November 2008

FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF

MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

November 2008

For more information please contact:

Lauren Wenzel

National Marine Protected Areas Center

NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

1305 East West Hwy, N/ORM

Silver Spring, MD 20910

(301) 713-3100 x136

mpa.comments@noaa.gov

www.mpa.gov

Cover photos courtesy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

www.mpa.gov
FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF

MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Contents

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................................1

II. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................5

A. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................................................................................5

B. DEVELOPING THE FRAMEWORK................................................................................................................................................8

C. BENEFITS OF AN EFFECTIVE NATIONAL SYSTEM.............................................................................................................9

III. DEFINING THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MPAS.................................................................................................13

A. NATIONAL SYSTEM PURPOSE......................................................................................................................................................13

B. NATIONAL SYSTEM GOALS AND PRIORITY CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES...........................................................13

C. NATIONAL SYSTEM DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION PRINCIPLES.........................................................................14

D. MPA ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA..........................................................................................................................................................17

E. MPA CATEGORIES...............................................................................................................................................................................21 

IV. BUILDING THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MPAS...................................................................................................25

A. SUMMARY AND SEQUENCE...........................................................................................................................................................25

B. NOMINATION PROCESS FOR EXISTING MPAS......................................................................................................................26

C. THE OFFICIAL LIST OF NATIONAL SYSTEM MPAS..............................................................................................................29

1. Adding MPAs to the List and National System...............................................................................................................................29

2. Modifying MPAs on the List and National System.........................................................................................................................29

3. Removing MPAs from the List and National System.....................................................................................................................29

D. IDENTIFYING NATIONAL SYSTEM CONSERVATION GAPS............................................................................................30

E. ESTABLISHING NEW NATIONAL SYSTEM MPAS...................................................................................................................32

V. IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MPAS..........................................................................................35

A. ENHANCING REGIONAL COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION.........................................................................36

1. Improving MPA Stewardship, Science and Effectiveness..............................................................................................................38

2. Regional MPA Planning.......................................................................................................................................................................40

B. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION........................................................................................................40

C. EVALUATING NATIONAL SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS..........................................................................................................42

D. FEDERAL AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES TO AVOID HARM...............................................................................................43

E. TRACKING AND REPORTING........................................................................................................................................................45

F. MPA FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE....................................................................................................................................46
G. ROLE OF THE NATIONAL MPA CENTER IN THE NATIONAL SYSTEM...............................................................47

VI. GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS..........................................................................................................................49

VII. ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATIONAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS.......................................................53

VIII. APPENDICES..................................................................................................................................................i

APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED....................................................................................................i

APPENDIX B. EXISTING U.S. MPA PROGRAMS, FEDERAL MPA INITIATIVES, AND TRIBAL AND 

 INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS...........................................................................................................................................................ii

APPENDIX C. PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT...............................................................................ix

APPENDIX D. EXECUTIVE ORDER 13158................................................................................................................................xxi

APPENDIX E. MPA FAC AND EX OFFICIO MEMBERS, AND THE FEDERAL MPA INTERAGENCY MPA 

WORKING GROUP.............................................................................................................................................................................xxv
FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
1

Executive Summary

Increasing impacts on the world’s oceans from coastal 

and offshore development, overfishing, a changing 

climate, natural events, and other sources are straining 

the health of marine ecosystems and the Great Lakes. 

Impacts to these intricately balanced environments 

include declining fish populations, degradation of 

coral reefs and other vital habitats, threats to rare or 

endangered species, and loss of artifacts and resources 

that represent the diverse cultural heritage of the United 

States. The effects of these losses are significant and 

jeopardize the social and economic fabric of the nation.

In the United States and around the world, marine 

protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly recognized 

as an important and promising management tool for 

mitigating or buffering some of these impacts. When 

used effectively and as a part of a broader ecosystembased approach to management, MPAs can help to 

restore and maintain healthy marine and Great Lakes 

environments by contributing to the overall protection 

of critical marine habitats and resources. In this way, 

effective MPAs also can offer social and economic 

opportunities for current and future generations, such 
2 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

1 The purpose of this document is to provide a framework for developing and implementing a National System of MPAs; it is not a 

blueprint for the establishment of individual MPAs.

as tourism, biotechnology, fishing, education, and 

scientific research. 

MPAs are designated and managed at all levels of 

government by a variety of agencies including parks, 

fisheries, wildlife, natural resource and historic 

resource departments, among others. U.S. MPAs have 

been established by well over 100 legal authorities, with 

some federal and state agencies managing more than 

one MPA program, each with its own legal purpose. 

There are approximately 1,700 existing MPAs in the 

United States that have been established by federal, 

state, territorial, and local governments to protect 

and conserve the nation’s rich natural and cultural 

marine heritage and sustainable production resources. 

These MPAs have been designated to achieve a 

myriad of conservation objectives, ranging from 

conservation of biodiversity hotspots, to preservation 

of sunken historic vessels, to protection of spawning 

aggregations important to commercial and recreational 

fisheries. Similarly, the level of protection provided 

by these MPAs ranges from fully protected or notake marine reserves to sites allowing multiple uses, 

including fishing, recreational, and industrial uses. 

Recognizing the significant role that U.S. MPAs play 

in conserving marine heritage and sustainable use, and 

the lack of a national institution for comprehensive 

MPA planning, coordination, and support, Presidential 

Executive Order 13158 of May 26, 2000 (Order), 

found in Appendix D of this document, calls for 

the development of a National System of Marine 

Protected Areas (national system). The Order clearly 

calls for a national and not a federal system, and 

requires collaboration not only with other federal 

agencies, but also with coastal states and territories, 

tribes, Regional Fishery Management Councils, and 

other entities, as appropriate, including the MPA 

Federal Advisory Committee. The Order further 

specifies that the national system be scientifically 

based, comprehensive, and represent the nation’s 

diverse marine ecosystems and natural and cultural 

resources. 

To provide a blueprint for building the National 

System of MPAs,1

 the Order calls for the development 

of a framework for a National System of MPAs and 

directs the establishment of a National MPA Center 

(MPA Center) within the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to lead the 

system’s development and implementation. This final 

Framework for the National System of MPAs of the United 

States of America (Framework) is the result of a multiyear development effort. The first draft Framework 

received over 11,000 comment submissions (composed 

of comments from 100 individual commenters and 

a petition from nearly 11,000 people) during its 

September 2006 to February 2007 public comment 

period. A second draft addressing these comments 

was published for public comment from March-May 

2008, and received 34 public comment submissions. 

The MPA Federal Advisory Committee also provided 

two sets of recommendations on the Framework that 

have contributed significantly to its final form. 

The Framework recognizes that U.S. MPA programs 

can achieve more efficient, effective conservation of 

the nation’s important natural and cultural resources 

by working together rather than separately, and 

that many solutions require collaboration across 

programs with their own individual mandates, levels 

of government, and even international boundaries. 

It proposes a national system that is, initially, an 

assemblage of existing MPA sites, systems, and 

networks established and managed by federal, 

state, territorial, commonwealth, tribal, or local 

governments, acknowledging and building upon 

the contributions of these foundation programs. 

In addition, the Framework outlines collaborative, 

transparent processes for MPA programs at all levels 

of government to work together at regional, national, 

and international levels and with public participation 

to achieve common conservation objectives through 

comprehensive MPA planning; identification of 

enhanced or new MPAs that may be needed; and 

support for improved MPA science, stewardship, and 

effectiveness. 
3

The Framework outlines the 

following key components of 

the national system:

□ A set of overarching national system goals and 

priority conservation objectives.

□ MPA eligibility criteria and other key 

definitions.

□ A nomination process for existing MPAs to be 

included in the national system that provides 

opportunities for public input.

□ A science-based, public process for identifying 

conservation gaps in the national system.

□ A process for improving regional and 

ecosystem-based coordination of MPAs by:

○ creating new or strengthening existing 

regional forums for MPA coordination;

○ identifying and catalyzing action to address 

shared priorities for improving MPA 

science, stewardship, and effectiveness; and

○ developing collaborative, ecosystem-based 

MPA planning to identify and recommend 

MPAs for inclusion in the new national 

system.

□ Mechanisms for national and international 

coordination.

□ Implementation guidance regarding federal 

agency responsibilities to avoid harm to 

resources protected by the National System of 

MPAs.

□ Mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating, and 

reporting on national system progress and 

priorities.

