ALASKA’S DEFACTO MPAs

 THE STATE OF U.S. MARINE MANAGED 

AREAS: WEST COAST

MAY 2008

LISA WOONINCK, MIMI D’IORIO, RIKKI GROBER-DUNSMORE, CHARLES WAHLE, LAUREN WENZEL
This report summarizes how marine managed areas (MMAs) along the west coast of the United States 

are used to conserve marine resources and ecosystems. The report contains the best available information 

on the purpose, management approach, and location of MMAs off the coasts of California, Oregon and 

Washington. 

National Marine Protected Areas Center Project Team: Lisa Wooninck, Mimi D’Iorio, Rikki GroberDunsmore, Charles Wahle, Lauren Wenzel

Contributing Staff and Partners: This report is made possible through the dedicated efforts of many 

people who helped build the national inventory of marine managed areas, particularly from federal and 

state marine resource programs and agencies, including the Coastal States Organization and NOAA’s 

National Ocean Service. We are especially indebted to Chris Clement, Monica Diaz, Dan Farrow, Joel 

Murray, and Lani Watson. Graphic design by Courtnay Perry.

Citation: National Marine Protected Areas Center, 2008. The State of U.S. Marine Managed Areas: West Coast 

(L.Wooninck, and R. Grober-Dunsmore, editors). Silver Spring, Maryland.

Photos: All photos are from U.S. government collections and illustrate west coast marine resources and marine users.

For more information contact mpainfo@noaa.gov 

To download this report, please visit: www.mpa.gov

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 3

National Inventory Methods 4

How to Use this Report 5

A Regional Perspective: West Coast 7

California: A State Perspective 16

Oregon: A State Perspective 28

Washington: A State Perspective 33

Conclusions 40

Glossary: Abbreviated Terms 41

Appendix I: Final MMA Inventory Criteria 42

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

For more information 

about the National 

Marine Protected 

Areas Center, visit 

www.mpa.gov
 ALASKA’S DEFACTO MPAs EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The nation’s oceans are in trouble. 

Pollution, loss of coastal habitat, and 

over-exploitation of marine species 

threaten the health and sustainability of our 

marine ecosystems. Unchecked, these trends 

jeopardize much of what our society values most 

about the oceans. Growing concerns over declines 

in ocean health have driven interest in place-based 

and ecosystem-based approaches to conserving 

marine habitats and resources. 

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are valuable 

ecosystem-based tools that conserve important 

ocean areas by managing human uses within their 

boundaries. In response to the growing interest 

in MPAs within the United States, Executive 

Order 13158 calls for the establishment of an 

effective and comprehensive National System of 

MPAs, representing the nation’s diverse marine 

ecosystems and natural and cultural resources. 

To better understand how these place-based 

conservation tools are used in U.S. waters, 

the National Marine Protected Areas Center 

inventoried key information about the nation’s 

marine managed areas (MMAs), a broad suite of 

place-based conservation areas, of which marine 

protected areas are a subset. 

This report describes functional characteristics 

of west coast MMAs, such as their size, location, 

purpose, and management approach. The 

highlights reported here illustrate how MMAs 

are widely used in the west coast region, with 

interesting differences and similarities among the 

three coastal states (Table 1). 

Regional Highlights in West Coast Waters 

(0–200 nautical miles) 

Number and Size: 296 MMAs conserve 

marine resources in nearly half (47%) 

of west coast regional waters. The large 

majority of MMAs are located off 

the California coast (204), followed by 

Washington (61) and Oregon (34). 

Level of Government: State MMAs comprise 

two thirds of the number of west coast 

MMAs, but account for only 1% of the 

area within MMAs. In comparison, federal 

MMAs comprise 99% of MMA area in 

fewer, yet larger MMAs. 

Level of Protection: Practically the entire area 

within MMAs (99.7%) permits multiple use 

•

•

•

Table 1 

Comparison of MMAs 

in west coast and state 

waters.

West Coast

823,953 km2

(0-200 nm)

California

15,048 km2

(0-3 nm) 

Oregon

3,915 km2

(0-3 nm)

Washington

10,042 km2

(0-3 nm)

Size of area protected 390,636 km2 7,082 km2 122 km2 2,627 km2

% of waters covered by MMAs 47% 47% 3% 26%

Number of MMAs 296 189 23 55

% MMA area that is multiple use 99.7% 91% 95% 99.5% 

% of waters* that is no take 0.1% 4% 0.2% 0.1%

Total no take area 1,051 km2 643 km2 6 km2 12 km2

 * West coast and state waters
activities, such as fishing, boating, or other 

recreational and commercial activities. A 

small amount of the area within MMAs 

(< 0.3%), amounting to 1,051 km2, is 

designated as no take or no access, where all 

forms of extractive activity are prohibited. 

Conservation Focus: MMAs have one or more 

conservation foci, such as conservation of 

natural heritage (e.g. biodiversity), cultural 

heritage (e.g., shipwrecks), and sustainable 

production (e.g. fisheries). While about 60% 

of west coast MMAs are focused solely on 

conserving natural heritage, these cover 

1% of the MMA area. In contrast, the vast 

majority of MMA area (88%) is set aside 

for conserving both natural heritage and 

sustainable production. These MMAs are 

predominantly the Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH) areas that were designated for west 

coast groundfish. 

Ecological Scale of Protection: The large majority 

of MMA area (91%) targets the conservation 

of focal habitats and species, such as the 

EFH areas for west coast groundfish. The 

rest of the MMA area targets conservation 

of west coast ecosystems. 

Permanence and Constancy of Protection: All 

MMAs provide permanent protection 

(100%) with the potential to remain in 

place in perpetuity. Practically all MMAs 

provide year-round protection, with two 

•

•

•

small MMAs (< 0.001% of MMA area) 

protected on a seasonal basis. 

Highlights from State Waters (0 – 3 nautical 

miles) (Table 1)

Although the prevalence of MMAs differs across 

states, the amount of MMA area set aside as 

no take is uniformly small for each state. State 

highlights include the following: 

California has the most MMAs and the 

largest percentage of regional waters within 

MMAs (47%). California also accounts for 

the largest percentage of state waters set 

aside as no take (4%). 

Oregon has the fewest number of MMAs 

and smallest percentage of regional waters 

within MMAs (3%).

Washington has the smallest percentage of 

MMA area within no take areas (0.5%).

This report provides a better understanding of 

how the diverse types of MMAs along the west 

coast conserve marine resources and contribute to 

healthy and intact ecosystems. A comprehensive 

understanding of the collection of west coast 

MMAs is intended to inform the effective 

conservation of marine ecosystems in the region 

across multiple managing authorities, and provide 

the foundation for designing an effective National 

System of MPAs meeting multiple conservation 

goals. 

•

•

•

SUMMARY
 ALASKA’S DEFACTO MPAs INTRODUCTION

diversity of MPA types is a consequence of 

the large number of agencies and programs at 

all levels of government that have designated 

MPAs. Each program has designated unique 

types of MPAs to fulfill specific legal mandates 

focused on conservation of marine resources and 

ecosystems. 

The growing use and recognized potential of 

MPAs as an effective ecosystem management tool 

led to Executive Order 13158. Signed in 2000, the 

Executive Order seeks to enhance the conservation 

of the nation’s natural and cultural heritage through 

the development of an effective National System 

of MPAs (Box 2). Fundamental to the design of a 

system of MPAs is a clear understanding of existing 

place-based conservation management and of 

its likely ecosystem and socioeconomic impacts. 

Toward this end, the National Marine Protected 

Areas Center (MPA Center) is completing a 

National Inventory of marine managed areas 

Declines in fisheries and vital marine 

habitats have led to a growing interest 

in ecosystem-based and place-based 

approaches, including marine protected areas 

(MPAs). Both ecosystem-based management and 

MPAs emphasize the management of specific 

places in order to conserve marine resources 

and habitats. Each offers an integrated approach 

that considers interactions and interdependences 

among species, including humans, within a 

physical environment. MPAs have frequently been 

incorporated as an effective tool into ecosystembased management approaches to promote 

sustainable fisheries and protect marine habitats 

and species. 

A wide range of MPA types have been 

established for various purposes (Box 1). Familiar 

types of U.S. MPAs include national marine 

sanctuaries, marine parks, wildlife refuges, research 

reserves, and fishery management closures. The 

Box 1 Marine Protected Area Purposes

MPAs may have a single or multiple purposes, including the following: 

protect unique marine habitats, features, and ecological processes 

protect biological diversity

protect endangered species

protect cultural heritage

promote sustainable fisheries 

promote public enjoyment 

provide recreation and economic opportunities

provide areas for research and scientific baselines

act as an “insurance policy” against human impacts

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
(MMAs): an unprecedented compilation of the 

best available information on all U.S. place-based 

marine conservation. The National Inventory 

intentionally focuses on MMAs, instead of MPAs 

(Box 3), to identify the full range and diversity 

of place-based conservation management of 

marine resources. From the collection of MMAs, 

a narrower subset of MPAs will be identified as 

the first phase of the emerging National System 

of MPAs. 

National Inventory

The National Inventory of MMAs has many 

applications. Foremost, it systematically documents 

for the first time the distribution, size, purpose, and 

management approach for all existing U.S. MMAs 

across government jurisdictions. This information 

permits for the first time comprehensive analyses 

of MMA practices on local and regional scales, 

providing important insights on the potential 

ecological and socioeconomic effects of MMAs. 

More fundamental though, analytical results 

provide basic information on MMA trends and 

status, essential for building the National System 

of MPAs and identifying gaps and priorities in 

place-based conservation management.

The National Inventory is a dynamic and 

evolving database that is periodically updated as 

new MMAs are implemented, existing MMAs 

altered, and gaps are filled. Gaps, perceived and 

real, generally have two sources. First, the National 

Inventory excludes those areas that do not adhere 

to the defined MMA criteria (Box 3; Appendix 

1 for in-depth information), even though some 

sites potentially provide conservation benefits 

important to marine resources and ecosystems. 

