt River Bay - STX x x x x x x x x x 

St. James - STT x x x x x x x x x x 

and understanding of issues related to land use planning, 

watershed management, and the use and protection of 

ocean resources. It has developed outreach materials 

that provide information to developers and the public 

on best management practices for watershed 

conservation, and it is currently working on a project to 

inventory the marine and coastal species and habitats of 

Coral Bay. While not specific to the APCs, there has 

been stakeholder and public involvement in the 

development and management of the STXEEMP, 

which consists of portions of four APCs. 

Marine Reserves and Wildlife 

Sanctuaries:

Three of the reserves are located on the East End of St. 

Thomas, and St. Croix and St. John each have one. 

National Classification: No-Take, Natural Heritage, 

Cultural Heritage, and Sustainable Production MPAs 

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency: 

The five reserves in this system are supported by both 

the Wildlife and Marine Sanctuaries Act 1980 (Act No. 

5229) and the Virgin Islands Code Title 12, Chapter 1, 

Sections 94, 96, and 97. This legislation allows DPNR 

to designate wildlife sanctuaries and marine reserves, 

and to promulgate associated rules and regulations. 

While the supporting legislation was created in 1980, the 

five reserves were officially designated between 1992 

and 2000. DPNR’s Division of Fish and Wildlife 

(DFW) has management authority over the reserves, 

and DPNR’s Division of Environmental Enforcement 

is responsible for enforcing the reserves’ regulations. 

Salt River Bay is also a National Historical Park and 

Ecological Preserve and is jointly managed with the 

National Park Service. 

Goals, Objectives, Policies and Protections: 

All of the reserves have one goal in common – the 

protection of valuable fishery and wildlife resources, and 

the habitats on which those species depend. Each 

reserve also has specific goals, objectives, and 

regulations included in the section of Virgin Islands 

Code Title 12, Chapter 1 that authorized their 

establishment. Currently, the reserves in the MRWS 

system have stronger regulations for the protection of 

marine resources than any other territorial MPA in the 

USVI. 

The Cas Cay/Mangrove Lagoon MRWS was established 

to protect essential fish habitat for juvenile reef fish, 

lobsters, birds, and wetland plants and animals, and to 

support the restoration of these wildlife populations 

within the reserve. It is illegal to take any living 

organism from the reserve, or to use firearms or any 

other contrivances designed to take fish, birds, or other 

wildlife. In the reserve, boats are not allowed to anchor 

for more than seven days, and vessels without 

functioning sewage holding tanks are prohibited from 

anchoring. Within an identified inner lagoon area, it is 

illegal to use motorized vessels. Bait fishing is allowed 

north and west of the shorelines of the reserve with a 

permit from DPNR’s Division of Environmental 

Enforcement. 

The Compass Point Pond MRWS was established to 

protect this important wildlife area on St. Thomas and 

to prevent any further degradation of the natural 

resources found within it. Prohibited activities within 
USVI 

125

Management Challenges in the USVI's MPAs

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Funding/

Resources

Capacity Public

Support

Monitoring Enforcement

Fig. 7.7: Percent of MPAs (out of 24 total MPAs) that identified each issue as 

a challenge to effective MPA management. 

this reserve include the use of firearms, the taking of any 

plant or animal, and the construction, storage, repair, 

and maintenance of vessels or vehicles. 

The St. James, Frank Bay, and Salt River MRWSs have 

focused marine resource conservation goals that aim to: 

contribute to commercially viable fishery resources by 

protecting a portion of their spawning stock; to preserve 

coral reefs and seagrass habitats for larval, juvenile, and 

adult fish and invertebrates, as well as endangered sea 

turtles and bird species; and, finally, to provide marine 

viewing areas for commercial dive operators, 

recreational divers, students, and researchers. As in the 

other reserves, it is unlawful to remove any marine or 

other wildlife from these three reserves. In the St. 

James MRWS, fishing by hook and line and bait fishing 

using a cast net are allowed within 50 feet of the 

shoreline with a permit from DPNR’s Division of 

Environmental Enforcement. 

Management Activities: 

Although the regulations for each reserve are 

comprehensive and seek to effectively protect marine 

and wildlife resources in the MRWS system, none of the 

reserves has a management plan. The existing 

management efforts in these reserves 

include the installation of signage that 

enables DPNR’s Division of 

Environmental Enforcement to effectively 

respond when violations are reported, the 

distribution of brochures that explain the 

rules and regulations for these areas, and 

the opening of channels in the Cas 

Cay/Mangrove Lagoon MRWS to restore 

circulation after they had been closed off by 

hurricanes. DFW has worked with a 

number of hotels and condominium 

communities in the areas surrounding the 

reserves to make their clientele aware of the 

reserve regulations. In partnership with 

NOAA, DFW has also developed 

educational materials on the MRWSs of St. 