Through collaborative efforts among U.S. MPA 

programs and stakeholders, the national system 

can achieve the Order’s goal of enhancing the 

comprehensive conservation of the nation’s natural 

and cultural marine heritage and the ecologically 

and economically sustainable use of the marine 

environment for present and future generations. 
4 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Marine Protected Area – 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. (Executive Order 13158)

National System of MPAs – The group of MPA sites, networks, and systems established and 

managed by federal, state, tribal, and/or local governments that collectively enhance conservation of the nation’s 

natural and cultural marine heritage, and represent its diverse ecosystems and resources. National system 

MPAs work together at the regional and national levels to achieve common objectives for conserving the nation’s 

important natural and cultural resources.
5

A. Background

With the world’s largest Exclusive Economic Zone 

(Figure 1), the coastal, marine, and Great Lakes waters 

of the United States2

 support an incredible diversity 

and wealth of life. These waters also play host to 

untold special places that represent our rich cultural 

heritage and connections to the sea. In the same way, 

myriad human uses, livelihoods, and other activities take 

place in the marine and coastal environment, benefitting 

from and relying upon the sustained health of our 

nation’s vast natural and cultural heritage. 

As human populations grow and use of marine 

resources increases, so do the pressures and stresses 

exerted on these intricately balanced ecosystems. 

Ensuring the long-term health of these ecosystems 

and the sustained benefits on which humans depend 

requires comprehensive management approaches. In 

the United States and many other countries around the 

II. Introduction

2 Important terms are in bold the first time they are used and defined in the Glossary found in Section VI of this document.

Figure 1: U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone
6 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

world, marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly 

recognized and used as important tools for the 

conservation and sustainable use of marine resources 

and as an important component of a comprehensive 

management approach.

Recognizing the expanding role and importance of 

MPAs in the United States, Presidential Executive 

Order 13158 of May 26, 2000 (Order) directs 

the Department of Commerce (DOC) and the 

Department of the Interior (DOI), in consultation 

with other federal agencies,3

 to develop a National 

System of Marine Protected Areas (national 

system). 

The Order specifies that this is to be a national 

and not a federal system and requires consultation 

with all states (this includes U.S. states, territories, 

and commonwealths as defined in the Glossary, 

Section VI) that contain portions of the marine and 

Great Lakes environment; tribes; Regional Fishery 

Management Councils (FMCs); and other entities, as 

appropriate, including the Marine Protected Areas 

Federal Advisory Committee (MPA FAC) established 

by the Department of Commerce under the Order. 

The Order further specifies that the national system 

be scientifically based and comprehensive, and that 

it represent the diverse marine ecosystems of the 

United States and the nation’s natural and cultural 

resources. 

To provide a roadmap for building the national system, 

the Order calls for the development of a framework 

for a National System of MPAs and establishes the 

National MPA Center (MPA Center) within DOC’s 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) to develop the system and coordinate its 

subsequent implementation. This Framework for the 

“Based on evidence from existing marine area closures in both temperate and tropical 

regions, marine reserves and protected areas will be effective tools for addressing 

conservation needs as part of integrated coastal and marine area management.”

“MPAs, areas designated for special protection to enhance the management of 

marine resources, show promise as components of an ecosystem-based approach for 

conserving the ocean’s living assets.”

“Integration of management across the array of federal and state agencies will be 

needed to develop a national system of MPAs that effectively and efficiently conserves 

marine resources and provides equitable representation for the diversity of groups with 

interests in the sea.”

Committee on the Evaluation, Design, and Monitoring of Marine Reserves and Protected Areas in the United 

States, Ocean Studies Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, National Research 

Council, /Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems./ Washington, D.C.: National 

Academy Press, 2001.

3 The Department of Defense, the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, the Department of 

Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Science Foundation, and 

other pertinent federal agencies.
7

National System of Marine Protected Areas of the United 

States of America (Framework) outlines collaborative 

processes for building this assemblage of existing 

MPA sites, networks, and systems established 

and managed by federal, state, tribal, or local 

governments and for collectively working together at 

the regional and national levels to achieve common 

objectives for conserving the nation’s important 

natural and cultural resources. 

For the purposes of the national system, the term 

“marine protected area” (MPA) is defined by the 

Order 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.” The term MPA, as 

defined and further clarified 

and used in this document, 

is not synonymous with or 

limited to “no-take reserves” 

or “marine reserves.” The 

term MPA used here 

denotes an array of levels of 

protection and conservation 

purposes, from areas that 

allow multiple-use activities 

to areas that restrict take and/or access. To meet 

the nation’s goals for conserving natural heritage

and cultural heritage and achieving sustainable 

production of resources found in the coastal and 

marine environments, the national system must include 

an approach to balancing types and levels of MPA 

protections that is science-based and stakeholder 

informed. The national system is intended to be 

inclusive of MPAs across the spectrum of levels of 

protection, from multiple-use to no-take, recognizing 

that existing MPAs across this spectrum offer different 

values to the national system that can help meet its 

goals and objectives. 

While MPAs are an important tool for marine 

conservation, other types of management approaches 

are employed to address marine conservation 

objectives while allowing other appropriate uses and 

activities in the marine environment to take place in an 

economically and environmentally sustainable manner. 

Like other tools, MPAs should be carefully designed 

and implemented to meet specific conservation goals. 

Efforts to develop the national system must be both 

coordinated and integrated within the larger, evolving 

ecosystem-based approach to managing marine 

resources. 

Neither the national system nor the Order establish 

any new legal authorities to designate, manage, or 

change MPAs, nor do 

they alter any existing 

federal, state, local, 

or tribal MPA laws or 

programs. Each MPA or 

program that participates 

in the national system 

will continue to be 

independently managed 

by its respective entity 

or entities, as will any 

new sites that eventually 

may be established 

by those authorities. 

The national system is 

intended to support, 

not interfere with, 

agencies’ independent 

exercises of their own 

existing authorities. The national system is therefore 

envisioned as a “system of sites and systems” 

that will be developed to achieve conservation 

and management objectives that could not be 

accomplished by individual MPAs or MPA programs 

working independently. 

Furthermore, the requirements outlined in the Order, 

which provide the legal authority for establishing 

the national system, apply only to the actions of 

federal agencies. The Order does not direct the 

actions of states or tribes, or alter any existing state, 

local, or tribal authorities or treaties regarding the 

establishment or management of MPAs or marine 

resources under their jurisdiction. Finally, nothing in 

this document is to be construed as altering existing 

authorities regarding the establishment of federal 
8 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MPAs in areas of the marine environment subject to 

the jurisdiction and control of states, tribes, or local 

governments. 

While the Order’s requirements apply only to federal 

agencies, the full and ongoing participation of state, 

tribal, and local governments is critical to an effective 

national system. MPAs are designated and managed 

at all levels of government by a variety of agencies 

including parks, fisheries, wildlife, and natural resource 

and historic resource departments, among others. 

U.S. MPAs have been established by over 100 legal 

authorities, with some federal and state agencies 

managing more than one MPA program, each with 

its own legal purpose. Given the importance of 

the marine resources they manage and their wealth 

of experience in 

doing so, building 

and implementing 

the national system 

in partnership with 

state, tribal, and local 

governments is a 

major emphasis of the 

Framework. A full 

description of the range 

of existing U.S. MPA 

programs, federal MPA 

initiatives and tribal and 

international efforts can 

be found in Appendix 

B of this document. In 

light of this breadth 

of existing U.S. MPA 

responsibilities, the 

Order recognizes the need and calls for a national, 

rather than federal, system of MPAs with a geographic 

scope that spans the U.S. waters of the Pacific Ocean, 

including the Bering Sea; Atlantic Ocean, including the 

Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea; Arctic Ocean; and 

the Great Lakes. 

By establishing an effective structure for working 

together, the national system will help to increase the 

efficient protection of important marine resources; 

contribute to the nation’s overall social and economic 

health; support government agency cooperation 

and integration; and improve the public’s access to 

scientific information and decision making about 

the nation’s marine resources. It affords all system 

members the protections of Section 5 of the 

Executive Order, which requires federal agencies 

to avoid harm to the natural and cultural resources 

protected by MPAs within the national system, to the 

extent permitted by law and to the maximum extent 

practicable. The collaborative efforts of the national 

system are also intended to benefit the participating 

federal, state, tribal, and local government partners 

through the identification of shared priorities for 

improving MPA effectiveness and the development 

of partnerships to provide assistance in meeting 

those needs. Finally, the national system provides a 

foundation for cooperation with other countries to 

conserve resources of common concern.

B. Developing 

the 

Framework

In developing this 

Framework, the MPA 

Center engaged the 

nation in a multi-year 

dialogue to ensure 

that the national 

system represents the 

nation’s interests in 

the conservation and 

sustainable use of its 

natural and cultural 

marine resources. 

The MPA Center 

continues to work with and solicit input from federal, 

state, tribal, and local government partners, FMCs, 

stakeholder groups, and the general public about their 

perspectives on the national system. 