Familiar examples of sites excluded are de facto 

MPAs, or sites implemented with conservation 

measures that vary on a yearly basis. Sites 

unintentionally excluded are marine areas that 

comply with the MMA criteria that have been 

inadvertently overlooked. The Center is working 

towards filling gaps from the latter source. Even 

with gaps, the National Inventory is the most 

comprehensive database of marine conservation 

sites in U.S. waters and an excellent source of 

information for regional conservation planning 

efforts. 

Box 2 Developing a National 

System of MPAs

Although the U.S. has over 1,800 MMAs, these 

areas operate under hundreds of different state, 

federal and local authorities. This piecemeal 

approach has not provided a comprehensive, 

strategic approach to the conservation of the 

nation’s key natural and cultural resources. To 

address this need, Executive Order 13158 on 

MPAs (2000) directs federal agencies to work 

closely with state, territorial, local and tribal 

governments and other stakeholders to develop 

a scientifically-based, effective, and comprehensive National System of MPAs. 

This National System should represent diverse U.S. marine ecosystems and the 

nation’s natural and cultural resources. The Executive Order itself does not 

establish any new MPAs; this responsibility remains with the federal, state, 

tribal, territorial, and local agencies under a variety of existing authorities.

Box 3 MPA and MMA Definitions

The term marine managed area (MMA) is broadly defined compared to marine 

protected area (MPA) and refers to various types of place-based areas set 

aside for marine conservation purposes. 

MPAs: Executive Order 13158 defines an MPA as “any area of the marine 

environment that has been reserved by federal, state, territorial, 

tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part 

or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.” Key terms within 

the definition -- area, marine, reserved, lasting, and protection -- are 

defined in the Framework for Developing a National System of Marine 

Protected Areas, which is being developed with extensive stakeholder 

involvement. 

MMAs: the term MMA casts a wide net over most types of spatial 

conservation management, including those commonly thought of as 

MPAs. In practical terms, an MMA is any delineated marine area with a 

higher level of protection than in surrounding waters for the purpose of 

conserving marine resources. Marine areas set aside for purposes other 

than conserving marine resources, such as areas to reduce user conflict 

or for human safety, are not considered MMAs. The definition of an MMA 

includes the following components: 

area: must have legally defined boundaries;

marine: an area of ocean or coastal waters or the Great Lakes;

reserved: established by or currently subject to regulation; 

lasting: provide year-to-year protection for a minimum of two 

consecutive years, and;

protection: have existing regulations that afford increased protection 

specifically to natural and/or cultural resources and qualities within the 

site.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
Methods

Using guidelines developed by the MPA Center, 

federal, state, and territorial agencies (Box 4) 

submitted candidate MMAs and their descriptive 

information. Only those candidate MMAs fitting 

the MMA criteria are added to the National 

Inventory. A classification system is applied to the 

descriptive information to facilitate analyses. This 

classification system (Box 5), developed by the 

MPA Center, is intended to provide an objective 

method to describe functional characteristics of 

MMAs. In addition, sites are classified according to 

their establishment date, level of government of 

the managing program, and fishing restrictions. 

The geographic location and sizes of MMAs 

are determined for all west coast sites. Although 

coastal MMAs may have upland area within 

their boundaries, only the marine and estuarine 

portions are depicted and calculated. MMA sizes 

are based on their location within regional waters, 

0-200 nautical miles (nm) and state waters (0-3 

nm). Thus, size calculations based on state waters 

include only those sites or portion of sites that fall 

within state waters. 

How to Use this Report

This report provides a comprehensive evaluation 

of the questions, “How many MMAs exist along 

the west coast? What are they intended to protect?” 

and “What is the nature of that protection?” It 

does not evaluate the effectiveness of MMAs, but 

is a first step toward that end. The report provides 

summary statistics of the number and total area 

protected within MMAs for various functional 

characteristics. These two different ways of 

describing MMA distribution often provide very 

different perspectives, and when reported together 

provide a more thorough picture of how MMAs 

Box 4 MPA Agencies and Programs

MMAs are implemented and managed by many different programs and agencies that operate at 

different levels of government, from federal to local authorities. 

Federal Agencies

National Marine Sanctuaries Program (NMSP)

NOAA Fisheries or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

National Parks Service (NPS)

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

Minerals Management Service (MMS)

Tribal Authorities

State and Territorial Agencies

State and Territorial Departments of Fish and Game 

State and Territorial Water Resource Control Boards

State and Territorial Wildlife Management Area Programs

State and Territorial Coastal Zone Management Programs

State and Territorial Departments of Natural Resources

Partnership Programs (State and Federal)

National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS)

Local Agencies

City Councils

County Boards

INTRO
are managed. For clarity purposes, summary 

results of the various MMA characteristics are 

consistently provided with number of MMAs 

first, followed by area within MMAs. 

The report provides a west coast regional 

perspective (0–200 nm) of MMA patterns 

followed by state perspectives (0–3 nm) for 

California, Oregon and Washington. For each 

perspective, the collection of MMAs are described 

for their distribution, level of government, date 

of establishment, level of protection, impacts on 

fishing activities, conservation focus, ecological 

scale of protection, permanence of protection, 

and constancy of protection. Throughout the 

report information boxes are posted with in-depth 

information on specific topics. An appendix at the 

end of the report provides more thorough detail 

on MMA criteria. 

Box 5 A Functional Classification System for Place-based 

Conservation Management

The MPA Center has developed a classification system that provides a straightforward means to 

describe MMAs and MPAs in purely functional terms using objective characteristics common to most 

sites.

Conservation focus: the site’s conservation purpose is focused on protection of natural heritage 

(e.g., biodiversity or endangered species) and cultural heritage (e.g., submerged shipwrecks), 

sustainable production (e.g., fisheries), or a combination of these.

Level of protection: the site allows multiple use activities (i.e., uniform uses across the site, 

zoned uses, or zoned uses with no take zones), or is more restrictive (i.e., no take, no access, or 

no impact).

Permanence of protection: across years, the site’s protection is permanent, conditional (frequently 

with ‘sunset clauses’), or temporary.

Constancy of protection: within a year, the site’s protection is year-round, seasonal, or 

rotational.

Ecological scale of protection: the site’s protection is focused on all components and processes 

of an ecosystem, or focused on a particular resource (e.g., habitat, species/assemblage, cultural 

resource). 

INTRO
 ALASKA’S DEFACTO MPAs A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE: WEST COAST

Background

California, Oregon, and Washington share a 

productive ocean and coastline, rich with diverse 

marine resources that form the basis of a dynamic 

ecosystem and economy. To better understand 

and protect this productive marine ecosystem 

the west coast states have been at the forefront 

of U.S. ocean science and governance for several 

decades. Continued declines in ocean health, 

however, have troubled citizens and motivated the 

governors of these states to recently announce a 

landmark, bipartisan pact to safeguard oceans and 

coastal areas. The ‘Agreement on Ocean Health,’ 

signed on September 18, 2006, is a blueprint for 

enhanced coordination among governing bodies 

to better manage ocean and coastal resources 

using ecosystem principles. The results reported 

here will help inform this and other marine 

conservation initiatives about the role of MMAs 

in ecosystem-based management. 

MMA Distribution and Coverage

The west coast contains 296 MMAs that cover 

nearly half of regional waters (47% of waters 

ranging from 0–200 nm). The large majority of 

MMAs (~ 65%) are located off California (204), 

particularly central and southern California, 

followed by Washington (61) and Oregon (34) 

(Map 1, Figures 1 and 2). 

The prevalence of MMA usage on the west 

coast has recently increased tremendously. In June 

2006, the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

designated 52 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH, Box 

6) sites along the entire length of the west coast, 

increasing the number of MMAs from 220 to 272. 

More strikingly, the percent of west coast waters 

protected in MMAs increased from 6% to 47% 

by the EFH designation. A single EFH site, the 

Trawl Footprint Closure, accounts for 86% of 

all MMA area in the region. In April 2007, the 

state of California designated 24 new MMAs and 

modified five existing MMAs as part of the Marine 

Life Protection Act (MLPA). In comparison, the 

A T A G L A N C E

296 MMAs are located in west coast waters of the U.S. (0–200 nm).

These MMAs cover nearly half (47%) the regional waters. 

Almost all MMA area allows multiple uses (99.7%), such as fishing and recreation. 

A small fraction of the MMA area is no take (0.3%), prohibiting access and extractive uses.

Fishing is allowed in almost the entire MMA area (99.7%).

Federal MMAs are fewer, but much larger compared to state MMAs.

•

•

•

•

•

•
Figure 1

Number of MMAs in 

regional waters (0–200 

nm) off the shores of 

California, Oregon, and 

Washington. 

1). Fewer MMAs are managed by federal agencies 

compared to state programs, yet federal agencies 

manage almost all area in MMAs (99%, Figure 

3). In contrast, state agencies and partnership 

programs manage small percentages of area. These 

differences in number and size of MMAs are 

partly explained by the extent of jurisdiction for 

each level of government. States have jurisdiction 

over state waters only, from the coastline out to 3 

nm, while federal programs, depending on legal 

authorities, have jurisdiction over the full range 

of regional waters, from the shoreline out to 200 

nm. The much larger extent of federal jurisdiction 

contributes to federal agencies managing relatively 

large MMAs compared to state managed MMAs. 

Federal Programs 

Several federal programs actively manage 

systems of MMAs along the west coast to fulfill 

responsibilities as outlined in their legal mandates. 

The federal mandates frequently have multiple 

purposes that range from protecting biodiversity 

and habitats to sustainable production of fisheries. 