Thomas that were distributed through the 

hotels and fishing associations. 

Stakeholder Involvement and Public 

Participation: 

The reserves were established with public input. The St. 

Thomas Fisheries Advisory Committee recommended 

the establishment of the Cas Cay/Mangrove Lagoon 

and St. James MRWSs. The Frank Bay MRWS was 

developed as a result of a stakeholder initiative, and the 

residents of St. John are very involved in the 

conservation of this area. 

CHALLENGES TO MPA 

EFFECTIVENESS 

One of the greatest challenges to the effective 

implementation of MPAs in the USVI is a lack of 

resources, both human and financial, dedicated to MPA 

management activities. Only one MPA in the USVI, the 

STXEEMP, has dedicated staff. With no human 

resources dedicated to managing the MPAs, there is 

little to no management activity for these sites and only 

the STXEEMP has an approved management plan. 

Even within the STXEEMP, which has federal funds 

that currently support the staff positions and 

management activities described above, there is no 

identified source of long-term, sustainable funding that 

will support the activities that are critical to the effective 

management of the park. There are efforts underway to 

complete a sustainable financing plan for the 

STXEEMP that seeks to identify these long-term 

opportunities. The lengthy hiring processes of the 

territorial government is also a challenge because it is 

difficult to find qualified personnel that are willing to 

wait the one to two years that it can take to finalize a 

position. As a result of such hiring delays, several of the 

funded staff positions within the STXEEMP are 

currently vacant. 

In addition to inadequate funds to support staff, 

capacity of existing staff is a considerable MPA 

management challenge. It is extremely difficult to find 

qualified local residents of the USVI that are interested 

in coastal and marine resource management positions. 

The lack of qualified staff will remain an issue until 

marine conservation is better incorporated into local 

education systems and curricula. 
USVI 

126

Fig. 7.8: NOAA and USVI DPNR 

partner to monitor coral reefs in the 

STXEEMP (Rothenberger 2005) 

Another obstacle to effective MPA management is a 

lack of enforcement of existing rules and regulations. 

Currently, DPNR’s Division of Environmental 

Enforcement is responsible for upholding all 

environmental rules and regulations throughout the 

territory. There is no enforcement staff dedicated 

specifically to the MPAs, and with other enforcement 

priorities such as port security and immigration issues, 

protected area management falls by the wayside. The 

root cause of these problems may be a general lack of 

awareness and understanding of the threats to marine 

and coral reef resources in the USVI and the potential 

benefits of MPAs. Without a change in the level of 

public interest and support for marine conservation in 

the USVI, decision makers and government officials will 

not dedicate more resources and attention to coral reef 

conservation. 

In the National MMA Inventory, all 24 MPAs identified 

capacity, public support, and enforcement as major 

management challenges. Resources and monitoring 

were identified as priority challenges for all MPAs 

except the STXEEMP, which currently has access to 

federal funding and has on-going coral reef and water 

quality monitoring programs. 

WORKING TOWARDS A NETWORK 

There is a need for a system of MPAs operating 

cooperatively and synergistically across the territory to 

support the ecological integrity of the coral reef 

resources of the USVI. In 2004, the USVI completed a 

Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas 

for the U.S. Virgin Islands (Gardner 2004). Little has been 

done to further develop and implement that plan until 

recently. Two major non-governmental conservation 

organizations located in St. Croix, The Nature 

Conservancy and The Ocean Conservancy, are working 

together with DPNR to provide critical information for 

future network development. They are assessing 

existing federal and territorial MMAs throughout the 

USVI to determine the level of coral reef ecosystem 

protection within existing sites, the viability of those 

areas, and their contribution to a potential 

representative and resilient ecological network of MPAs. 

The organizations will also be conducting a series of 

workshops with fisheries and marine resource 

management experts, as well as representatives from 

various stakeholder groups, to identify priority marine 

conservation targets, their locations, ecological needs, 

and presence within and outside of existing MMAs. 

These workshops will be followed by an in-depth gap 

analysis to determine an optimal portfolio of protected 

areas for the conservation of coral reef ecosystems in 

the U.S. Virgin Islands. It is hoped that this information 

will then be used 

as the basis for the 

development of an 

expanded 

territorial marine 

park system in the 

USVI. 