Recommendations and comments from the MPA FAC, 

states, tribes, federal agencies, FMC representatives, 

and non-governmental stakeholders have provided the 

foundation of viewpoints and information on which 

this document is constructed. Moreover, many of the 

core concepts presented in this document stem directly 

from the recommendation documents and reports 

submitted by the MPA FAC and states. 
9

The MPA Center led a broad and inclusive public 

scoping process to develop the initial draft Framework 

starting in 2005, and conducted general discussions 

about the purpose of the national system as early as 

2001. Specific recommendations during the scoping 

process were sought and received from the MPA 

FAC, composed of 30 individual members of the 

public representing the range of the nation’s MPA 

stakeholders and geographic areas; an MPA State 

Advisory Group convened by the Coastal States 

Organization and the MPA Center; and the Federal 

Interagency MPA Working Group, which provides 

ongoing, coordinated advice from federal agencies on 

the implementation of the Order. A full description 

of the MPA FAC can be found in Appendix B and 

a list of the MPA FAC members and the Federal 

Interagency MPA Working Group representatives 

can be found in Appendix E. The MPA Center also 

held a series of five regional public dialogue meetings 

around the country to provide stakeholders with an 

opportunity to include their input and advice and 

three regional state workshops to solicit their views. 

Comments and recommendations received during 

the scoping process were reviewed and considered in 

the development of the initial Draft Framework and 

copies of these and other related materials can be 

found at http://www.mpa.gov. 

The initial Draft Framework was available for public 

comment between September 2006 and February 

2007. The MPA Center received over 11,000 

comment submissions comprised of approximately 

100 comments from individual commenters and 

a petition from nearly 11,000 people requesting 

the development of a nation-wide system of fully 

protected or “no-take” reserves. In addition, in April 

and October 2007, the MPA Center solicited and 

received additional advice and comments from the 

MPA FAC about options for revising the Framework. 

The Revised Draft Framework was made available for 

public comment from March 15, 2008, through May 

16, 2008. The MPA Center received 34 comment 

submissions during this comment period. During 

both comment periods, comments were received from 

state government agencies, industry and conservation 

organizations, tribal groups, various advisory bodies, 

and members of the public. In developing this final 

Framework, the MPA Center considered all comments 

received during both comment periods as well as 

the recommendations of the MPA FAC. With the 

publication of this final Framework, the MPA Center 

will now initiate implementation of the national 

system. Plans and guidance documents outlining next 

steps in the implementation process will be posted at 

http://www.mpa.gov. 

C. Benefits of an Effective 

National System 

The national system offers numerous benefits above 

and beyond the benefits realized by participating MPA 

sites and programs individually. These benefits would 

accrue to the nation as a whole, as well as at regional 

and local levels. Benefits would extend across the 

full spectrum of users and stakeholders, including 

both consumptive and non-consumptive users. The 

following list reflects some of the potential benefits 

from the creation and effective management of the 

national system.4

Enhanced Conservation 

□ Representativeness – The national system 

will significantly boost ongoing efforts to 

preserve the natural and cultural heritage of 

the United States by ensuring that the diverse 

characteristics of the natural and social 

environment of the nation’s seas are conserved 

for future generations in a systematic way. 

The representation of all ecosystem or 

habitat types in all the nation’s marine regions, 

which includes the Great Lakes, within a 

single system will help ensure that the full 

complement of biodiversity and valued areas 

will be protected.

□ Connectivity – The national system provides 

an opportunity to identify and establish 

networks of MPAs that are ecologically 

4 Adapted from MPA FAC, October 2007.
10 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

connected. An ecological network of MPAs 

is a set of discrete MPAs within a region that 

is functionally connected through dispersal 

of reproductive stages (eggs, larvae, spores, 

etc.) or movement of juveniles and adults. 

Properly designed and located, these networks 

can enhance linkages between sources and 

sinks for many marine organisms, which may 

be essential for some local populations to 

persist—an increasingly serious challenge in 

a rapidly changing environment. Planning at 

the national and regional scales provides an 

opportunity to address connectivity for many 

different marine organisms at different spatial 

scales. 

□ Enhanced Stewardship – The national 

system can help protect MPAs against the 

harmful effects of onsite or offsite activities 

through enhanced regional coordination, 

public awareness, site management capacity, 

recognition of these MPAs as important 

conservation areas, and application of the 

protective measures in Section 5 of the 

Executive Order. 

Social and Economic Benefits

□ Increased Visitation – The establishment and 

recognition of the national system could be an 

incentive for increased tourism and visitation 

of some MPAs, as well as an increase in 

visitation and enjoyment of areas system-wide, 

providing for uses such as recreational fishing, 

diving, whale watching, and swimming.

□ Sustained Fisheries – One goal of the 

national system is supporting sustainable 

production of harvested marine resources. 

Improved regional coordination and support 

for management, using MPAs where 

appropriate, could lead to enhanced fishing 

opportunities for both commercial and 

recreational fishermen as a result of species 

recovery, spillover and seeding effects, habitat 

protection, conservation of old-growth age 

structure and genetic diversity, establishment 

of reference sites to examine the regional 

effects of fishing, and better information on 

access opportunities.

□ Maintained Coastal Community 

Identity – Creation of the national system 

could help foster social stability by helping 

to maintain cultural heritage and economic 

viability.

□ Non-extractive Uses – Establishment of 

the national system could create additional 

system-wide non-consumptive benefits, such 

as aesthetic, bequest, and spiritual values; 

opportunities for viewing and photographing 

marine wildlife; wilderness experiences; 

scientific research; education; and appreciation 

of natural resources and the importance of 

their management.

□ Enhanced Planning for Ocean Uses –

Identification of national system MPAs, as 

well as identification of areas important for 

conservation identified through a gap analysis, 

will help inform regional-scale planning and 

decision making associated with a wide range 

of ocean uses. This could also contribute to a 

more predictable regulatory environment for 

ocean industry.

Public Awareness, Understanding, and 

Education

□ Increased Support for Marine 

Conservation – The national system 

recognizes the immense value of our nation’s 

oceans and coasts and could help boost marine 

conservation by elevating the public profile of 

MPAs as a management tool. The designation 

of existing MPAs as part of the national 

system could enhance the stature of these 

sites within their managing entities and their 

local communities, as well as nationally and 

internationally. This designation also could 

build support for investment in appropriately 

established MPAs. Recognition of protected 

areas in other national or global systems (e.g., 

the National Estuarine Research Reserve, 

National Trail, and National Wilderness 

systems; United Nations Educational, 

Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s World 

Heritage Sites; Ramsar Wetland sites) has had 

similar results.
11

□ More Effective and Efficient 

Outreach – The national system will be 

an important and efficient mechanism for 

increased public awareness and understanding 

of the importance of marine resources and 

conservation efforts. Coordinated outreach 

efforts will increase the impact of outreach 

by individual MPAs, and could result in cost 

savings. Including worthy, but currently little 

known, sites in the national system could bring 

increased recognition and visibility to these 

areas. 

□ Promotion of Cultural Heritage – 

Participation in the national system elevates 

and enhances the recognition of and 

appreciation for the cultural heritage value of 

MPA sites. 

□ Enhanced Educational Opportunities 

– The creation of the national system will 

present enhanced opportunities for natural 

and cultural heritage education. This could 

include onsite education and interpretation, 

as well as classroom and web-based resources. 

The national system will be a valuable tool 

for educating students and visitors about the 

nation’s diverse marine and coastal ecosystems 

and cultural resources. 

□ Enhanced Research Opportunities – The 

national system will provide scientists and 

managers more opportunities to understand 

the dynamics of marine ecosystems and 

human interactions with them under different 

management regimes.

Enhanced Coordination and Strategic 

Direction

□ Shared National System Conservation 

Objectives – The national system will focus 

on specified priority objectives (see Section 

III (B)). By providing a focus for national and 

regional conservation efforts, these shared 

objectives will help build consensus about 

priority conservation actions, and ultimately 

increase the effectiveness of the diverse 

conservation efforts of federal agencies, states, 

tribes and non-governmental partners. 

□ Improved Gap Analysis and 

Planning – The formation of the national 

system will help highlight gaps in protection 

of important places for which MPAs might 

be considered to meet priority conservation 

objectives. This will inform future planning 

efforts to create MPAs to fill the identified 

gaps.

□ Enhanced Interagency Cooperation – The 

creation of the national system will provide an 

unprecedented venue and catalyst for increased 

cooperation among the diverse entities across 

all levels of government with management 

authority for the different types of MPAs that 

comprise the national system. The existence 

of national system MPAs in the same region 

is intended to stimulate cooperative efforts in 

planning, research and monitoring, sharing of 

equipment and personnel, enforcement efforts, 

and educational campaigns.

□ Enhanced Regional Coordination – The 

establishment or enhancement of regional 

MPA coordination forums via the national 

system offers an opportunity for managing 

entities and stakeholders to look beyond 

their individual jurisdictions, mandates, 

and interests, and consider regional and/or 

ecosystem-based approaches to MPA planning. 

□ Enhanced International 

Coordination – The national system will 

facilitate the identification of opportunities to 

improve linkages with, and provide technical 

assistance to, international marine protected 

area programs, to enhance cooperative 

conservation across international boundaries.
12 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Natural Heritage: The nation’s biological communities, habitats, ecosystems, and processes 

and the ecological services, uses, and values they provide to present and future generations.