A review of federal program goals and legal 

mandates for managing MMAs can be found in 

detail at www.mpa.gov (see “Helpful Resources”). 

Federal MMA programs on the west coast include 

the National Marine Fisheries Service and National 

Marine Sanctuaries Program within the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) at the Department of Commerce; the 

National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service at the Department of Interior; and the 

National Estuarine Research Reserves System as a 

partnership program between NOAA and coastal 

states.

MLPA sites added 219 km2, which is less than 1% 

of all EFH area designated a year earlier.

Overlapping Boundaries 

MMAs frequently have overlapping boundaries, 

as the result of different legal jurisdictions and 

conservation goals for the same marine location. 

When MMAs have overlapping boundaries, the 

regulations for each MMA apply. The MMAs in 

west coast waters overlap with each other in 8% of 

the MMA area. Most of this overlap is contributed 

by MMAs in California waters, which overlap 

with each other extensively (42% of area within 

MMAs). When reporting the percent of spatial 

waters covered by MMAs, the area of overlap has 

been removed to reflect the true spatial extent of 

MMA coverage. 

Level of Government 

A variety of state, federal, partnership, and local 

government programs and agencies establish and 

manage west coast MMAs (Box 4, Table 2, Map 

Figure 2

Percent of west coast 

waters covered by 

MMAs (left) and a 

breakdown of total 

MMA area (right).

REGIONAL
The National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) manages the largest portion (93%) of 

federally managed MMA area on the west coast, 

due primarily to the 52 large EFH sites (Figure 4, 

Box 6). In addition, NMFS manages another four 

relatively large fishery management zones. Two 

of these, the Klamath River and Columbia River 

Conservation Zones were designated to reduce 

salmon bycatch in the Pacific whiting fisheries 

where salmon congregate at the mouths of large 

river drainages. The other two sites, the Cowcod 

and Yelloweye Conservation Areas, are managed 

to reduce bycatch of overfished stocks of cowcod 

and yelloweye rockfish.

The second largest portion of federally 

managed MMA area is within five large National 

Marine Sanctuaries Program (NMSP) sites (Figure 

4). The largest and deepest National Marine 

Map 1

Location of the 296 

MMAs along the west 

coast of the United 

States, by level of government. The dashed 

red line indicates the 

Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) limit (200 

nm). The Trawl Footprint Closure (in blue 

hatching) was designated as Essential Fish 

Habitat by the federal 

government. 

REGIONAL
Sanctuary within the continental U.S. is centered 

along the shores of Monterey Bay in California 

waters. The other four National Marine Sanctuaries 

are located from north to south along the Olympic 

Coast, Cordell Banks, Gulf of the Farallones, and 

the Channel Islands (Box 7). NMFS and the NMSP 

tend to manage large oceanic MMAs, compared to 

MMA agencies within the Department of Interior, 

which tend to manage small coastal MMAs in this 

region.

The National Park Service (NPS) manages 

five small MMAs that are primarily coastal tidal 

areas (Figure 4). A few have an offshore marine 

component. For example, the Channel Islands 

National Park has a 1 mile marine area surrounding 

the five Channel Islands. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

manages 15 west coast MMAs as part of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWR). The 

west coast NWR sites are almost exclusively 

estuarine, made up of large wetlands, salt marshes, 

and intertidal zones, with limited offshore marine 

components. One such site is Bandon Marsh 

National Wildlife Refuge, established to protect 

the largest remaining tidal salt marsh within the 

Coquille River estuary of Oregon. Together, NPS 

and FWS manage less than 1% of the area in west 

coast MMAs (Figure 4). 

Washington, Oregon, and California have 

partnered with NOAA to establish National 

Estuarine Research Reserves (NERRs) at five 

estuaries along the west coast. From north to 

south, NERRs sites are managed at Padilla Bay, 

South Slough, San Francisco Bay, Elkhorn Slough 

and Tijuana River. The marine area for each NERR 

is very small. For example, Padilla Bay NERR in 

Washington, the largest NERR along the west 

coast covers only 50 km2 of estuarine area, and 

the Tijuana NERR, the smallest, covers less than 

1 km2.

Date of Establishment 

MMAs have existed for nearly a century along 

the west coast (Figure 5). The first MMA was 

Olympic National Park in Washington, designated 

by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909 as a 

CA OR WA Total

Percentage of West Coast 

Waters Covered by MMAs1

Federal 52 17 15 81 50.76

State 135 15 38 188 0.64

Partnership 17 2 7 26 0.01

Local 0 0 1 1 < 0.01

Total 204 34 61 2962 47.42

 1Total area in west coast (WC) waters = 823,953 km2

 2A few MMAs range across multiple states. Duplicate MMAs and overlap in MMA area were removed from 

regional totals.

Number of MMAs

Table 2 

Number of MMAs and 

percentage of west 

coast waters by level of 

government. 

Figure 3

MMAs by level of 

government in west 

coast waters depicted 

by number (left) and by 

area (right) (number of 

MMAs is in parentheses).

REGIONAL

10
National Monument to protect the diverse and 

stunning habitats of the Olympic peninsula. Most 

(93%) were established after 1970, coinciding with 

the growth in environmental awareness and the 

passage of landmark federal and state laws. 

Level of Protection 

MMA number and spatial coverage along the 

west coast is extensive. It is important, however, 

to further evaluate what user activities are 

allowed or restricted to achieve an MMA’s marine 

conservation goals. Multiple use MMAs are the 

most common type of MMA (237). They range 

from the smallest to the largest size classes of 

MMAs, and cover more than 99% of the total 

MMA area (Figures 6 and 7). Multiple use MMAs 

allow many activities, including some extractive 

activities within their boundaries. A multiple use 

Box 6 Essential Fish Habitat for West Coast Groundfish

Marine fish depend on many types of healthy habitats throughout their lives to survive and reproduce. 

Various human activities alter, damage, or destroy these habitats. To address these threats, state 

and federal agencies collaborate with the regional fishery management councils to identify essential 

fish habitat (EFH) and develop measures to protect and restore these habitats. 

In June 2006, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) designated 52 EFH sites along the entire west coast in state and federal waters. These 

designations are intended to minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects to ecologically 

important habitats of west coast groundfish from fishing activities. The west coast groundfish 

assemblage includes rockfishes (Sebastes spp) and flatfishes. Within the EFH sites, specified gear 

types are regulated to minimize harmful impacts. Some EFH areas are closed to bottom trawl gear, 

and others are closed to bottom contact gear. The PFMC collaborated with the Channel Islands, 

Monterey Bay, and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries by designating the bottom contact gear 

closures within Sanctuary boundaries to support Sanctuary goals. 

The EFH designation increased the total area along the west coast covered by MMAs from 6% to 

47%. One MMA, the Trawl Footprint Closure, is extremely large (337,216 km2), and accounts for 

80% of the area in MMAs along the west coast. This MMA, made up of multiple parts, occurs in the 

deepest portions of groundfish habitat, at depths greater than the 1,280 m depth contour (700 

fathoms) out westward (Map 1). The Trawl Footprint Closure is a precautionary measure intended 

to prevent expansion of bottom trawling into areas where fishing for groundfish has been limited 

or nonexistent. 

Figure 4

Total federal MMA area 

in west coast waters by 

federal agency (number 

of MMAs is in parentheses).

Figure 5

MMAs by decade of 

establishment and level 

of government in west 

coast waters.

11

REGIONAL
MMA may be either uniform multiple use or zoned 

multiple use, where specific extractive activities are 

allocated to compatible zones in order to reduce 

adverse impacts. For example, the Monterey Bay 

NMS is classified as zoned multiple use. Exploring 

for, developing or producing oil, gas or minerals 

is prohibited, except for the collection of jade 

from well defined zones within the sanctuary 

boundaries. The third type of multiple use site is 

one that is zoned with no take areas, such as the 

Channel Islands NMS (Box 7).

Compared to the multiple use MMAs, no take 

Box 7 Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary: Partnerships 

and Zoning within an MMA 

The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS), designated in 1980, is an area of national 

significance because of its exceptional natural beauty and resources. It encompasses the waters 

that surround Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, San Miguel and Santa Barbara Islands, extending 

from mean high tide to 6 nm offshore around each of the five islands. The Sanctuary’s primary goal 

is the protection of rich and diverse marine life and habitats, unique and productive ecosystems, 

and culturally significant resources. 

Deteriorating marine populations of the Channel Islands waters prompted a diverse group of 

stakeholders and managers of the Channel Islands National Park and CINMS to propose to the 

California Fish and Game Commission the use of special marine zones to restore biodiversity and 

population levels within park and sanctuary boundaries. All extractive activities would be prohibited 

in zones designated as marine reserves, and limited lobster and pelagic fishing would be allowed 

in zones designated as marine conservation areas. In 2003, the CINMS, in partnership with the 

state of California, designated a network of special marine zones within portions of state waters 

of the sanctuary. The boundaries of the state no take marine reserves were extended out from 

3 to 6 nm to include federal waters in summer 2007. Previously, Bottom Contact Closed Areas 

(BCCA) were designated in 2006 by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. In anticipation of the 

boundary extension out to federal waters, the BCCAs have the same boundaries as the current 

marine reserves that cover state and federal waters of the CINMS.

The designation process of a marine reserve network within waters of the CINMS, exemplifies the 

need for a flexible regulatory framework and collaborative approaches across management agencies 

and stakeholder groups for effective implementation. The partnerships built during the design and 

designation process continue, as the network is co-managed and collaboratively enforced by the 

CINMS, the Channel Islands National Park, the California Fish and Game, NMFS, and U.S. Coast 

Guard. 

Figure 6

MMAs by level of 

protection in west coast 

waters: by number 

(left) and by area (right) 

(number of MMAs is in 

parentheses). Multiple 

use includes MMAs that 

are uniform multiple 

use, zoned multiple 

use, and zoned multiple 

use with no take areas; 

no take includes MMAs 

that are no take and no 

access.