NEXT 

STEPS/ 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The following measures are recommended in support of 

the development and effective management of coral reef 

protected areas in the USVI. 

Strengthen DPNR’s Division of Environmental 

Enforcement by investing more resources, and hiring 

more enforcement personnel that can dedicate their 

time to MPA enforcement issues. A corps of MPA 

rangers could be created that would patrol protected 

areas and observe, document, and report territorial or 

MPA regulatory violations to DPNR’s Division of 

Environmental Enforcement. Officers could then take 

enforcement actions and issue violations as they are 

reported by the rangers. 

Create a consistent, targeted effort to educate policy 

makers on the importance of coastal and marine 

resources. An effective network of MPAs will never be 

realized in the USVI without addressing the issue of 

political will. Decision makers need to be involved in 

protected area processes so that they see the value of 

these initiatives and will support their development. 

Strengthen relationships with local partners, including 

federal government agencies academic institutions, 

NGOs, and local community groups that can help the 

local government design and implement actions to 

support protected area management. 

Develop scholarship and internship programs for local 

students to build local protected area management 

capacity. 
USVI 

127

Table 7.6: National Classification System for the USVI’s 24 MPAs 

Site Name 

 Conservation  Focus  Level of  Protection  Permanence  of Protection  Constancy of  Protection  Scale of  Protection  Management  Plan 

East End Marine Park Natural 

Heritage 

Zoned 

Multiple-Use 

with No-Take 

Areas

Permanent Year-round Ecosystem Yes 

Botany Bay APC 

Natural & 

Cultural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Christiansted APC 

Natural & 

Cultural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Chocolate Hole APC Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Coral Bay APC Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

East End APC Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Enighed Pond APC 

Natural & 

Cultural 

Heritage & 

Sustainable 

Production 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Frederiksted APC 

Natural & 

Cultural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Great Pond APC Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Magens Bay APC 

Natural & 

Cultural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Mandahl Bay APC Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Mangrove Lagoon APC Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Salt River APC 

Natural & 

Cultural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Sandy Point APC Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Southgate APC Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Southshore Industrial APC Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

St. Croix Coral Reef APC Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

St. Thomas Harbor APC Cultural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Vessup Bay APC Natural 

Heritage 

Uniform 

Multiple-Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 
USVI 

128

Table 7.6 (cont.): National Classification System for the USVI’s 24 MPAs 

Site Name 

 Conservation  Focus  Level of  Protection  Permanence  of Protection  Constancy of  Protection  Scale of  Protection  Management  Plan 

Cas Cay – Mangrove Lagoon 

MSWR 

Natural 

Heritage No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Compass Point Pond MSWR Natural 

Heritage No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Frank Bay MSWR Natural 

Heritage No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

St. James MSWR 

Natural 

Heritage & 

Sustainable 

Production 

No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

Salt River Bay MSWR 

Natural & 

Cultural 

Heritage 

No Impact Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No 

SUCCESS STORY 

The Virgin Islands Marine Park Advisory Committee (VIMPAC) was originally 

established in early 2000 as a group of local experts that would help guide the 

establishment of the first territorial marine park in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the 

St. Croix East End Marine Park (STXEEMP). The committee is represented 

by four divisions of DPNR (Divisions of CZM, Environmental Protection, Fish 

and Wildlife, and Environmental Enforcement); the University of the Virgin 

Islands and other local academic institutions; six federal government agencies 

(NOAA, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological 

Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Coast Guard); 

the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council; local fisheries representatives; non-governmental organizations (The 

Nature Conservancy, the Ocean Conservancy, the St. Croix Environmental Association, and the Island Resources 

Foundation); and, commercial and recreational marine resource users from various sectors. 

Members of the committee have remained dedicated to assisting the Virgin Islands government in developing a 

territorial marine park system for over five years. Working on a volunteer basis, they meet monthly to provide 

guidance and technical assistance for the implementation of management measures for the STXEEMP. They 

assisted in the development of a management plan for the STXEEMP and most recently worked to develop the 

rules and regulations that will legally put the management plan into effect. VIMPAC’s dedication to the vision of a 

territorial marine park system remains an asset to DPNR. The committee has effectively acted as a broker for 

communication and information sharing between DPNR and stakeholder groups, and has provided a forum 

through which management issues and concerns can be discussed by various groups. In 2003, VIMPAC members 

received the Coastal America Partnership Award in recognition of the collaborative effort of the territorial 

government and stakeholders in developing the STXEEMP. 