Cultural Heritage: The cultural resources that reflect the nation’s maritime history and 

traditional cultural connections to the sea, as well as the uses and values they provide to present and 

future generations. 

Sustainable Production: The nation’s renewable living resources and their habitats 

(including, but not limited to, spawning, mating, and nursery grounds, and areas established to 

minimize incidental bycatch of species) and the social, cultural, and economic values and services 

they provide to present and future generations. 
13

A. National System Purpose

The purpose of the national system is to support the 

effective stewardship, conservation, restoration, sustainable 

use, and public understanding and appreciation of the 

nation’s significant natural and cultural marine heritage 

and sustainable production marine resources, with due 

consideration of the interests of and implications for all who 

use, benefit from, and care about our marine environment.

B. National System Goals and 

Priority Conservation Objectives

The national system’s goals and objectives are designed 

to address the requirements of the Order to develop a 

comprehensive National System of MPAs representing 

III. Defining the

National System of

MPAs
14 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

diverse United States marine ecosystems and the 

nation’s natural and cultural resources. These goals, 

which are all of equal importance, have been designed 

with input and recommendations of the MPA FAC 

and other stakeholders to meet the purpose of 

the national system relative to the conservation of 

the nation’s natural heritage, cultural heritage, and 

sustainable production marine resources (Table 1). 

These goals and associated priority conservation 

objectives are intended to guide the development 

of the comprehensive national system, including 

identification of both existing MPAs to be included 

and conservation gaps which might be addressed 

through the establishment of MPAs. The national 

system as a whole will work collectively to achieve 

these goals and objectives. It is not expected that 

any individual MPA, MPA program, or system should 

address all goals or objectives. Measuring progress 

toward the attainment of these goals is addressed in 

Section V(C).

Prioritization of Conservation Objectives

Given the magnitude of the task of building a 

comprehensive national system, the MPA Center will 

follow a gradual implementation process based on the 

iterative achievement of the prioritized conservation 

objectives as outlined in the table below. In this way, 

building the national system will begin with a focus on 

a subset of the highest-priority (near-term) objectives 

for each goal and as completed will move on to the next 

highest-priority conservation objectives for each goal.

The conservation objectives listed below were 

prioritized by the MPA FAC and the MPA Center for 

near-term, mid-term, and long-term implementation 

based on:

□ the availability of existing scientific or other 

data necessary to achieve the objective; 

□ the importance of the objective, i.e., its relative 

urgency and significance as compared to the 

other objectives; and 

□ the effort necessary to achieve the objective, in 

this case the ability to complete the nomination 

of existing areas and the identification of 

conservation gaps relative to the objective(s).

Achievement or completion of each conservation 

objective will include the following activities:

1. identification of existing MPAs that contribute 

to that objective and nomination of those 

MPAs by managing entities to the national 

system, and 

2. identification of associated conservation gaps 

in the national system. 

Priority conservation objectives should be considered 

together and at the regional scale, recognizing that 

implementation of the priority conservation objectives 

may not occur simultaneously and that conservation 

gaps in some areas may be addressed by MPAs, 

some other management tool, or a combination of 

tools, as appropriate. Specific processes for each 

of these activities are described in later sections of 

this document. Nonetheless, in practical terms, it is 

unlikely that all objectives within the same timeframe 

designation (e.g., near-term) will be able to be 

addressed simultaneously due to varying complexity 

of implementation and available staffing and funding 

resources. 

To ensure that partners and stakeholders are kept 

informed of the status of building the national system, 

the MPA Center will publish, on an as-needed and 

sequential basis, “priorities announcements” that list 

the specific subsets of the near-term, mid-term, and 

long-term national system conservation objectives for 

each goal as targets for building the national system. 

C. National System Design and 

Implementation Principles

The following principles are intended to guide the 

decisions and actions of managing entities and 

stakeholders in building and implementing an effective 

national system. These principles have been adapted 

from recommendations of the MPA FAC and the World 
15

Table 1. National System Goals and Priority Conservation Objectives

Goal 1: For Natural Heritage Marine Resources – Advance comprehensive conservation and management of the 

nation’s biological communities, habitats, ecosystems, and processes and the ecological services, uses, and values they 

provide to present and future generations through ecosystem-based MPA approaches.

Priority Conservation Objectives for Goal 1 – Conserve and manage:

Key reproduction areas and nursery grounds

Near Term

Key biogenic habitats

Areas of high species and/or habitat diversity 

Ecologically important geological features and enduring/recurring oceanographic features 

Critical habitat of threatened and endangered species

Unique or rare species, habitats, and associated communities Mid Term

Key areas for migratory species

Linked areas important to life histories Long Term Key areas that provide compatible opportunities for education and research

Goal 2: For Cultural Heritage Marine Resources – Advance comprehensive conservation and management of cultural 

resources that reflect the nation’s maritime history and traditional cultural connections to the sea, as well as the uses and 

values they provide to present and future generations through ecosystem-based MPA approaches.

Priority Conservation Objectives for Goal 2 – Conserve and manage:

Key cultural and historic resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP)

Key cultural and historic resources determined eligible for the NRHP or listed on a State Near Term

Register

Key cultural sites that are paramount to a culture’s identity and/or survival

Key cultural and historic sites that may be threatened Mid Term

Key cultural and historic sites that can be utilized for heritage tourism

Key cultural and historic sites that are underrepresented Long Term

Goal 3: For Sustainable Production Marine Resources – Advance comprehensive conservation and management of 

the nation’s renewable living resources and their habitats (including, but not limited to, spawning, mating, and nursery 

grounds and areas established to minimize bycatch of species) and the social, cultural, and economic values and services 

they provide to present and future generations through ecosystem-based MPA approaches.

Priority Conservation Objectives for Goal 3 – Conserve and manage:

Key reproduction areas, including larval sources and nursery grounds Near Term

Key areas that sustain or restore high-priority fishing grounds 

Key areas for maintaining natural age/sex structure of important harvestable species 

Key foraging grounds Mid Term

Key areas that mitigate the impacts of bycatch 

Key areas that provide compatible opportunities for education and research Long Term
16 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Commission on Protected Areas/International Union 

for Conservation of Nature (WCPA/IUCN) report, 

“Establishing networks of marine protected areas: A 

guide for developing national and regional capacity for 

building MPA networks” (WCPA/IUCN, 2007).

National System Design Principles

Design principles will be used to guide the 

development of the national system, including the 

identification of priority conservation gaps in the 

national system (Section IV (D)) and regional MPA 

planning (Section V (A) (2)).

□ Prioritized resource conservation 

targets – Focus first on conservation 

objectives that are of highest priority based on 

significance and urgency, availability of existing 

scientific and other data, and ability of the 

managing entity(ies) to act on objectives in the 

near-term.

□ Representativeness –

○ Geographically representative – represents the 

range of geographic regions of the nation.

○ Ecologically representative – represents the 

range of marine and coastal biological 

diversity (from genes to species to habitats 

to ecosystems) and associated physical 

environments within the region or nation. 

○ Culturally and/or historically representative – 

represents the range of cultural and/or 

historic resources and values of a particular 

ecosystem or region or the nation.

○ Levels of government – includes areas 

managed by federal, state, tribal, and local 

governments and communities.

□ Replication – Includes multiple sites to 

ensure continued representation in the face of 

harmful impacts.

□ Precautionary design – Decisions are based 

on the best information currently available 

from natural science, social science, customary 

and local knowledge, and other sources. 

Where information is limited, decisions should 

reflect a precautionary approach.

□ Resilience – Designed to maintain 

ecosystems’ natural states and to absorb 

shocks, particularly in the face of large-scale 

and long-term changes (such as climate 

change).

□ Viability – Inclusion of self-sustaining, 

geographically dispersed component sites 

of sufficient extent to ensure population 

persistence through natural cycles of variation.

□ Connectivity – Maximize and enhance the 

linkages among individual MPAs, groups of 

MPAs within a given eco-region, or MPA 

networks in the same and/or different regions. 

National System Planning and 

Implementation Principles

Planning and implementation principles that will guide 

national system efforts are discussed further under 

Section V, “Implementing the National System,” 

including regional coordination and MPA planning.

□ Cooperation and coordination – Fosters 

cooperation and coordination among federal, 

state, tribal, local, and other management 

entities to reduce administrative costs, promote 

efficiency, and effectively utilize existing 

management infrastructure. 

□ National scope, ecosystem and regional 

scale – Embraces regional and ecosystem 

approaches to planning, participation, and 

implementation. Provides a mechanism for 

coordinating across regions, nationally, and 

where appropriate, internationally. 

□ Adaptive management – Employs a 

systematic process for continually improving 

national system management policies and 

practices by learning from the outcomes of 

operational programs. 
17

□ Monitoring and assessment – Promotes 

sound monitoring and evaluation at the site 

and system levels to assess management 

effectiveness, relying on established evaluation 

processes and methodologies, where possible.