REGIONAL

12
and no access MMAs are fewer (59) and much 

smaller sites, limited to the smaller size classes 

(Figure 7). These more restrictive MMAs cover 

less than 0.3% of the total MMA area. Their 

combined area along the west coast covers 1,051 

km2, an area twice the size of Lake Tahoe (Map 

2). Examples of no take MMAs are the marine 

reserves around Channel Islands or the Bodega 

State Marine Reserve (SMR), where human access 

is allowed but extraction of marine resources is 

prohibited unless under scientific permit. No 

access MMAs restrict all human access in order 

to prevent potential ecological disturbance. Types 

of no access MMAs are those that protect marine 

animals during sensitive life stages, or serve as 

areas for research in the absence of any human 

activities. Many Natural Area Preserves (NAP) 

of Washington, such as the Skookum Inlet, are 

classified as no access, to serve as gene reserves 

and baselines against which disturbed ecosystems 

may be compared

Multiple use MMAs are managed primarily 

by the federal government, whereas no take and 

no access MMAs are managed typically by state 

agencies (Figure 8). Federal MMAs usually have 

Map 2

Total aggregate area of 

no take MMAs within 

west coast waters. The 

total amount of area 

within no take MMAs is 

1051 km2, 0.1% of west 

coast waters. The red 

square indicates the 

combined size of all, 

not the location of any 

particular MMA. 

Figure 7

MMAs by level of 

protection in west coast 

waters, summarized by 

six size classes.

1: < 1 km2; 2: ≥ 1 km2 

< 10 km2; 3: ≥ 10 km2 

< 100 km2; 4: ≥ 100 

km2 < 1000 km2; 5: ≥ 

1,000 km2 < 10,000 

km2; 6: ≥ 10,000 km2. 

Multiple use includes 

MMAs that are uniform 

multiple use, zoned 

multiple use, and zoned 

multiple use with no 

take areas; no take 

includes MMAs that are 

no take and no access.

13

REGIONAL
mandates that include multiple purposes, such 

as protection of biodiversity and promotion of 

healthy fisheries.

Impacts on Fishing Activities 

A common perception of MMAs is that they 

prohibit all user activities within their boundaries, 

including fishing. Yet, fishing is completely 

prohibited in less than 1% of all area protected 

by MMAs (Figure 9). Fishing is not managed or 

regulated by one sixth of the MMAs, covering 5% of 

the MMA area. However, other fishing regulations 

not issued by that MMA may be in effect. In the 

majority of MMAs (2/3), some form of fishing is 

allowed albeit with modifications to gear type and 

fishing depth (Box 8). These modifications are 

most often applied to commercial fishing (89% 

of MMA area) compared to recreational fishing 

(< 1% of MMA area). Catalina Marine Science 

Center SMR is one of the few MMAs where all 

forms of fishing and anchoring are prohibited, 

unless by permission of the Marine Science Center 

Director. Scientists use this small MMA to study 

marine species and communities. This MMA may 

also serve as a reference point to measure changes 

in the marine environment in the absence of 

fishing pressure. 

Conservation Focus 

MMAs generally address one or more of three 

different conservation goals. Natural heritage 

MMAs are created to conserve natural heritage 

values, such as biodiversity, ecosystems or 

protected species. Sustainable production sites 

are established to support healthy and sustainable 

fisheries, which might include restoring overfished 

stocks, and protecting spawning grounds or other 

key habitats. Lastly, cultural heritage MMAs focus 

on conserving our nation’s maritime history and 

traditional cultural connections to the sea, such 

as shipwrecks, submerged cultural artifacts and 

areas important to specific cultures. An MMA’s 

Box 8 Types of Fishing Regulations in MMAs

Fishing activities, although usually allowed within MMAs, are frequently managed through various 

regulations. These measures include limits, restrictions, and prohibitions to fishing gear, fishing 

type, depth of fishing, fish size and season of fishing. 

Commercial fishing restrictions

Fishing vessel size 

Bottom contact gear, including bottom 

trawling

Pelagic fishing gear 

Mesh size of net 

Fishing season 

Depth limits

Bycatch limits

Recreational fishing restrictions

Fish size 

Fishing season 

Hook size and hook number 

Bottom contact gear 

Use of powerheads 

Catch and release only

REGIONAL

14

Figure 8

No take MMA area in 

west coast waters by 

level of government 

(number of MMAs is in 

parentheses).

Figure 9 

MMA area by how fishing is managed in west 

coast waters (number 

of MMAs is in parentheses).
conservation focus influences its design, location, 

size, management strategies, and potential 

contribution to surrounding ecosystems.

More than half of west coast MMAs have a 

single conservation focus, whereas the rest have 

multiple conservation foci. However, nearly all of 

MMA area (96%) is within MMAs with multiple 

conservation objectives (Figure 10), either natural 

heritage and sustainable production combined or 

natural heritage and cultural heritage combined. 

MMAs focused on natural heritage and sustainable 

production are typically fisheries management 

areas that also have a focus on protecting benthic 

habitats, such as the EFH sites. Natural heritage 

and cultural resource MMAs make up the next 

largest area of MMAs. Most of this area is 

within National Marine Sanctuaries, which have a 

mandate to protect natural habitats and ecological 

processes and enhance the sustainable use of 

historical, cultural and archeological resources.

Natural heritage MMAs make up more than 

half of all MMAs, yet comprise only 1% of 

MMA area. Most MMAs focused on conserving 

natural heritage are small nearshore MMAs such 

as California’s State Marine Parks or Oregon’s 

Marine Gardens. Only a few MMAs established 

with the sole purpose of sustainable production 

occur on the west coast, such as Haro Strait Special 

Management Fishery Area in Washington. As for 

cultural heritage MMAs, one site exists along the 

west coast: Fort Ross State Marine Conservation 

Area in California.

Ecological Scale of Protection 

The ecological scale of protection of an MMA can 

be focused on an entire ecosystem and community 

or on focal species and assemblages. On the west 

coast, two thirds of MMAs were established to 

conserve comprehensive ecosystem function. 

Yet, these MMAs make up a small area (8% of 

MMA area), compared to the large majority of 

west coast MMA area (92%) established for the 

conservation of a focal species or a group of focal 

species. The Tijuana River National Estuarine 

Research Reserve is an example of an MMA 

with an ecosystem scale of protection aimed at 

understanding and conserving the Tijuana River 

estuarine ecosystem near the Mexico border. In 

contrast, the Yaquina Bay Shellfish Preserve in 

Oregon, an experimental clam area for research 

and harvest, is an example of an MMA with a 

focal species scale of protection.

Permanence of Protection 

Sites differ in how long their protections remain 

in effect, and may be permanent, conditional or 

temporary. All (100%) west coast MMAs provide 

permanent or ‘long-term’ protection, with the 

potential to remain in place in perpetuity.

Constancy of Protection 

Practically all MMAs on the west coast provide 

year-round protection, with only a small fraction 

(< 0.001%) with seasonal protection. Year-round 

protection means that measures are in place 

throughout the year. Only two small MMAs on 

the west coast provide seasonal protections for 

breeding marine birds and mammals. Anacapa 

Special Closure B provides seasonal protections 

for nesting and fledgling brown pelicans by barring 

human access from January 1 to October 31.

Figure 10

MMA area by conservation focus in west 

coast waters (number 

of MMAs is in parentheses). NH = natural 

heritage; SP = sustainable production; CH = 

cultural heritage. 

15

REGIONAL
 ALASKA’S DEFACTO MPAs CALIFORNIA: A STATE PERSPECTIVE

A T A G L A N C E

189 MMAs are located within California state waters (0 – 3 nm). 

MMAs cover 47% of state waters.

MMAs overlap with each other frequently (41% of MMA area)

91% of the MMA area is multiple use; 9% is no take.

4% of California waters are set aside as no take

•

•

•

•

•

16

Background 

California leads the nation in marine conservation, 

with many innovative laws that regulate coastal 

development and conserve marine resources. 

Examples include the Marine Life Management 

Act (MLPA) and the recent California Ocean 

Protection Act, which both require ecosystembased approaches to protect and sustainably use 

marine resources. The MLPA calls for the creation 

of a network of MPAs to protect marine life, 

habitats, ecosystems, and natural heritage, as well 

as to improve recreational, educational and study 

opportunities provided by marine ecosystems. 

California’s Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG) and a non-profit organization have joined 

a unique public-private partnership to implement 

requirements of the MLPA. Combined with 

stakeholder input this partnership implemented 

24 new sites and redesigned five existing along 

the central California coast in 2007. The initiative 

is now proceeding with network design for a 

northern California region. 

Distribution of MMAs 

There are 189 MMAs, either wholly or partly in 

California waters (0–3 nm), more than Oregon and 

Washington combined. These MMAs cover almost 

half (47%) of California state waters (Figure 11), 

in coastal and marine habitats including estuaries, 

rocky reefs, and deep submarine canyons. 

California MMAs span the entire coastline, though 

Figure 11

Percent of 

California waters 

(0 – 3 nm) covered by 

MMAs.
17

Map 3

California MMAs by 

level of government 

located along the 

northern coastline from 

the Oregon border to 

north of Fort Bragg. 

The dashed red line indicates the state water 

boundary (3 nm).

Map 4

California MMAs 

by level of government located along 

the northern-central 

California coastline 

from Fort Bragg in the 

north to south of the city 

of Monterey. The inset 

map depicts California 

MMAs by level of government surrounding 

the San Francisco Bay. 

The dashed red line indicates the state water 

boundary (3 nm).

CALIFORNIA
18

Map 5

California MMAs by 

level of government 

along the Monterey Bay 

in central California. 

MMAs are depicted 

from Año Nuevo in the 

north to south of the 

city of Monterey. The 

dashed red line indicates the state water 

boundary (3 nm).