VIMPAC has created the by-laws by which it will be governed, and has drafted the following goals: the protection 

and maintenance of biological diversity throughout the USVI; the management of marine resources for sustainable 

use; socio-economic parity for displaced individuals or businesses due to MPA establishment processes; and, 

increased local knowledge of marine resources and the benefits of protecting them. The committee is also working 

to secure funds for the sustainable management of MPAs; to assist with the technical and operational aspects of 

MPA management as appropriate; and, to promote effective MPA conservation and management by demonstrating 

lessons learned from other protected areas. 

Fig. 7.9: VIMPAC (STXEEMP 

2003) 
USVI 

129

CITATIONS 

Beets, J. and A. Friedlander. 1992. Assessment and 

management strategies for red hind, Epinephelus guttatus, 

in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Proceedings of the 42nd Gulf and 

Caribbean Fisheries Institute 42: 226-242.

–––––––. 2003. Temporal analysis of monitoring data on reef 

fish assemblages inside the Virgin Islands National Park and 

around St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands, 1988-2000. Final 

Report to the U.S. Geological Survey Caribbean Field 

Station, St. John, Virgin Islands.

Drayton, N., C. Rogers, and B. Devine. 2004. The State 

of the Reefs of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Washington, DC: The 

Ocean Conservancy. 

Gardner, L. 2004. Management Framework for a System of 

Marine Protected Areas for the U.S. Virgin Islands. University 

of the Virgin Islands and Department of Planning and 

Natural Resources. USVI, September 24, 2002. 

Grigg, David. 2000. APC Boundaries Revised. 

University of the Virgin Islands Conservation Data 

Center, USVI. 

Island Resources Foundation. 2002. Resource Description 

Report. University of the Virgin Islands and Department 

of Planning and Natural Resources. USVI, 14 August, 

2002. 

Jeffrey C., U. Anlauf, J. Beets, S. Caseau, W. Coles, A. 

Friedlander, S. Herzlieb, Z. Hillis-Starr, M. Kendall, V. 

Mayor, J. Miller, R. Nemeth, C. Rogers, and W. Toller. 

2005. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. pp. 45-90. In: J. Waddell (ed.), The State 

of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely 

Associated States: 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NOS NCCOS 11. NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal 

Monitoring and Assessment’s Biogeography Team. 

Silver Spring, MD. 522 pp. 

Olsen, D.A. and J.A. LaPlace. 1978. A study of a 

Virgin Islands grouper fishery based on a breeding 

aggregation. Proceedings of the 31st Gulf and Caribbean 

Fisheries Institute 31: 130-144. 

Rogers, C.S. and J. Beets. 2001. Degradation of marine 

ecosystems and decline of fishery resources in marine 

protected areas in the US Virgin Islands. Environmental 

Conservation 28: 312-322. 

Rothenberger, Paige. 2005. Fig. 7.8. USVI 

Department of Planning and Natural Resources, 

Division of Coastal Zone Management. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2002. St. Croix East 

End Marine Park Management Plan. University of the 

Virgin Islands and Department of Planning and Natural 

Resources. U.S.V.I. July 18, 2002. 

St. Croix East End Marine Park (STXEEMP). 2005-06a. 

Mission Statement. Department of Planning and 

Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Management, 

Government of the US Virgin Islands. 

http://www.stxeastendmarinepark.org/mission.htm

–––––––. 2005-06b. Education and Outreach. 

Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Coastal 

Zone Management, Government of the US Virgin 

Islands. http://www.stxeastendmarinepark.org/ 

mission.htm

–––––––. 2003. Fig. 7.9. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of 

Coastal Zone Management. 1979. Virgin Islands Coastal 

Management Program and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, 

D.C. 

Virgin Islands Code, Title 12, Ch. 1, § 94, 96, 97, and 98. 

Wildlife and Marine Sanctuaries and Game Preserves. 

U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural 

Resources, Division of Coastal Zone Management. 

2006a. Draft Rules and Regulations for the East End 

Marine Park. 

U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural 

Resources, Division of Coastal Zone Management. 

2006b. St. Croix East End Marine Park Zonation Map. 

Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Act of 1978. 

Act No. 4828. 

Weatherall, Rebecca. 2005. Fig. 7.1. The Nature 

Conservancy. 

Wildlife and Marine Sanctuaries Act 1980. Act No. 

5229. 

Wusinich-Mendez, Dana. Figs. 7.3 and 7.6. NOAA 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. 