□ Compliance and enforcement – Promotes 

effective compliance with and enforcement 

of MPA regulations through design 

recommendations for MPAs and networks, 

capacity building, public education, and other 

mechanisms.

□ Balanced stakeholder involvement – 

Provides meaningful opportunities for input 

from and participation by the nation’s MPA 

stakeholders, including the general public.

□ Active outreach and education – Raises 

awareness and understanding of MPAs and 

stewardship of marine resources.

□ On-site and off-site influences and 

impacts – Recognizes and seeks appropriate 

mechanisms to address both on-site and offsite influences, including impacts to coastal and 

marine resources from land-based activities.

□ Respecting local and indigenous values –

Considers and addresses local values, including 

those of indigenous cultures.

□ Appropriate access and compatible uses 

– Provides opportunities for appropriate 

access to and/or compatible use of marine 

resources consistent with conservation goals 

and objectives.

D. MPA Eligibility Criteria 

To be eligible for nomination to the national system, 

existing MPAs must meet three (four for cultural sites) 

criteria, shown in Figure 2 and described in more 

detail below:

1. Meet the definitional criteria of an MPA, 

including each of its key terms (see definitions 

in Table 2) – area, marine environment, 

reserved, lasting, and protection.

2.Have a management plan.

3. Support at least one priority goal and 

conservation objective of the national system.

4.Cultural heritage MPAs also must conform 

to criteria for including sites on the National 

Register of Historic Places.

Additional sites not currently meeting the management 

plan criterion can be evaluated for eligibility to be 

nominated to the system on a case-by-case basis 

based on their ability to fill gaps in national system 

coverage of the priority conservation objectives and 

design principles described in Sections III (B) and 

(C), respectively. To the extent practicable, the MPA 

Center intends to assist otherwise qualified sites that 

do not meet the management plan criterion to develop 

or strengthen their management plans.

(i) Definition of MPA and its Key Terms 

With the goal of standardizing the term “marine 

protected area” for the purposes of the national 

system, the Order defines an “MPA” as “[a]ny 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.”

Without further clarification, the key terms of 

“area,” “marine environment,” “reserved,” “lasting,” 

and “protection” found in the MPA definition are 

subject to a range of interpretations and lead to 

an uncertain scope for the national system. The 
18 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

definitions of key terms for “MPA” listed in Table 2 

were guided by recommendations from stakeholders, 

including the MPA FAC, the analysis of existing 

place-based conservation efforts, and Federal Register

comment processes for the Draft and Revised Draft 

Frameworks. 

(ii) Management Plan Criteria

To be eligible for nomination to the national system, 

an MPA must have a management plan that:

Has been developed at one of the following scales: 

□ a site-specific MPA management plan,

□ part of a larger MPA programmatic 

management plan,

□ component of a broader, non-MPA 

programmatic management plan (e.g., fishery 

management plan or species recovery plan), or 

□ a verbal or written community agreement.5

Includes both of the following components:

□ specified conservation goals, and

□ a process or requirement for monitoring and 

evaluation of goals.

(iii) Priority Goals and Objectives of the 

National System 

An MPA’s conservation purpose must specifically 

contribute to at least one of the priority goals and 

objectives published by the MPA Center as current 

conservation priorities, as described in Section III (B) 

above.

(iv) National Register of Historic Places 

Criteria

Cultural resources in the national system of MPAs 

can include submerged archeological resources, 

cultural landscapes, and structures as well as 

ethnographic resources with tribal or traditional 

cultural meaning, value, and use. Given the cultural 

resource management community’s widespread 

acknowledgement of the standards developed by 

the National Park Service for inclusion of a cultural 

resource in the National Register of Historical 

Places (NRHP), the national system will integrate 

core elements of those standards into its criteria for 

MPAs with cultural marine resources. As such, the 

cultural marine resources within those MPAs must be 

historic and defined as at least 50 years of age, unless 

otherwise determined to be unique to the nation’s 

maritime history or traditional connections to the sea 

as defined by the NRHP. In addition, the resources 

must meet the following NRHP evaluation criteria: 

All area-based 

conservation 

sites

MPAs 

eligible for 

the national 

system

Meets national 

system definition 

of MPA

Has a 

management 

plan

Meets priority 

conservation 

objective

Figure 2: Eligibility Criteria for the National System

5 Given the unique nature of community agreements, whether verbal or written, the requirement for these management agreements to 

include conservation goals and monitoring and evaluation components may be met through traditional or science-based approaches. In 

some Pacific Island cultures, for example, management agreements may be part of local oral tradition, and are not written, but would still 

be considered as meeting this criterion.
19

Key Term Definition

Area

Must have legally defined geographical boundaries, and may be of any size, except 

that the site must be a subset of the United States federal, state, local, or tribal marine 

environment in which it is located. Application of this criterion would exclude, for 

example, generic broad-based resource management authorities without specific 

locations and areas whose boundaries change over time based on species presence. 

The area must be one over which the United States has jurisdiction, consistent with 

international law.

Marine environment

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 submerged 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 MPA may be a marine component part of a larger site that includes uplands; 

however, the terrestrial portion is not considered an MPA. For mapping purposes, an 

MPA may show an associated terrestrial protected area. 

For purposes of the national system, NOAA and DOI 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 less 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 MPA.

Upon request, the agencies will work with individual federal, state, and tribal MPAs 

and programs to examine unique conditions that may affect applicability of the term 

‘‘estuary’’ or “coastal waters” for sites that have national or regional significance or 

representativeness. 

Estuarine-like sites on tributaries of the Great Lakes will be considered for inclusion if 

they are located within the eight-digit 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, local, or tribal law or 

regulation. Application of this criterion would exclude, for example, privately created 

or maintained marine sites.

Table 2. Definition of Key Terms for the Purposes of the National System
20 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Lasting 

For natural heritage and cultural heritage MPAs, the site’s authority must clearly state 

its intent to provide permanent protection. This definition recognizes that subsequent 

to establishment, MPA designation and level of protection may change for various 

reasons, including natural disasters that may destroy or alter resources or changes in 

societal values. Should any of these changes occur, the status of the MPA relative to 

the national system could be re-evaluated. 

Sites and/or protections that must have a specific legislative or other administrative 

action to be decommissioned shall be considered to have been established with the 

intent to provide permanent protection. This would include, for example, sites that 

have a requirement for periodic renewal contingent on evaluation of effectiveness, 

with no specified expiration date.

For sustainable production MPAs, the site must be established with the intent at the 

time of designation to provide, at a minimum, the duration of protection necessary to 

achieve the mandated long-term sustainable production objectives for which the site 

was established. 

For all MPAs, the site must provide the same level and type of protection at a fixed 

location and fixed and regular period of any duration during a year.

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 lasting 

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. The term would not include, for example, 

areas closed for navigational safety, areas closed to safeguard modern human-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.
21

“The quality of significance in American history, 

architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture 

is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, 

and objects that possess integrity of location, 

design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and 

association, and: 

a. That are associated with events that have made a 

significant contribution to the broad patterns of 

our history; or 

b. That are associated with the lives of significant 

persons in our past; or 

c. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a 

type, period, or method of construction, or that 

represent the work of a master, or that possess 

high artistic values, or that represent a significant 

and distinguishable entity whose components 

may lack individual distinction; or

d. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, 

information important in history or prehistory.”

E. MPA Categories

The set of national system MPA categories listed below 

in Table 3 are intended to provide a limited set of 

user-friendly terms for communicating generally about 

the purpose of and level of protection for MPAs that 

become a part of the national system.6

 In addition, 

these categories will be useful for: 

□ partitioning the national system into 

manageably sized groups of comparable sites to 

ease identification of shared technical or other 

assistance; 

□ grouping sites based on comparable 

conservation objectives and levels of 

protection to facilitate identification of gaps in 

conservation; and 

□ providing a logical framework for organizing 

and monitoring how sites added to the national 

system contribute to the system’s conservation 

objectives.

The MPA Center will work with the respective 

managing entities to determine the most appropriate 

category for the MPAs as they become a part of the 

national system. This categorization will not in any way 

supersede the designated name or title of the MPA, as 

established by law or other independent authorities. 

6 A more detailed categorization scheme useful for more in-depth analysis is provided at http://www.mpa.gov. 
22 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

National 

System 

Purpose

MPA Category

Protection and 

Use Sub-category* Management Goal(s)

Conserve 

Marine 

Heritage

Marine Natural 

Heritage Areas

Natural Heritage

Conservation Areas

Conserve and manage the nation’s biological communities, 

habitats, ecosystems, and processes and the ecological 

services, uses, and values they provide to present and future 

generations through ecosystem-based MPA approaches. 

Natural Heritage 

Reserve Areas

Strongly protect the nation’s biological communities, 

habitats, ecosystems, and processes and the ecological 

services, uses, and values they provide to present and future 

generations through ecosystem-based MPA approaches. 