Map 6

California MMAs by 

level of government 

located along the central California coastline 

from north of Point Año 

Nuevo to the south of 

Point Conception. The 

dashed red line indicates the state water 

boundary (3 nm).

CALIFORNIA
19

CALIFORNIA

Map 7

California MMAs by 

level of government 

located along the southern California coastline, 

from north of Point Conception to the Mexican 

border. The dashed red 

line indicates the state 

water boundary (3 nm).

Map 8

California MMAs by 

level of government 

surrounding the Channel Islands, including 

the Santa Barbara 

Island within the inset. 

The dashed red line indicates the state water 

boundary (3 nm).
20

CALIFORNIA

many are clustered around the Channel Islands to 

the south and Monterey Bay in central California 

(Maps 3 to 8). Slightly more than half (53%) of 

California waters have no spatial protection for 

marine resources offered by MMAs. 

Some sections of the California state waters 

have extensive overlap of MMAs (Box 9). For 

example, Heisler Park State Marine Reserve was 

designated in 1973 by California’s Department 

of Fish and Game to protect marine life from 

harvest. In 1974, the State Water Resources 

Control Board designated Heisler Park an Area of 

Special Biological Significance (ASBS) to protect 

marine life and their biological communities from 

harmful waste discharge. These MMAs have 

exactly the same boundaries but different legal 

jurisdictions and supporting regulations. Most 

overlapping MMAs however, only partially share 

boundaries, such as the Monterey Bay/Canyon 

Bottom Trawl Closed Area (BTCA) and Soquel 

Canyon State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA). 

All regulations apply, with the more prohibitive 

form in effect for the areas of overlap. 

Level of Government 

State agencies and programs manage the majority 

of California MMAs, followed by federal and 

partnership programs (Table 3, Figure 12, Maps 3 

Box 9 Overlapping MMAs in California

MMAs sometimes have overlapping boundaries with differing regulations. When MMAs overlap, all 

regulations apply. For example, when a no take MMA overlaps portions of a multiple use MMA, all 

forms of extraction are prohibited for those areas of overlap.

The MMAs surrounding Anacapa Island of the Channel Islands overlap extensively, often adding 

piecemeal protection to marine resources. Eight different MMAs are located around Anacapa Island, 

with up to seven different MMAs overlapping with each other in various configurations. The majority 

of overlap occurs among MMAs that are multiple use. These overlapping areas and regulations may 

be confusing to marine users and decision makers. 
to 8). The federal government, however, manages 

the largest percentage of MMA area in California 

state waters (64%). Federally managed MMAs 

are much larger because many federal MMAs 

tend to span across the state maritime zone into 

federal waters. For example, the boundaries of 

the Monterey Bay NMS begin at the shoreline of 

the central coast and extend beyond state waters 

up to 30 nm from shore. In contrast, all state 

and partnership MMAs are within 3 nm from 

shore and are much smaller than federal MMAs. 

Consequently, state MMAs, although more 

numerous, occupy a smaller fraction of the MMA 

spatial extent.

California MMA programs

Several state programs manage MMAs in 

California, including the California Department 

of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the State Water 

Resources Control Boards (Box 10). The CDFG 

is implementing provisions of the MLPA process 

to design a network of MPAs for sites that are 

primarily intended to protect or conserve marine 

life and habitat. These MMAs are divided into 

three distinct categories according to conservation 

purpose and regulations: State Marine Reserves 

(SMR), State Marine Parks (SMP), and State 

Marine Conservation Areas (SMCA). The SMRs 

typically allow public access but prohibit the 

damage or take of marine resources. State Marine 

Parks prohibit the take of marine resources for 

commercial purposes, while SMCAs prohibit the 

take of marine resources for commercial and 

recreational purposes that would compromise the 

integrity of the marine resource or community. 

Other California MMAs include the State 

Water Quality Protection Areas of Special 

Biological Significance (ASBS), Game Refuges, 

Table 3 

MMAs by level of government in California 

marine and estuarine 

waters (0–3 nm) 

Figure 12

MMAs by level of government in California 

waters (number of 

MMAs is in parentheses).

21

CALIFORNIA

Box 10 California’s Marine Resource Agencies and MMAs 

California Department of Fish and Game 

State Marine Parks

State Marine Conservation Areas 

State Marine Reserves 

State Marine Cultural Preservation Areas

State Marine Recreational Areas

State Game Refuges

National Estuarine Research Reserves (in partnership with NOAA)

State Water Resources Control Board 

Areas of Special Biological Significance

University of California 

Natural Reserves

Number of MMAs Percentage State Waters 

Covered by MMAs1

Federal 37 51.49

State 135 26.09

Partnership 17 3.03

Local 0 0

Total 189 47.062

1

California state waters (0-3 nm) = 15,048 km2 

2

Overlap in MMA area was removed in calculating percentage of state waters.
and a Natural Reserve. California’s natural 

water quality is protected in ASBS sites, where 

waste discharge is prohibited to protect marine 

species, biological communities, or unique 

and significant resources from an undesirable 

alteration in natural water quality, unless under 

special permit by California’s Water Resources 

Control Boards. Examples of ASBS sites are 

Año Nuevo and Salmon Creek. California 

also has two Game Refuges to protect marine 

mammals and birds: the California Otter Game 

Refuge and the Farallon Island Game Refuge. 

Finally, Scripps Coastal Reserve is part of the 

University of California’s Natural Reserve System 

in support of teaching, research and public 

service. Natural Reserves provide University of 

California students and professors with relatively 

undisturbed environments for research and 

“hands-on” educational experiences. The state 

of California did not provide data for their 

state managed fishery zones. California’s marine 

resource agencies do not consider spatial fishery 

closures either MMAs or MPAs. 

The state of California entered into partnership 

with NOAA to establish three National Estuarine 

Research Reserves (NERRs): Elkhorn Slough, 

Tijuana River, and San Francisco Bay NERRs. The 

San Francisco Bay NERR was recently established 

in 2003 and is comprised of two locations that 

include some of the highest quality wetlands of 

the San Francisco estuary at Suisun Bay and San 

Pablo Bay. 

Establishment Date 

The majority of California’s MMAs were established 

in the 1970s and 2000s (Figure 13). The first MMA 

designated in California waters is the Cabrillo 

National Monument of 1913, to memorialize the 

place where the first European, Juan Rodríguez 

Cabrillo, set foot on California soil in 1542. 

Managed by the National Park Service, the Cabrillo 

National Monument is the most southwesterly 

National Monument in the contiguous United 

States. The first MMA designated by the state of 

California is the San Diego–Scripps State Marine 

Conservation Area. The regents of the University 

of California established this MMA in 1958 for 

scientific purposes, originally as a Marine Life 

Refuge. It was recently reclassified a State Marine 

Conservation Area in 2000 as part of the MLPA 

process. 

Level of Protection 

The overwhelming majority of MMAs are multiple 

use (including those that are zoned multiple use 

and zoned with no take areas), accounting for 

nearly all MMA area (Figure 14). In contrast, 

37 MMAs are no take or no access, with a total 

no take area in California waters of 643 km2. 

Although this is a small amount, it is the largest 

fraction of no take area in state waters (61%). The 

size of no take off the California coastline (0–200 

nm) is even larger (1032 km2), accounting for 98% 

of no take on the west coast. The size of no take 

area within California state waters has practically 

doubled in 2007 with the implementation of 

CALIFORNIA

22

Figure 13

MMAs by decade of 

establishment and 

level of government in 

California waters.

Figure 14

MMA area by level of 

protection in California 

waters (number of 

MMAs is in parentheses). Multiple use 

includes MMAs that are 

uniform multiple use, 

zoned multiple use, and 

zoned multiple use with 

no take areas; no take 

includes MMAs that are 

no take and no access.
23

CALIFORNIA

Map 9

California MMAs by 

level of protection 

located along the 

northern coastline from 

the Oregon border to 

north of Fort Bragg. 

The dashed red line indicates the state water 

boundary (3 nm).

Map 10

California MMAs by level of protection located 

along the northern-central California coastline 

from Fort Bragg in the 

north to south of the city 

of Monterey. The inset 

map depicts California 

MMAs by level of government surrounding 

the San Francisco Bay. 

The dashed red line indicates the state water 

boundary (3 nm).
CALIFORNIA

24

Map 11

California MMAs by 

level of protectiont 

along the Monterey Bay 

in central California. 

MMAs are depicted 

from Año Nuevo in the 

north to south of the 

city of Monterey. The 

dashed red line indicates the state water 

boundary (3 nm).

Map 12

California MMAs by 

level of protection located along the central 

California coastline 

from north of Point Año 

Nuevo to the south of 

Point Conception. The 

dashed red line indicates the state water 

boundary (3 nm).
Map 13

California MMAs by 

level of protection 

located along the southern California coastline, 

from north of Point Conception to the Mexican 

border. The dashed red 

line indicates the state 

water boundary (3 nm).

Map 14

California MMAs by 

level of protection surrounding the Channel 

Islands, including the 

Santa Barbara Island 

within the inset. The 

dashed red line indicates the state water 

boundary (3 nm).

25

CALIFORNIA
a network of MPAs as part of MLPA and the 

expansion of marine reserve boundaries for 

the Channel Islands marine reserves. Maps 9 to 

14 depict the MMAs off the California coast 

according to level of protection, with a focus on 

MMAs in California’s state waters. Examples of no 

take MMAs are the State Marine Reserves (SMR) 

along the coast, and the Marine Reserves (MR) 

around the Channel Islands NMS, which share the 

same boundaries as the Bottom Contact Closed 

Areas (Map 14). The Channel Islands NMS is also 

classified as zoned multiple use with no take areas. 