Appendix A 

A-1 

List of Acronyms 

MMA Marine Managed Area 

MPA Marine Protected Area 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

CRTF U.S. Coral Reef Task Force

American Samoa 

ASAC American Samoa Administrative Code 

ASCA American Samoa Code Annotated 

ASCC American Samoa Community College 

ASCMP American Samoa Coastal Management Program 

ASEPA American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency 

CAP community action plan 

CFMP community-based fisheries management program 

CRAG Coral Reef Advisory Group 

CRTF U.S. Coral Reef Task Force 

DMWR Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DPR Department of Parks and Recreation 

FMAC fisheries management advisory committee 

FMP fisheries management plan 

NPS National Park Service 

PLA Participatory Learning and Action 

PNRS Project Notification and Review System 

RANWR Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge 

SMA special management area 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

CNMI 

CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

CRMO Coastal Resources Management Office 

DEQ Division of Environmental Quality 

DFW Division of Fish and Wildlife 

DLNR Department of Lands and Natural Resources 

MMCA Mañagaha Marine Conservation Area 

MMT Marine Monitoring Team 

MSP Marine Sanctuaries Program 

NGO non-governmental organization 

SBFR Sasanhaya Bay Fish Reserve 
A-2 

Florida

CAMA Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas 

CRCP Coral Reef Conservation Program (Florida program) 

CREMP Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project 

CSO citizen support organization 

CWA critical wildlife area

F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code 

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

LAS local action strategy 

NERR national estuarine research reserve 

NGO non-governmental organization 

OFW outstanding Florida water 

REEF Reef Environmental Education Foundation 

RVC reef fish visual census 

SECREMP Southeast Florida Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project 

SEFCRI Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative 

SFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District 

SOP Seagrass Outreach Partnership 

SWIM surface water improvement and management 

WEA wildlife and environmental area 

WMA wildlife management area 

Guam 

DAWR Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources 

GCA Guam Code Annotated 

GCRICC Guam Coral Reef Initiative Coordinating Committee 

GVB Guam Visitor’s Bureau 

P.L. Public Law 

Hawaii

BLNR Board of Land and Natural Resources 

BRFA bottomfish restricted fishing area 

CRAMP Coral Reef Monitoring and Assessment Program 

DAR Division of Aquatic Resources 

DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources 

DOBOR Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation 

DOCARE Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement 

DOFAW Division of Forestry and Wildlife 

FMA fishery management area 

FRA fisheries replenishment areas 

HAR Hawai‘i Administrative Rule 

HCRI-RP Hawai‘i Coral Reef Initiative Research Program 

HIMB Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology 

HRS Hawai‘i Revised Statute 

KIRC Kaho‘olawe Island Reserve Commission 

LAC local advisory committee 

MHI Main Hawaiian Islands 

MLCD marine life conservation district 
A-3 

NAR natural area reserve 

NARS natural area reserves system 

NGO non-governmental organization 

NWHI Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

PKO Protect Kaho‘olawe Ohana 

RFMA Regional Fisheries Management Area 

UH University of Hawai‘i 

WHAP West Hawai‘i Aquarium Project 

WHFC West Hawai‘i Fisheries Council 

WHRFMA West Hawai‘i Regional Fisheries Management Area 

Puerto Rico 

CCRI Caribbean Coral Reef Institute 

DNER Department of Natural and Environmental Resources 

JOBANERR Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 

MR marine reserve 

NGO non-governmental organization 

NR natural reserve 

PRCZMP Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program 

USVI 

APC areas of particular concern 

CZM Coastal Zone Management 

DFW Division of Fish and Wildlife 

DPNR Department of Planning and Natural Resources 

LAS local action strategy 

MRWS marine reserve and wildlife sanctuary 

NGO non-governmental organization 

SEA St. Croix Environmental Association 

STXEEMP St. Croix East End Marine Park 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

USVI U.S. Virgin Islands 

VIMPAC Virgin Islands Marine Park Advisory Committee 

VINE Virgin Islands Network of Environmental Educators 

Appendix B 

B-1 

Faced with widespread declines in ocean health and a growing interest in place-based ecosystem management, 

many nations, including the United States, are establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) to conserve vital marine 

habitats and resources. Familiar examples of U.S. MPAs include national marine sanctuaries, national parks and 

wildlife refuges, many state parks and conservation areas, and a variety of fishery management closures. Over the 

past several decades, a variety of legal authorities and programs have been established at all levels of government 

resulting in a dramatic increase in the number of MPAs. More than 1,500 such federal and state/territory sites exist 

today. 