Marine Cultural 

Heritage Areas

Cultural Heritage 

Conservation Areas

Conserve and manage cultural resources that reflect 

the nation's maritime history and traditional cultural 

connections to the sea and the uses and values they provide 

to present and future generations through ecosystem-based 

MPA approaches.

Cultural Heritage 

Reserve Areas

Strongly protect cultural resources that reflect the nation's 

maritime history and traditional cultural connections to 

the sea and the uses and values they provide to present 

and future generations through ecosystem-based MPA 

approaches.

Marine Natural 

and Cultural 

Heritage Areas

Natural and Cultural 

Heritage

Conservation Areas

Management goals of marine natural heritage conservation 

areas and of marine cultural heritage conservation areas.

Natural and Cultural 

Heritage Reserve Areas

Management goals of marine natural heritage reserve areas 

and of marine cultural reserve areas. 

Sustain 

Marine 

Production

Marine 

Sustainable 

Production 

Areas

Sustainable Production 

Conservation Areas

Advance comprehensive conservation and management of 

the nation’s renewable living resources and their habitats 

(including, but not limited to, spawning, mating, and 

nursery grounds and areas established to minimize bycatch 

of species) and the social, cultural, and economic values 

and services they provide to present and future generations 

through ecosystem-based MPA approaches. 

Sustainable Production 

Reserve Areas

Strongly protect the nation’s renewable living resources and 

their habitats (including, but not limited to, spawning, 

mating, and nursery grounds and areas established to 

minimize bycatch of species) and the social, cultural, 

and economic values and services they provide to present 

and future generations through ecosystem-based MPA 

approaches. 

Table 3. National System MPA Categories
23

*Conservation Areas: Multiple uses allowed; however, uses and activities may be restricted or zoned, and 

access limited, as necessary to meet site management goals. 

*Reserve Areas: No extractive uses allowed, except permitted scientific and educational uses; destructive or 

disruptive activities limited; other uses and activities may be restricted or zoned, and access limited, as necessary 

to meet site management goals.
24 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
25

A. Summary and Sequence 

Building the national system will involve two major sets of 

activities:

1. the identification, nomination, and inclusion of existing 

MPAs in the national system and on the official List of 

National System MPAs, and 

2.the identification of national system conservation gaps 

in protection of important marine areas that meet the 

national system’s conservation objectives and design 

criteria, outlined in Sections III (B) and (D) above, 

with facilitation of subsequent development by the 

relevant establishing agencies of new MPAs and/

or enhancement of existing MPAs to fill those gaps, 

where appropriate, outlined in Section IV (D) below.

IV. Building the

National System of

MPAs
26 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Given the magnitude of the task of developing 

the national system, the MPA Center will follow an 

iterative process to build the system gradually over 

time. The pace of this process will be determined 

by the availability of resources to carry out the 

process. The sequence of the iterative process for 

the above two major sets of national system building 

activities is as follows, and shown in Figure 3 (a more 

thorough description of each activity can be found in 

subsequent subsections):

□ As described in Section III (B), the MPA 

Center will periodically identify near-term 

priority conservation objectives to guide the 

phased development of the national system. 

□ As described in Section IV (B), the MPA 

Center will lead a nation-wide nomination 

process for eligible existing MPAs that 

contribute to the targeted conservation 

objectives, and include those MPAs in the 

national system that are successfully nominated 

and accepted.

□ As described in Section IV (D), the MPA 

Center will lead a collaborative region-byregion process to identify conservation 

gaps relative to the targeted conservation 

objectives and national system design criteria. 

Conservation gaps will be used to inform 

the development of recommendations for 

new MPAs through regional MPA planning 

described in Section V (A), and can also be 

used by managing entities and stakeholders 

to guide their efforts to establish new MPAs. 

It is expected that any management actions 

taken to fill these gaps will consider different 

management alternatives and the impacts of 

those alternatives on human uses of the areas. 

□ Upon completion of the nation-wide 

nomination process and region-by-region 

conservation gap identification for the targeted 

conservation objectives, or at such other time 

that resources and capabilities allow, the MPA 

Center will publish the next iterative set of 

conservation objectives to serve as targets for 

building the national system.

B. Nomination Process for 

Existing MPAs 

The process for nominating and including 

eligible MPAs in the national system is as follows. 

Nominations of existing MPAs originate with the 

managing entity(ies), with the MPA Center providing 

background information and analysis (see Figure 4 for 

summary):

1. The MPA Center will review sites in the United 

States Marine Protected Areas Inventory and 

identify the set of sites that meet the three (or 

four, for cultural sites) MPA eligibility criteria 

outlined in Section III (D). Information on 

whether sites meet criterion 3, supporting at 

least one priority goal and conservation objective 

of the national system, will be provided by 

the managing entity. The MPA Inventory 

(see http://www.mpa.gov) is a refinement of 

the earlier Marine Managed Areas Inventory, 

which was a broader collection of place-based 

management areas in U.S. waters. 

2.The MPA Center will send the managing 

entity or entities7 for those sites found to be 

potentially eligible a letter of invitation to 

nominate the site, including the rationale for 

eligibility. 

7 In most cases, management authority for an MPA lies with one agency or program; however, in certain instances, such as the federal/

state National Estuarine Research Reserve System and state/tribe co-management arrangements, authority is formally shared or split 

among two or more entities. Similarly, Regional Fishery Management Councils have a unique role with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service in the process for establishing federal fishery management zones and federal fisheries habitat conservation zones. Where explicit 

agreements and/or legislation govern shared management authority or other formal relationships, the multiple managing entities will be 

consulted throughout the nomination process. Regional Fishery Management Councils will be a key partner with NOAA in nominating 

sites to the national system. Through a transparent process, NOAA will consult with its Council partners and fully consider the views and 

interests of the Councils prior to nominating a site to the national system. These NOAA-Council consultations would take place at the 

regional-level at key stages of the nominating process, and DOC/NOAA would make final decisions on nominations.
27

Figure 3: Building the National System of MPAs

National System 

Process to Identify 

Conservation 

Gaps

Other MPA Processes 

(e.g., new fishery 

management zones, 

parks, etc.)

MPA Inventory

Inclusion into

 National System

MPAs that have a 

management plan

MPAs that meet a 

priority conservation 

objective

Managing entity 

nominates MPA; public 

comments; accepted by 

MPA Center

New or 

strengthened 

MPAs

Existing 

MPAs
28 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

3.The managing entity or entities will be asked 

to consider and nominate some or all of the 

identified sites for inclusion in the national 

system, including additional information 

required to evaluate site eligibility relative to 

meeting priority conservation objectives. 

The managing entity or entities may also 

provide a brief justification and nomination 

for: a) unsolicited sites believed to meet the 

requirements for entry into the national system, 

or b) other sites that do not appear to currently 

meet the management plan eligibility criterion 

but are deemed to be a priority for inclusion 

based on their ability to fill gaps in national 

system coverage of the priority conservation 

objectives and design principles.

4. The MPA Center will review the set of 

nominated sites to ensure that nominations are 

sufficiently justified. 

5.The MPA Center will notify the public, via 

the Federal Register and other means, of the 

set of sites nominated for inclusion in the 

national system and provide the opportunity to 

comment on the eligibility of nominated sites 

(or sites that have not been nominated) relative 

to the eligibility criteria and any additional 

justification. The MPA Center will work with 

the managing entities to ensure adequate public 

involvement, including public meetings, as 

appropriate.

6. The MPA Center will receive, evaluate, 

and forward public comment to the relevant 

managing entity or entities, which will reaffirm 

or withdraw (in writing to the MPA Center) the 

nomination based on public comment received 

and any other factors deemed relevant. 

7.The MPA Center will review the final 

determination for each nomination, consult as 

necessary with the managing entity or entities 

should there be any discrepancies, and accept 

mutually agreed upon MPAs into the national 

system. 

8.MPAs that are accepted into the national 

system will be listed in the official List of 

National System MPAs (see below) comprising 

the national system and made available to 

the public via the Federal Register, the website 

http://www.mpa.gov, and other means. 

Where non-governmental stakeholders, including the 

general public, may have an interest in the nomination 

of certain MPAs, they are encouraged to contact 

the respective managing entity or entities to share 

their perspectives about nomination in addition 

to participating in the public comment process 

described in number 5 in this section. Similarly, 

where government agencies have an interest in the 

nomination of eligible MPAs for which they do not 

have management authority, they are encouraged to 

consult with the respective managing entity or entities.