Other types of multiple use MMAs are the other 

National Marine Sanctuaries, most National Parks, 

California’s ASBS water quality sites, State Marine 

Conservation Areas, State Marine Parks, and the 

EFH areas. 

Impacts on Fishing Activities 

Fishing is managed by the majority of California’s 

MMAs by number (~ 75%), but it is managed 

in only half of the MMA area (Figure 15). This 

difference in number and area is explained by 

the large proportion of California state waters 

occupied by National Marine Sanctuaries that 

do not directly manage fishing activity. Although 

fishing is not explicitly regulated within half of 

all MMA area, it frequently overlaps with areas 

that have fishing regulations, either implemented 

by an MMA or other management measure. 

For example, the Monterey Bay NMS overlaps 

with the Monterey Bay/Canyon Bottom Trawl 

Closed Area. In the areas of overlap between the 

Sanctuary and EFH site, bottom gear restrictions 

are in effect. A similar situation occurs when State 

Marine Reserves (the no harvest sites) overlap 

with ASBS sites (water quality sites). Of course, 

fishing regulations that are not area specific, such 

as seasonal and size restrictions for all California 

waters, apply both inside and outside MMAs.

Conservation focus 

The majority of MMAs (128) in California waters 

is focused on natural heritage conservation, 

covering a moderate portion of MMA area (37%). 

In contrast, more MMA area (46%) is focused on 

conservation of both natural heritage and cultural 

heritage resources in a quarter of the number of 

MMAs (Figure 16). The State Marine Reserves, 

ASBS sites, and National Estuarine Research 

Reserves are examples of natural heritage sites, 

with goals to protect or restore unique habitats and 

ecological process. National Marine Sanctuaries 

are examples of sites focused on natural heritage 

and cultural heritage. Smaller portions of MMA 

area (14%) aim to protect both natural heritage 

and sustainable production. Examples of this 

combination of conservation foci are the EFH sites 

and the National Wildlife Refuges Don Edwards 

and San Pablo Bay within the San Francisco Bay. 

The only sustainable production site located within 

state waters is the federally managed Western and 

Eastern Cowcod Conservation Areas, a fairly 

large MMA (5% of MMA area). The Cowcod 

Conservation Areas were implemented in 2001 to 

reduce the bycatch of cowcod taken incidentally 

in all commercial and recreational fisheries for 

groundfish and halibut. One small cultural heritage 

site is represented by Fort Ross State Marine 

Conservation Area, with less than 0.01% of MMA 

area. California has the only cultural heritage MMA 

in the west coast region. 

CALIFORNIA

26

Figure 15

MMA area by how 

fishing is managed 

in California waters 

(number of MMAs is in 

parentheses).

Figure 16

MMA area by conservation focus in California 

waters (number of 

MMAs is in parentheses). NH = natural 

heritage; SP = sustainable production; CH = 

cultural heritage. 
Ecological Scale of Protection 

The majority of MMAs (147) and most MMA 

area within California waters (81%) is focused on 

the protection of ecosystems or components of 

ecosystem function, such as at Seal Beach NWR. 

The remaining MMA area (19%) is focused on 

the protection of a focal species, typically for 

sustainable production. For example, the Klamath 

River Salmon Conservation Zone and Western 

and Eastern Cowcod Conservation Areas were 

designated to conserve focal species: salmon and 

cowcod.

Permanence and Constancy of Protection 

Practically all California MMAs provide permanent 

or ‘long term’ protection, with the potential to 

remain in place continuously. Only two small 

MMAs (< 0.001% of MMA area) are seasonally 

protected. The San Miguel Special Closure A-2 

prohibits boats from approaching the island no 

nearer than 100 yards from shore in two separate 

periods, in the spring and the fall, to protect 

breeding birds and mammals. 

27

CALIFORNIA
 ALASKA’S DEFACTO MPAs OREGON: A STATE PERSPECTIVE

A T A G L A N C E

23 MMAs are located in Oregon state waters (0 – 3 nm)

MMAs cover only 3% of state waters

95% of the MMA area is multiple use; 5% of MMA area is no take

•

•

•

28

Figure 17

Percent of Oregon waters (0 – 3 nm) covered 

by MMAs. 

Background 

Starting in 2002, Oregon’s Ocean Policy Advisory 

Council (OPAC) recommended a limited system 

of marine reserves in Oregon state waters to 

evaluate their efficacy in meeting nearshore 

conservation and management goals. In late 2005, 

Governor Kulongoski directed OPAC to further 

develop and advise him on a network of marine 

reserves by identifying and evaluating information 

and issues to guide this proposal. This process is 

still underway.

Distribution of MMAs 

There are 23 MMAs in Oregon waters. These 

MMAs cover a small percentage (3%) of Oregon 

waters (Figure 17). Oregon has the fewest number 

and area of MMAs of all west coast states, 

compared to Washington (55) and California (189). 

Large portions of Oregon’s coastline do not have 

any MMA. Most are small and located nearshore, 

in estuaries, marsh lands or intertidal habitats. 

MMAs rarely have overlapping boundaries in 

Oregon waters (<1% of MMA area).

Level of Government 

The state of Oregon manages more MMAs 

than federal agencies and partnership programs. 

However, the federal government manages most 

of the area (94%) in Oregon’s MMAs (Table 4, 

Figure 18, Maps 15 and 16). The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service manages most of Oregon’s MMA 

Total

MMA area 

3%
Map 15

Oregon MMAs by level 

of government along 

the northern coastline 

from the Washington 

border to south of the 

city of Newport. The 

dashed red line indicates the state water 

boundary (3 nm).

Map 16

Oregon MMAs by level 

of government along 

the southern coastline 

from south of the city of 

Newport to the California border. The dashed 

red line indicates the 

state water boundary 

(3 nm).

OREGON

29
area in four National Wildlife Refuges (NWR): 

Bandon Marsh, Nestucca Bay, Siletz Bay, and 

Lewis and Clark. These NWRs are either within 

nearshore salt marsh or estuarine habitat. The 

Lewis and Clark NWR, located near the mouth 

of the Columbia River by the Washington Oregon 

border, is the largest of Oregon’s MMAs and 

accounts for 87% of MMA area (Map 15). In 

contrast, only 3% of MMA area is managed by 

the state because all state and partnership MMAs 

are very small, occupying nearshore wetlands.

Oregon State Programs

Oregon’s Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW; 

Box 11) has established four types of MMAs. These 

include marine gardens, habitat refuges, research 

reserves, and shellfish preserves. Marine Gardens 

(MG) are tide pool areas created for educational 

purposes that allow visitors to enjoy and learn about 

intertidal resources. In a Marine Garden, it is illegal 

to collect any marine invertebrate, except single 

mussels for bait. Yaquina Head MG is uniquely 

managed via a partnership between ODFW and 

the Bureau of Land Management. The Habitat 

Refuges are represented by one site, located at 

Whale Cove to maintain the health of the rocky 

shore ecosystem. Habitat Refuges are similar to 

no take marine reserves because they prohibit the 

take of all marine fish, shellfish and invertebrates. 

Research Reserves (RR) are used for scientific study 

or research, such as monitoring, or applied research. 

Most Research Reserves prohibit the harvest of 

certain shellfish and marine invertebrates without 

a scientific permit. Two Shellfish Preserves, at 

Netarts Bay and Yaquina Bay prohibit the harvest 

of clams to protect experimental clam and oyster 

cultures. 

Oregon’s Division of State Lands and NOAA 

manage in partnership the South Slough National 

Estuarine Research Reserve. The single Oregon 

NERR is part of the Coos Bay estuary. The marine 

component of the South Slough Reserve includes 

tidelands of sandflats and rocky bottom, saltmarshes, 

spoil islands, and mudflats with channels.

Establishment Date 

The majority of MMAs in Oregon state waters 

(80%) were established in the 1990s (Figure 19). 

The first MMA established in Oregon is Netarts 

Bay Shellfish Preserve of 1960 to support clam 

cultivation. 

Level of Protection 

The majority of MMAs (19) in Oregon waters 

are multiple use, accounting for 95% of MMA 

area (Figure 20; Maps 17 and 18). Only 6 km2

Number of MMAs Percentage State Waters 

Covered by MMAs1

Federal 6 2.89

State 15 0.1

Partnership 2 0.1

Local 0 0

Total 23 3.1

1

Oregon state waters (0-3 nm) = 3,915 km2 

Table 4

MMAs by level of 

government in Oregon 

waters (0-3 nm)

Figure 18

MMA area by level of 

government in Oregon 

waters (number of 

MMAs is in parentheses).

Box 11 Oregon’s Marine Resource Agencies and MMAs

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 

Marine Gardens

Habitat Refuges 

Research Reserves 

Shellfish Preserves 

Oregon’s Division of State Lands

National Estuarine Research Reserves (in partnership with NOAA) 

OREGON

30
Figure 20

MMA area by level of 

protection in Oregon 

waters (number of 

MMAs is in parentheses). Multiple use 

includes MMAs that are 

uniform multiple use, 

zoned multiple use, and 

zoned multiple use with 

no take areas; no take 

includes MMAs that are 

no take and no access.

Figure 19

 MMAs by decade of 

establishment and 

level of government in 

Oregon waters.

of Oregon’s water is managed as no take or no 

access in three MMAs. Whale Cove is the smallest 

no take MMA in Oregon at 32 acres, which is 

approximately the size of the footprint for the 

Oregon Coast Aquarium. 

Impacts on Fishing Activities 

Fishing is allowed in 95% of Oregon MMA area 

(Figure 21). The largest MMA in Oregon, Lewis 

and Clark National Wildlife Refuge, has no specific 

fishing regulations itself. Sportfishing for salmon 

and trout is allowed at this site in accordance with 

Oregon’s fishing regulations. Where fishing is 

regulated by MMA specific restrictions, in a small 

fraction of MMA area, commercial fishing is more 

restricted than recreational fishing. 