This complex assortment of different MPA types and purposes poses many challenges to policy-makers and 

stakeholders alike. Chief among these is terminology. Although MPAs have long been used for decades in the U.S. 

as a conservation and management tool, the nation still lacks a straightforward and consistent language to 

accurately describe the many types of MPAs occurring in our waters and to understand their effects on ecosystems 

and the people that use them. 

For example, the official programmatic names of many U.S. MPAs (such as sanctuaries, parks, preserves, or natural 

areas) rarely reflect the area’s actual conservation purpose, allowable uses, or management approach. Similarly, the 

generic term “marine protected area” is frequently assumed in the policy arena to mean “no-take reserves,” when in 

fact, no-take MPAs are rare in the United States. This chronic confusion over MPA terms continues to 

unnecessarily complicate the critically important national dialogue about whether, when, and how to use this 

promising ecosystem management tool. 

In response, the National Marine Protected Areas Center has developed a Classification System that provides 

agencies and stakeholders with a straightforward means to describe MPAs in purely functional terms using five 

objective characteristics common to most MPAs: 

• Conservation Focus 

• Level of Protection 

• Permanence of Protection 

• Constancy of Protection 

• Ecological Scale of Protection 

For most MPAs in the U.S. and elsewhere, these five functional characteristics provide an accurate picture of why 

the site was established, what it is intended to protect, how it achieves that protection, and how it may affect local 

ecosystems and local human uses. Combining elements of several domestic and international MPA classification 

schemes, this new approach to describing U.S. MPAs is intended to augment, but not replace official programmatic 

names and terms. It is designed to provide a neutral, intuitive, common language with which to describe, 

understand, and evaluate proposed and existing MPA sites, networks and systems. 

“Marine protected area” is an umbrella term that encompasses a wide variety of approaches to U.S. place-based 

conservation and management. The official federal definition of an MPA in Executive Order 13158 is: “any area of 

the marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local laws or regulations to 
B-2 

provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.” Specific operational criteria 

for several key terms within this broad definition (for example, “protection” and “lasting”) have been developed by 

the National MPA Center based on guidance from the MPA Federal Advisory Committee, governmental agencies, 

and the public. The criteria were published as part of the framework for developing the national MPA system, 

which was released in July 2006 and available for public comment for 145 days. 

In practical terms, marine protected areas are delineated areas in the oceans, estuaries, and coasts with a higher 

level of protection than prevails in the surrounding waters. MPAs are used extensively in the U.S. and abroad for a 

variety of conservation and management purposes. They span a range of habitats including areas in the open ocean, 

coastal areas, inter-tidal zone, estuaries, and Great Lakes waters. They vary widely in purpose, legal authorities, 

agencies and management approaches, level of protection, and restrictions on human uses. 

The MPA Classification System uses five key functional characteristics to describe any MPA. Taken together, these 

characteristics influence the site’s effects on local ecosystems and human users, and thus its role in contributing to 

the conservation of healthy marine ecosystems. Among these five site characteristics, the first two – the site’s 

Conservation Focus and its Level of Protection – reflect many of the issues of greatest interest to stakeholders in 

local, regional, and national MPA dialogues. 

(a) Conservation Focus (one or more) 

• Natural Heritage 

• Cultural Heritage 

• Sustainable Production 

(b) Level of Protection Afforded (one attribute) 

• Uniform Multiple-Use 

• Zoned Multiple-Use 

• Zoned with No-Take Area(s) 

• No Take 

• No Impact 

• No Access 

(c) Permanence of Protection (one attribute) 

• Permanent 

• Conditional 

• Temporary 

(d) Constancy of Protection (one attribute) 

• Year-round 

• Seasonal 

• Rotating 

(e) Ecological Scale of Protection (one atrribute) 

• Ecosystem 

• Focal Resource

This section describes how to interpret and use the MPA Classification System. Much of the information needed to 

classify and understand any specific MPA in the U.S. is publicly available through NOAA’s National Inventory of 

Marine Managed Areas, which contains more than 1,500 individual sites and is available on www.MPA.gov. Other 

relevant information can be found in official programmatic documents including management plans, regulations, 

designation documents, and statutes. The MPA Center will use these data sources to publish a complete 

classification of U.S. MMAs and MPAs. 