Figure 4: Summary of Nomination Process

MPA Center 

identifies 

eligible sites 

and invites 

entities to 

nominate

Public 

notice and 

comment

Managing 

entities

nominate 

sites

Entities 

review 

comments; 

submit final 

nominations

Accepted 

MPAs placed 

on official 

National 

System List
29

C. The Official List of National 

System MPAs

1.Adding MPAs to the List and National 

System

Pursuant to Section 4(d) of the Order, and to 

ensure that managing entities, organizations, 

and the general public are aware of the MPAs 

that make up the national system, the MPA 

Center will maintain a List of National System 

MPAs. The List of National System MPAs will 

be the official inventory of all MPAs that have 

been formally included in and recognized as 

part of the National System of MPAs under 

Section IV (B), above. In addition, MPAs on 

the List of National System MPAs are those 

sites that are the subject of Section 5 of the 

Order, “Agency Responsibilities,” as described 

in Section V (D) of this document. This 

authority does not apply to MPAs not on the 

List of National System MPAs.

The List will include the following 

information for each national system MPA:

a. name, 

b. location, 

c. national system MPA category,

d. priority conservation objective(s) 

contributed to,

e. boundaries, 

f. key resources protected, 

g. authorizing legislation,

h. levels and types of protection, 

i. managing authority or program, 

j. name of point of contact, and

k. relevant contact information.

The MPA Center will regularly publish an updated, 

summary version of the List of National System 

MPAs in the Federal Register, and will make it available 

to the public at http://www.mpa.gov or by request. 

2. Modifying MPAs on the List and in the 

National System

Participation in the national system does not 

constrain the management entity from changing 

its management of the MPA. The management 

entity would still have the ability, within its own 

authorities and required processes, to add or 

reduce levels of protection, change the size of 

the MPA, or make other changes. Management 

entities would be asked to provide all significant 

updates to the MPA Center, but would not be 

required to re-nominate the site. If the MPA 

no longer meets the national system MPA 

eligibility criteria, it would be removed from the 

system (see Section IV (C) 3). 

3.Removing MPAs from the List and National 

System

MPA sites or systems that have been included 

on the List of National System MPAs may be 

removed at any time by written request of the 

managing entity(ies) or the MPA Center for 

reasons including: 

□ the MPA ceases to exist (e.g., the legal authority 

or regulations expire);
30 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

□ the MPA no longer meets the national system 

MPA eligibility criteria; or

□ the managing authority requests removal.

All requests from managing entities or actions by the 

MPA Center to remove an MPA from the national 

system must be made in writing, will become part of 

the public record, and will be published at http://

www.mpa.gov and in the Federal Register for comment. 

Upon receipt by the MPA Center of a request to 

remove an MPA from the national system, the 

managing entity(ies) and the MPA Center will enter 

into a dialogue on the proposal. Any comments 

received from the public relating to the removal of an 

MPA from the national system will be forwarded to 

the managing entity(ies) for its consideration in making 

its final determination to have the site removed 

from the national system. Upon completion of all 

obligations by the respective managing entity(ies), 

the MPA will be removed from the List of National 

System MPAs and all information referencing the site 

will be removed from national system materials and 

archived in the national system information on the 

website.

D. Identifying National System 

Conservation Gaps

The nation’s suite of existing MPAs contributes 

significantly to the building of a comprehensive and 

representative national system. The critical next step 

toward achieving the national system’s conservation 

objectives is the identification of conservation gaps: 

areas in the ocean and Great Lakes that meet priority 

conservation objectives of the national system but 

that are currently not adequately protected to ensure 

their long-term viability, as called for in Section 4 (a) 

of the Order. Conservation gaps identified herein can 

be used by existing federal, state, tribal, and local MPA 

managing entities and others to guide their future 

efforts to establish new or strengthen existing MPAs 

using their independent authorities and processes, 

or to address these gaps through other management 

tools. In addition, the gaps identified through this 

process will be used to facilitate regional planning and 

collaboration that may ensue as described in Section V 

(A).

This section outlines the process for identifying 

gaps in the national system. The process will be 

comprehensive, taking into account existing MPAs 

and other conservation measures currently in place. 

The gap analysis process will be implemented 

iteratively, relative to targeted specific national system 

conservation objectives, and on region-by-region bases 

as described below. Conservation gaps in the national 

system may exist in a number of forms and can be 

generally described as: 

Representation gaps: where a particular habitat, 

ecosystem, or cultural resource type is either unrepresented or underrepresented in the national 

system.
31

8 Adapted from: Nigel Dudley and Jeffrey Parish (2006). Closing the Gap. Creating Ecologically Representative Protected Area Systems: 

A Guide to Conducting the Gap Assessments of Protected Areas Systems for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Secretariat of the 

Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Technical Series no. 24, vi + 108 pages.

Ecological gaps: where important species, 

habitats, ecosystems, or processes fundamental 

to the national system’s goals are not adequately 

protected to ensure their lasting conservation and 

sustainable use.

Management gaps: where the management 

regimes (management objectives or governance 

types) of MPAs in the national system do 

not fully provide for lasting conservation or 

sustainable production of a particular species, 

habitat, cultural resource, or ecosystem.8

Efforts to identify conservation gaps will include the 

collection and analysis of the best available scientific 

information and analyses, including traditional 

ecological knowledge, to identify important marine 

areas on multiple scales, coupled with an analysis of 

existing levels of place-based protection in those 

areas. The resulting gaps in protection will be 

identified relative to fully achieving the national system 

conservation objectives and design principles outlined 

in Sections III (B) and (C), respectively. 

Gap identification efforts will be focused at the 

regional scale, and will be collaborative, involving 

MPA-related and other entities at various levels of 

government, FMCs, and other organizations and 

institutions in synthesizing and analyzing existing 

scientific information, including traditional ecological 

knowledge, where available, and established 

conservation priorities. The effort to identify 

conservation gaps will include opportunities to review 

and comment on the process and its results by the 

public, the MPA FAC, relevant federal agencies, state 

and tribal governments, and other entities, including 

the National System Management Committee 

(Management Committee) described in Section V (B). 

The MPA Center also will work with existing or 

incipient regional marine entities and initiatives to 

coordinate with their broad management efforts, as 

appropriate. Efforts to identify gaps will also consider 

and include relevant international participation and 

linkages. The effort aims to provide government 

agencies with a program-neutral opportunity for 

collaborative assessment and planning, while ensuring 

that stakeholders are both informed and involved. 

The MPA Center will work with diverse partners, 

as appropriate, through the following processes to 

identify gaps in fully achieving the national system’s 

conservation objectives:

1. Publish, on an as-needed and sequential basis, 

subsets of the near-term, mid-term, and longterm national system conservation objectives 

listed in Section III (B) as iterative targets for 

conservation gap identification. 

2.On a regional basis, aggregate, map, and 

describe relevant and readily available existing 

data and analyses about important species, 

habitats, cultural resources, and ecosystems that 

could contribute to the national system goals 

and priority conservation objectives. 

3.Map and describe, by region, the location and 

management attributes of existing MPAs that 

contribute to achieving the targeted national 

system conservation objectives.

4.Integrate spatial data on ecosystems and placebased management to identify important areas 

where protection is either lacking or potentially 

inadequate to achieve national system goals and 

objectives. 

5.Identify key stakeholders in the region and 

provide identified gaps and background 

information to the public for comment.

6. Seek input on identified gaps from federal 

agencies, states, and tribal leaders with 

management authority in the corresponding 

region. 
32 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

7. Seek input on identified gaps from the 

Management Committee.

8.Provide identified gaps, background 

information, and a summary of all public and 

Management Committee comments received 

to the MPA FAC for consideration and 

development of prioritized recommendations 

to DOC and DOI.

9.Upon consideration of all input and 

recommendations, the MPA Center 

will publish prioritized national system 

conservation gaps and corresponding 

descriptive information for use by managing 

entities and stakeholders to strengthen 

existing MPAs or add new MPAs where 

needed. Information about the conservation 

gaps identified will be maintained on the 

http://www.mpa.gov website. Gap analyses 

will be updated periodically as resources 

permit. 

Finally, while the publication of these identified 

conservation gaps is a major step toward building a 

comprehensive national system, significant additional 

evaluation of these gaps and other information will 

likely be needed by agencies prior to any resulting 

establishment of new MPAs or changes to existing 

MPAs’ governance. Specifically, managing entities 

will need to work with stakeholders under the 

auspices of appropriate MPA authorities to: (i) 

evaluate these gaps; (ii) incorporate data on human 

uses and impacts and related societal and economic 

considerations; and (iii) assess management priorities 

to make an informed decision about appropriate 

next steps in response to an identified conservation 

gap. These steps might include the establishment 

of a new MPA, changes to existing MPAs, additional 

research, or some other alternative. Establishment 

of new MPAs or changes to the governance of 

existing MPAs must follow relevant processes under 

established authorities. 

The MPA Center can serve as a resource to 

assist managing entities and stakeholders with 

such analyses and regional planning processes, as 

described in Section V (A). Similarly, identified 

gaps will be considered by the MPA Center and the 

Management Committee in prioritizing national 

system science and stewardship actions. The MPA 

Center also will report on actions taken by managing 

entities to address these gaps. 