Conservation focus 

While the number of MMAs with a natural 

heritage focus is relatively high (19), these MMAs 

are typically small. The focus of most of Oregon’s 

MMA area (88%), located primarily in Lewis and 

Clark NWR, is natural heritage and sustainable 

production combined (Figure 22). This NWR 

promotes hunting for waterfowl and fishing 

while conserving valuable wetland habitats. Otter 

Rock Marine Garden, an example of the natural 

heritage MMAs, is a popular intertidal habitat 

among visitors because of its extensive beds of 

purple sea urchins and mussels. 

Ecological Scale of Protection 

Practically all of Oregon MMA area (99%) is 

focused on the protection of ecosystems or 

components of ecosystem function. The Marine 

Gardens and Research Reserves are examples 

of Oregon MMAs focused on the protection 

of components of ecosystems. The only MMAs 

focused on conservation of a focal resource are 

the small Shellfish Preserves at Yaquina Bay and 

Netarts Bay and the small portions of Columbia 

River Salmon Conservation Area that fall within 

Oregon’s state waters. 

Permanence and Constancy of Protection 

All MMAs within Oregon waters are permanent, 

also defined as ‘long term.’ They also uniformly 

(100%) provide year round protection with the 

potential to remain in place in perpetuity. Figure 21

MMA area by how 

fishing is managed in 

Oregon waters (number 

of MMAs is in parentheses). 

Figure 22

MMA area .by conservation focus in Oregon 

waters (number of 

MMAs is in parentheses). NH = natural 

heritage; SP = sustainable production; CH = 

cultural heritage. 

31

OREGON
Map 17

Oregon MMAs by level 

of protection along the 

northern coastline from 

the Washington border 

to south of the city of 

Newport. The dashed 

red line indicates the 

state water boundary 

(3 nm).

Map 18

Oregon MMAs by level 

of protection along the 

southern coastline 

from south of the city of 

Newport to the California border. The dashed 

red line indicates the 

state water boundary 

(3 nm).

OREGON

32
 ALASKA’S DEFACTO MPAs WASHINGTON: A STATE PERSPECTIVE

A T A G L A N C E

55 MMAs are located in Washington’s state waters (0–3 nm)

MMAs cover 26% of state waters

Nearly 100% of the MMA area is multiple use; less than 1% is no take

•

•

•

33

Background 

Washington’s coast can be divided into two separate 

regions, the protected waters of the Puget Sound 

and the Northwest Straits, and the outer coast 

with a rugged shoreline and few natural harbors. 

These two different regions have been frequently 

managed differently by area-specific initiatives. 

On the outer coast, where population levels are 

lower, few marine initiatives have been created. In 

contrast, the Puget Sound and Northwest Straits 

have multiple initiatives directed towards reducing 

the harmful impacts of urban development. The 

Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative 

of 1999 has a mandate to achieve a scientifically 

based, regional system of MPAs in the Northwest 

Straits. The initiative uses community involvement 

in the development of local strategies towards 

this goal. Many MMAs have been established 

independently in the Northwest Straits and the 

Puget Sound that were not intended to function 

as a network. 

Distribution of MMAs 

There are 55 MMAs in Washington waters (0–3 

nm), less than California (189), but more than 

Oregon (23). These MMAs cover a quarter 

of Washington’s state waters (Figure 23). The 

majority of MMAs are within the protected 

waters of Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits. 

They are mainly close to shore in estuarine and 

salt marsh habitats. In contrast, one MMA, the 

Figure 23

Percent of Washington 

waters (0 – 3nm) covered by MMAs. 
Map 19

Washington MMAs by 

level of government 

from Neah Bay in the 

north to the Oregon 

border. The dashed red 

line indicates the state 

water boundary (3 nm).

Map 20

Washington MMAs by 

level of government 

within Puget Sound. 

The dashed red line indicates the state water 

boundary (3 nm).

Figure 24 

 MMA area by level of 

government in Washington waters (number 

of MMAs is in parentheses).

34

WASHINGTON

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary covers 

a large stretch of coastal and rocky reef habitat 

along the central coast of the Olympic Peninsula. 

Like MMAs within Oregon waters, but unlike 

those in California waters, MMAs rarely overlap in 

Washington waters (4% of MMA area). 

Level of Government 

As observed in other west coast state waters, 

federally managed MMAs within Washington 

waters are fewer, yet larger than those managed 

by other government programs (Maps 19 and 

20). Besides the Olympic Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary, many of these large federal MMAs 

are National Wildlife Refuges, such as Protection 

Islands, Dungeness, Gray’s Harbor, Nisqually and 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuges. The boundaries 

for these wildlife refuges include a great deal 

of upland areas with little marine influence, but 

contain important habitat for marine dependent 

species. For example, Protection Island is a 364 

acre island with high sandy bluffs and low sand 

spits, where most of Puget Sound’s auklets and 

glaucous-winged gulls nest. State programs 

manage four times as many MMAs than federal 

programs. Yet federal and state programs manage 

an equal proportion of the MMA area (Figure 24, 

Table 5). State MMAs are typically small nearshore 

areas, such as those managed by the states Natural 

Reserves Program. For example, Niawiakum 

River Natural Area Preserve has less than 0.005 

km2 exposed to marine influence. 

Washington State Programs

The Washington state institutions that have 
established and manage MMAs are numerous 

and varied (Box 12). On the state level they 

include the Washington Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR), Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Washington State 

Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC), and 

Washington State Department of Ecology. Several 

county and city governments in Washington 

designate and manage MMAs as well either 

solely, or in partnership with the state. Fisheries 

management authority of WDFW is shared with 

Washington’s Indian Treaty Tribes. As cooperative 

managers of Washington’s fisheries, the Treaty 

Tribes work in partnership with WDFW to carry 

out fishery management. 

Number of MMAs Percentage State Waters 

Covered by MMAs1

Federal 9 13.50

State 38 13.18

Partnership 7 0.49

Local 1 < 0.01

Total 55 26.162

1

Washington state waters (0-3 nm) = 10,042 km2

2

Overlap in MMA area was removed in calculating percentage of state waters.

Table 5 

MMAs by level of government in Washington 

marine and estuarine 

waters (0–3 nm)

35

WASHINGTON

Box 12 Washington’s Marine Resource Agencies and MMAs

Washington Department of Natural Resources

Natural Area Preserve 

Natural Resources Conservation Areas 

Aquatic Reserves 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Marine Preserves

Wildlife Area 

Conservation Areas

Natural Area Preserves 

Seabird Sanctuaries 

Fishery Areas 

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission

Underwater Park 

Washington Department of Ecology

National Estuarine Research Reserves (in partnership with NOAA) 

Treaty Tribes 

Hoh Indian Tribe Quileute Indian Tribe

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe Quinault Nation

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Sauk-Suiattle Tribe

Lummi Indian Tribe Skokomish Tribe

Makah Indian Tribe Squaxin Island Tribe

Muckleshoot Tribe Stillaguamish Tribe

Nisqually Indian Tribe Suquamish Tribe

Nooksack Indian Tribe Swinomish Tribe

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tulalip Tribe

Puyallup Tribe Upper Skagit Tribe

County and City Governments

e.g. Clallam County in partnership with state programs
recreational, research and education purposes. 

For example, Titlow Beach MP supports nonconsumptive recreational diving, and research and 

educational opportunities for a nearby high school. 

Wildlife Areas (WA) were originally designed to 

optimize fish and hunting opportunities and have 

evolved into places that benefit wildlife and their 

habitats for recreational and educational purposes. 

South Puget Sound WA exemplifies this evolution 

as a site where harbor seals are protected at haulouts. Conservation Areas, such as Octopus Hole 

and Orchard Rock, are essentially no take marine 

preserves, where all extractive activities by nontribal members are prohibited, primarily for 

viewing by scuba divers. Zella M. Schultz Seabird 

Sanctuary, co-managed with Protection Island 

NWR is the only Seabird Sanctuary in Washington 

waters. WDFW manages a no-access buffer zone 

around the island to protect marine resources of 

the NWR. Lastly, Haro Strait is an example of a 

Special Management Fishery Area (SMFA) where 

sea urchins and cucumbers are protected from 

harvest in subtidal and intertidal areas of southern 

San Juan Island. 

Washington State Parks and Recreation 

Commission (WSPRC) designates and manages 

Underwater Parks to provide high quality 

recreational dive sites. Recreational harvest of fish 

may be allowed in these sites while take of non-food 

The Washington Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR) manages three types of 

MMAs. Natural Area Preserves (NAPs) protect 

the best remaining undisturbed ecosystems native 

to Washington, including rare plant and animal 

habitats. For example, Dabob Bay NAP contains 

one of the few remaining coastal spits in the Puget 

Sound with native salt marsh and serves as a Pacific 

Flyaway stopover for migrating shorebirds. Natural 

Resources Conservation Areas (NRCA) also 

protect outstanding examples of native ecosystems 

for environmental education and low impact public 

use, provided these uses are appropriate and do not 

impair the resource values of the area protected. 

Aquatic Preserves (AP) protect important native 

aquatic ecosystems of special educational or 

scientific interest. Cypress Island AP has a mostly 

undisturbed shoreline with extensive eelgrass and 

kelp beds that support valuable fish and wildlife. 

These three programs represent protection 

alternatives that complement each other and create 

a diverse natural areas program.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW) has broad responsibilities for the 

preservation, protection and sustainability of 

fisheries and wildlife, and manages seven types 

of MMAs. WDFW, like WDNR, also manages 

NAPs to protect undisturbed ecosystems. Marine 

Preserves (MP), on the other hand, are for 

WASHINGTON

36
species, such as sea stars and other invertebrates is 

prohibited. Fort Worden Underwater Park is an 

artificial reef, installed in partnership by WSPRC 

and a scuba club to attract greenling and lingcod.