The MPA Classification System can be applied to a single MPA site, or to individual management zones 

established within a larger MPA site. In a zoned MPA, each zone is classified independently based on its own 

characteristics and attributes. The overall MPA site then reflects the aggregate characteristics of its component 

management zones. Four of the five classification characteristics require unique, site-specific selections for the 

associated attribute options. One (Conservation Focus) allows multiple attribute selections in recognition of the 

complexity and variety of MPA applications. MPA examples are presented here for illustrative purposes only and 

may not always correspond to specific local sites. 
B-3 

(a) Conservation Focus (select all attributes that apply to the MPA or zone)

Most MPAs have legally established goals, conservation objectives, and intended purpose(s). Common 

examples include MPAs created to conserve biodiversity in support of research and education; to protect 

benthic habitat in order to recover over-fished stocks; and to protect and interpret shipwrecks for maritime 

education. These descriptors of an MPA are reflected in the site’s Conservation Focus, which represents the 

characteristics of the area that the MPA was established to conserve. The Conservation Focus, in turn, 

influences many fundamental aspects of the site, including its design, location, size, scale, management 

strategies and potential contribution to surrounding ecosystems. U.S. MPAs generally address one or more of 

these areas of Conservation Focus: 

Natural Heritage: MPAs or zones established and managed wholly or in part to sustain, 

conserve, restore, and understand the protected area’s natural biodiversity, populations, 

communities, habitats, and ecosystems; the ecological and physical processes upon which they 

depend; and, the ecological services, human uses and values they provide to this and future 

generations. 

Examples: Natural Heritage MPAs include most national marine sanctuaries, national parks, national wildlife 

refuges, and many state MPAs. 

Cultural Heritage: MPAs or zones established and managed wholly or in part to protect and 

understand submerged cultural resources that reflect the nation’s maritime history and 

traditional cultural connections to the sea. 

Examples: Cultural Heritage MPAs include some national marine sanctuaries, national and 

state parks, and national historic monuments.

Sustainable Production: MPAs or zones established and managed wholly or in part with the 

explicit purpose of supporting the continued extraction of renewable living resources (such as 

fish, shellfish, plants, birds, or mammals) that live within the MPA, or that are exploited 

elsewhere but depend upon the protected area’s habitat for essential aspects of their ecology or 

life history (feeding, spawning, mating, or nursery grounds). 

Examples: Sustainable Production MPAs include some national wildlife refuges and many federal and state 

fisheries areas, including those established to recover over-fished stocks, protect by-catch species, or protect 

essential fish habitats.

(b) Level of Protection (select the one attribute that applies to the MPA or zone)

MPAs in the U.S. vary widely in the level and type of legal protections afforded to the site’s natural and 

cultural resources and ecological processes. Any MPA, or management zone within a larger MPA, can be 

characterized by one of the following six levels of protection, which will directly influence its effects on the 

environment and human uses. 

Uniform Multiple-Use: MPAs or zones with a consistent level of protection and allowable 

activities, including certain extractive uses, across the entire protected area. 

Examples: Uniform multiple-use MPAs are among the most common types in the U.S., and 

include many sanctuaries, national and state parks, and cultural resource MPAs. 

Zoned Multiple-Use: MPAs that allow some extractive activities throughout the entire site, 

but that use marine zoning to allocate specific uses to compatible places or times in order to 

reduce user conflicts and adverse impacts. 

Examples: Zoned multiple-use MPAs are increasingly common in U.S. waters, including 

some marine sanctuaries, national parks, national wildlife refuges, and state MPAs. 

Zoned Multiple-Use With No-Take Area(s): Multiple-use MPAs that contain at least one 

legally established management zone in which all resource extraction is prohibited. 

Examples: Zoned no-take MPAs are emerging gradually in U.S. waters, primarily in some 

national marine sanctuaries and national parks.
B-4 

No-Take: MPAs or zones that allow human access and even some potentially harmful uses, 

but that totally prohibit the extraction or significant destruction of natural or cultural 

resources. 

Examples: No-take MPAs are relatively rare in the U.S., occurring mainly in state MPAs, in 

some federal areas closed for either fisheries management or the protection of endangered 

species, or as small special use (research) zones within larger multiple-use MPAs. Other 

commonly used terms to connote no-take MPAs include marine reserves or ecological reserves. 

No Impact: MPAs or zones that allow human access, but that prohibit all activities that 

could harm the site’s resources or disrupt the ecological or cultural services they provide. 

Examples of activities typically prohibited in no-impact MPAs include resource extraction of 

any kind (fishing, collecting, or mining); discharge of pollutants; disposal or installation of 

materials; and alteration or disturbance of submerged cultural resources, biological 

assemblages, ecological interactions, physiochemical environmental features, protected 

habitats, or the natural processes that support them. 

Examples: No- impact MPAs are rare in U.S. waters, occurring mainly as small isolated MPAs or in small 

research-only zones within larger multiple-use MPAs. Other commonly used terms include fully protected 

marine (or ecological) reserves.

 No Access: MPAs or zones that restrict all human access to the area in order to prevent 

potential ecological disturbance, unless specifically permitted for designated special uses 

such as research, monitoring or restoration. 

Examples: No-access MPAs are extremely rare in the U.S., occurring mainly as small 

research-only zones within larger multiple-use MPAs. Other commonly used terms for no 

access MPAs include wilderness areas or marine preserves.

(c) Permanence of Protection (select the one attribute that applies to the MPA or zone)

Not all MPAs are permanently protected. Many sites differ in how long their protections remain in effect, 

which may in turn profoundly affect their ultimate effects on ecosystems and users. 

Permanent: MPAs or zones whose legal authorities provide some level of protection to the site in perpetuity 

for future generations, unless reversed by unanticipated future legislation or regulatory actions. 

Examples: Permanent MPAs include most national marine sanctuaries and all national parks. 

Conditional: MPAs or zones that have the potential, and often the expectation, to persist administratively over 

time, but whose legal authority has a finite duration and must be actively renewed or ratified based on periodic 

governmental reviews of performance. 

Examples: Conditional MPAs include some national marine sanctuaries with ‘sunset clauses’ applying to 

portions of the MPA in state waters 

Temporary: MPAs that are designed to address relatively short-term conservation and/or management needs 

by protecting a specific habitat or species for a finite duration, with no expectation or specific mechanism for 

renewal. 

Examples: Temporary MPAs include some fisheries closures focusing on rapidly recovering species (e.g. 

scallops).

(d) Constancy of Protection (select the one attribute that applies to the MPA or zone)

Not all MPAs provide year-round protection to the protected habitat and resources. Three degrees of constancy 

throughout the year are seen among U.S. MPAs. 

Year-Round: MPAs or zones that provide constant protection to the site throughout the year. 

Examples: Year-round MPAs include all marine sanctuaries, national parks, refuges, monuments, and some 

fisheries sites. 
B-5 

Seasonal: MPAs or zones that protect specific habitats and resources, but only during fixed seasons or periods 

when human uses may disrupt ecologically sensitive seasonal processes such as spawning, breeding, or 

feeding aggregations. 

Examples: Seasonal MPAs include some fisheries and endangered species closures around sensitive habitats. 

Rotating: MPAs that cycle serially and predictably among a set of fixed geographic areas in order to meet 

short-term conservation or management goals (such as local stock replenishment followed by renewed 

exploitation of recovered populations). 

Examples: Rotating MPAs are still rare in the U.S. They include some dynamic fisheries closures created for 

the purpose of serially recovering a suite of localized population to harvestable levels.

(e) Ecological Scale of Protection (select one attribute that applies to the MPA or zone)

MPAs in the U.S. vary widely in the ecological scale of the protection they provide. MPA conservation targets 

range from entire ecosystems and their associated biophysical processes, to focal habitats, species, or other 

resources deemed to be of economic or ecological importance. The ecological scale of a site’s conservation 

target generally reflects its underlying legal authorities and, in turn, strongly influences the area’s design, 

siting, management approach, and likely effects. 

Ecosystem: MPAs or zones whose legal authorities and management measures are intended to protect all of 

the components and processes of the ecosystem within its boundaries. 

Examples: Ecosystem-scale MPAs include most marine sanctuaries, national parks and national monuments. 

Focal Resource: MPAs or zones whose legal authorities and management measures specifically target a 

particular habitat, species complex, or single resource (either natural or cultural). 

Examples: Focal-resource MPAs include many fisheries and cultural resource sites, including some national 

wildlife refuges and marine sanctuaries.

Charles M. Wahle, Ph.D. 

Director, MPA Center Science Institute 

Santa Cruz and Monterey, California 

(831) 242-2052 

charles.wahle@noaa.gov

Joseph A. Uravitch, A.I.C.P. 

Director, National Marine Protected Areas Center 

Silver Spring, MD 

(301) 563-1195 

joseph.uravitch@noaa.gov

United States Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez 

Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. USN (Ret.) 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmospheres 

National Ocean Service 

John H. Dunnigan 

Assistant Administrator for Ocean Service and Coastal Zone Management