The Washington State Department of Ecology 

manages the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research 

Reserve (NERR) in partnership with NOAA. 

Padilla Bay is an estuary at the saltwater edge of 

the large Skagit River delta with a very shallow, flat, 

and muddy bottom. Padilla Bay’s exposure to large 

tidal flux creates optimal conditions for eelgrass 

growth, which in turn creates thriving nursery areas 

for shrimp, crab, and salmon. 

Establishment Date 

Similar to patterns of establishment dates 

observed elsewhere on the west coast, more than 

90% of Washington MMAs were established 

after 1970 (Figure 25). Large increases in MMA 

designations occurred during the 1970s and 1990s. 

The practice of creating MMAs in Washington 

waters was initiated in 1909, when a portion of 

Olympic Forest Reserve was designated a National 

Monument by President Theodore Roosevelt. 

Olympic National Park qualifies also as the first 

MMA of the west coast. 

Level of Protection 

Approximately 65% of MMAs (36) in Washington 

waters are managed as the three types of multiple 

use, covering nearly all MMA area (Figure 26). In 

contrast, 19 no take and no access MMAs account 

for less than 1% of all MMA area. These no 

extraction MMAs are very small with the total area 

amounting to 13 km2. Only three of these MMAs 

are larger than 1 km2, the North Bay Natural Area 

Preserve, and the Grays Harbor and Protection 

Island National Wildlife Refuges.

Impacts on Fishing Activities 

Virtually all of Washington waters are open to 

some form of fishing (Figure 27). Half of the 

MMAs manage some form of fishing, comprising 

95% of MMA area, with close to one fifth of 

MMAs with no MMA specific fishing regulations 

at all (5% of MMA area). A tiny amount of area 

within MMAs prohibits all fishing. For example, 

Natural Area Preserves frequently prohibit access 

and fishing, since they are set aside to serve as 

baselines to evaluate the influences of extractive 

activities on marine resources. 

Conservation Focus 

Most MMAs (38) in Washington waters have a 

natural heritage conservation focus, accounting 

for nearly half of the area within MMAs (Figure 

28). The other half is within the Olympic National 

Figure 25 

MMAs by decade of 

establishment and level 

of government in Washington waters.

37

WASHINGTON

Figure 26

MMA area by level of 

protection in Washington waters (number 

of MMAs is in parentheses). Multiple use 

includes MMAs that are 

uniform multiple use, 

zoned multiple use, and 

zoned multiple use with 

no take areas; no take 

includes MMAs that are 

no take and no access.

Figure 27

MMA area by how 

fishing is managed in 

Washington waters 

(number of MMAs is in 

parentheses).
Map 21

Washington MMAs by 

level of protection from 

Neah Bay in the north 

to the Oregon border. 

The dashed red line indicates the state water 

boundary (3 nm).

Map 22

Washington MMAs 

by level of protection 

within Puget Sound. 

The dashed red line indicates the state water 

boundary (3 nm).

Figure 28

MMA area by conservation focus in Washington waters (number 

of MMAs is in parentheses). NH = natural 

heritage; SP = sustainable production; CH = 

cultural heritage. 

38

WASHINGTON

Marine Sanctuary focused on natural and cultural 

heritage. Very small portions of MMA area are 

focused on sustainable production, or natural 

heritage and sustainable production combined.

Permanence and Constancy of Protection 

All MMAs within Washington waters are 

permanent, also defined as ‘long term’. They also 

uniformly (100%) provide year round protection 

with the potential to remain in place in perpetuity. 
39

 ALASKA’S DEFACTO MPAs CONCLUSION

39

The waters from Washington to California include many MMAs, which cover nearly half of regional 

waters. Two patterns emerge from this MMA assessment. First, human access and multiple uses are 

allowed in the vast majority of area encompassed by MMAs. The sites managed as no access and no take 

are uniformly very small. Secondly, the majority of MMA area is managed by the federal government, 

even within state waters. The Essential Fish Habitat sites for west coast groundfish and the National 

Marine Sanctuaries, both federally managed sites, dominate the seascape of west coast place-based 

conservation management.

This assessment lays the groundwork for better understanding the contribution of MMAs to marine 

conservation and their effects on ecosystems and human activities. Furthermore, these findings may 

help west coast managers at all levels of government and non-governmental partners to improve marine 

resource management by promoting collaboration in MMA management, research, and education. As 

the nation moves toward an effective, science-based National System of MPAs, this information will 

point to opportunities to enhance management and identify gaps in meeting our nation’s conservation 

goals. 
40

Glossary 

Abbreviated Terms 

AI Anacapa Island

AP Aquatic Preserve

ASBS Area of Special Biological Significance

BCCA Bottom Contact Closed Area

BTCA Bottom Trawl Closed Area

CCA Cowcod Conservation Area

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

CINMS Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary

Cons. Conservation

CR Coastal Reserve

CZ Conservation Zone

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

fm fathoms

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

GL Game Land

km2 kilometer squared

MBP Marine Biological Preserve

MCA Marine Conservation Area

MG Marine Garden

MLPA Marine Life Protection Act.

MMA Marine Managed Area

MP Marine Park

MPA Marine Protected Area

MR Marine Reserve

NAP Natural Area Preserve

NERR National Estuarine Research Reserve

nm nautical miles

NM National Monument

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NMSP National Marine Sanctuary Program

GLOSSARY

40

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

NP National Park

NRA National Recreation Area

NRCA Natural Resources Conservation Area

NS National Seashore

NW Northwest

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

OPAC Ocean Policy Advisory Council

PFMC Pacific Fisheries Management Council

Pres. Preserve

RCA Rockfish Conservation Area

RR Research Reserve

Sanct. Sanctuary

SBI Santa Barbara Island

SCI Santa Catalina Island

SJI San Juan Islands

SMCA State Marine Conservation Area

SMFA State Marine Fishery Area

SMI San Miguel Island

SMP State Marine Park

SMR State Marine Reserve

SNI Saint Nicholas Island

Spec. Clos. Special Closure

SRI Santa Rosa Island

U.S. United States

W West

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife

WDNR Washington Department of Natural 

Resources 

WSPRC Washington State Parks and Recreation 

Commission
Appendix I

Final MMA Inventory Criteria 

Area Must have legally defined geographical 

boundaries, and may be of any size, except that 

the site must be a subset of the U.S. federal, State, 

commonwealth, territorial, local or tribal marine 

environment in which it is located. Application of this 

criterion would exclude, for example, generic broadbased resource management authorities without 

specific locations and areas whose boundaries change 

over time based on species presence.

Marine Must be: (a) ocean or coastal waters (note: 

Coastal waters may include intertidal areas, bays 

or estuaries); (b) an area of the Great Lakes or 

their connecting waters; (c) an area of lands under 

ocean or coastal waters or the Great Lakes or 

their connecting waters; or (d) a combination of 

the above. The term ‘‘intertidal’’ is understood to 

mean the shore zone between the mean low water 

and mean high water marks. An MMA may be a 

marine component part of a larger site that includes 

uplands. However, the terrestrial portion is not 

considered an MMA. For mapping purposes, an 

MMA may show an associated terrestrial protected 

area. NOAA and Department of the Interior 

intend to use the following definition for the term 

‘‘estuary’’: ‘‘Part of a river or stream or other body 

of water having unimpaired connection with the 

open sea, where the sea water is measurably diluted 

with fresh water derived from land drainage, 

and extending upstream to where ocean-derived 

salts measure more than 0.5 parts per thousand 

during the period of average annual low flow.’’ 

Application of this criterion would exclude, for 

example, strictly freshwater sites outside the Great 

Lakes region that contain marine species at certain 

seasons or life history stages unless that site is a 

component of a larger, multiunit MMA. However, 

upon request the agencies will work with individual 

states, commonwealths and territories to examine 

unique conditions which may affect applicability 

of the term ‘‘estuary’’. Estuarine-like sites on 

tributaries of the Great Lakes will be considered 

for inclusion if they are located within the eightdigit U.S. Geological Survey cataloging unit 

adjacent to a Great Lake or its connecting waters.

Reserved Must be established by and currently 

subject to federal, state, commonwealth, territorial, 

local or tribal law or regulation. Application of 

this criterion would exclude, for example, privately 

created or maintained marine sites.

Lasting Must provide the same protection, for any 

duration within a year, at the same location on the 

same dates each year, for at least two consecutive 

years. Must be established with an expectation of, 

history of, or at least the potential for permanence. 

Application of this criterion would exclude, for 

example, areas subject only to temporary protections, 

such as areas protected only by emergency fishery 

regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

which expire after 180 days. 

Protection Must have existing laws or regulations 

that are designed and applied to afford the site with 

increased protection for part or all of the natural 

and submerged cultural resources therein for the 

purpose of maintaining or enhancing the longterm conservation of these resources, beyond 

any general protections that apply outside the 

site. Application of this criterion would exclude 

restricted areas that are established for purposes 

other than conservation. For example, the term 

would not include areas closed for navigational 

safety, areas closed to safeguard modern man-made 

structures (e.g., submarine cable no-anchor zones), 

polluted shellfish-bed closure areas, areas closed 

to avoid fishing gear conflicts, and areas subject to 

area-based regulations that are established solely 

to limit fisheries by quota management or to 

facilitate enforcement.

Cultural In addition, the Executive Order uses 

the term cultural resources. NOAA and the 

Department of the Interior interpret this to mean 

any submerged historical or submerged cultural 

feature, including archaeological sites, historic 

structures, shipwrecks, and artifacts in the marine 

environment.

Taken together, these six definitions and criteria 

provide the basis for selecting sites to be included 

in the National MMA Inventory.

41

APPENDIX
WWW.MPA.GOV

A REPORT BY THE NATIONAL MARINE PROTECTED AREAS CENTER