E. Establishing New National 

System MPAs

The Framework lays out the processes for identifying 

conservation gaps in the national system (see 

Section IV (D)) and developing recommendations 

for new or enhanced MPAs through collaborative 

ecosystem-based MPA planning (see Section V (A)

(2)). However, neither the Order nor the Framework 

provides authority to designate or establish new 

MPAs or alter protections afforded by existing MPAs. 

Section 4(e) of the Order states: 
33

The goal of the MPA Center shall be, in cooperation with 

the Department of the Interior, to develop a framework for 

a national system of MPAs, and to provide Federal, State, 

territorial, tribal, and local governments with the information, 

technologies, and strategies to support the system. This 

national system framework and the work of the MPA Center 

is intended to support, not interfere with, agencies’ independent 

exercise of their own existing authorities.

These national system processes are intended to offer 

a more collaborative, systematic and comprehensive 

approach to MPA planning than currently exists. 

Recommendations for new or enhanced MPAs that 

stem from these processes offer entities with MPA 

management authority valuable guidance for taking 

independent or cooperative action to establish and/

or manage MPAs that meet program mandates while 

also enhancing regional and national conservation 

priorities. Moreover, such processes and 

recommendations offer stakeholders opportunities 

and information with which to meaningfully engage 

in MPA decision making efforts.

New MPAs that may eventually be established 

based on these national system recommendations 

would subsequently be considered for inclusion 

in the national system pursuant to the eligibility 

criteria and nomination process outlined above. 

Stakeholder participation in the designation process 

for new MPAs is unchanged by the national system 

and occurs as specified through the required public 

consultation processes associated with the authorized 

designation process. 
34 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
35

Over time, as MPA sites, programs, and systems are 

added to the national system, efforts to implement the 

national system – both regionally and nationally – will 

be initiated. A major emphasis of the MPA Center will 

be to facilitate and support collaborative implementation 

efforts with participating MPA sites and programs, subject 

to available resources. The timing of the implementation 

elements, described below, may be sequential, simultaneous, 

or otherwise, depending on resources available and the 

priorities of national system partners. Significant additional 

resources will be needed to realize the full potential of each 

element. In addition, monetary and nonmonetary incentives 

would greatly enhance state, tribal, and local participation 

in the national system, thereby increasing its conservation 

impact. National system implementation components, 

guided by the national system’s design planning and 

implementation principles described in Section III (C), 

include:

V. Implementing the

National System of

MPAs
36 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

□ Enhancing regional coordination and collaboration – 

formalizing new and/or supporting existing 

regional mechanisms to provide for effective, 

efficient coordination and collaboration among 

participating MPA sites, systems, and programs.

○ Improving MPA stewardship and effectiveness

– identifying and prioritizing shared 

needs for improvements in MPA science, 

management, and stewardship at regional 

and national levels and catalyzing 

partnerships and action to address 

identified priorities for existing MPAs.

○ Regional MPA planning – developing and 

applying the natural and social science 

information, decision making tools, and 

stakeholder engagement processes to 

evaluate collaboratively the conservation 

gaps identified in the national system and 

make recommendations about the need for 

new and/or enhanced MPAs.

□ National and international coordination – 

establishing and implementing a National 

System Management Committee to serve 

to link across regions where resource 

conservation and MPA planning and 

management issues span regional boundaries 

and to identify and pursue international MPA 

linkages to the national system.

□ Evaluating national system effectiveness – providing 

technical and scientific support for fostering 

sound monitoring and evaluation programs at 

the participating MPA site or system level, as 

well as development of a set of standards and 

protocols for assessing broader national system 

effectiveness. 

□ Federal agency responsibilities to avoid harm – 

providing guidance regarding Section 5 of 

the Order, which requires federal agencies 

to “avoid harm” to the natural and cultural 

resources protected by MPAs that become part 

of the national system. 

□ Tracking and reporting – maintaining the http://

www.mpa.gov website and producing a biennial 

State of the National System report and other 

mechanisms for communicating national 

system activities, progress, and plans.

A. Enhancing Regional 

Coordination and 

Collaboration

Within the national system, effective regional 

coordination and collaboration are critical for sharing 

information and experiences, identifying common 

priorities and collaborative solutions for enhancing 

the effectiveness of existing sites, and improving 

planning and decision making for new MPAs. In 

the same way, effective regional collaboration must 

also include making necessary linkages to other 

marine management initiatives and collaboration 

mechanisms. For example, the federal Seamless 

Network initiative, the developing U.S. Integrated 

Ocean Observing System, coordination with the 

Regional Fishery Management Councils and Inter-State 

Fishery Management Commissions, and ongoing or 

planned regional ocean or Great Lakes initiatives by 

state governors may offer opportunities for efficiently 

strengthening MPA collaboration, in addition to 

working with individual states. 

The national system will use U.S. large marine 

ecosystems (LME) as the broadest framework for 

regional scientifically-based planning and collaboration, 

recognizing that certain of these regions do not 

efficiently or fully encompass the political regions of 

the United States that would be necessary for effective 

collaboration (Figure 5). For example, the three 

LMEs associated with the state and federal waters off 

Alaska can be combined for the purposes of regional 

MPA collaboration, as could the United States waters 

of the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. Nonetheless, 

these regions are intended to serve as the broadest 

framework for regional collaboration, recognizing that 

other established regions, whether biophysical (e.g., 

biogeographic regions) or political (e.g., FMC regions), 

may be nested within LMEs and may serve as more 

appropriate scales for MPA planning and collaboration. 

In addition, some issues, such as those pertaining 

to endangered and threatened species, may require 

regional collaboration across two or more LMEs.
37

The national system’s regional collaboration 

framework will be built at the broadest level around 

the following regions, each encompassing state and 

federal waters, as relevant:

□ Alaska: Gulf of Alaska, East Bering Sea, and 

Arctic Seas 

□ West Coast: California, Oregon, and 

Washington

□ Great Lakes: Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

and New York

□ Gulf of Mexico: Texas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida 

□ Caribbean: U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, 

and Navassa Island

□ Northeast: Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, 

New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode 

Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and 

Maine

□ Pacific Islands: Hawai’i, American Samoa, 

Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, and the Pacific Remote 

Insular Areas (Baker Island, Howland Island, 

Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, 

Wake Island, and Palmyra Atoll)

□ Southeast: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, 

and North Carolina 

A variety of approaches exist for enhancing regional 

MPA coordination and collaboration. The appropriate 

mechanism for any particular region depends in large 

part on its biophysical and political characteristics and 

Figure 5. NOAA Regional Ecosystems of the United States
38 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

on the specific goals for which the coordination and 

collaboration are initiated. The MPA Center will work 

with all participating state, tribal, and federal MPA sites 

and programs and existing regional entities in each 

region to establish and/or formalize an appropriate 

regional MPA coordination and collaboration 

mechanism, such as a regional MPA working group, 

forum, or dialogue. 

The MPA Center will consult with participating 

managing entities in the region to determine the most 

suitable type (e.g., informal, formal) of coordination 

and collaboration and the appropriate regional 

scale. This task includes identifying existing regional 

MPA and related marine coordination initiatives and 

determining efficient ways to complement, support 

or integrate with those efforts, while ensuring 

opportunities for all national system partners to be 

represented and for the public to participate. 

The facilitation of formalized regional coordination 

and collaboration mechanisms for the national system 

is intended to provide a forum for MPA managing 

entities to work together in an open, transparent 

manner to:

□ develop regional MPA effectiveness and 

stewardship strategies that identify and 

prioritize shared needs for improving the 

effectiveness of existing MPAs in the region 

(see Section V (A)(1)); 

□ catalyze collaborative initiatives and projects 

to address identified science and stewardship 

needs;

□ further evaluate identified national system 

conservation gaps, undertake collaborative, 

ecosystem-based MPA planning, solicit 

stakeholder input, and make specific 

recommendations about the need for the 

establishment of new MPAs (see Section V (A)

(2));

□ facilitate continued and new managerial 

collaboration among MPAs across regional, 

national, and international boundaries, to 

promote consistent approaches to monitoring, 

enforcement, emergency response, threat 

abatement, and coordination with other 

countries and international organizations (such 

as through transboundary MPAs) and ensure 

compliance with international law;

□ coordinate ecosystem and/or regional input 

to the national system and recommend annual 

and longer-term regional science and other 

priorities based on shared MPA needs across 

the region;

□ develop informal and formal partnerships 

to achieve economies of scale. For instance, 

arrange for the sharing of technical and 

financial resources for monitoring, surveillance, 

enforcement, staff training, etc.; and

□ develop and implement strategies for engaging 

and informing stakeholders about regional 

MPA planning, effectiveness, and stewardship 

activities.

1. Improving MPA Stewardship, Science, 

and Effectiveness 

A significant purpose of the Order is to “strengthen 

the management, protection, and conservation of 

existing [MPAs]...” (Section 1 (a)). As such, a major 

emphasis of the national system is to provide support 

for the shared science, technical, education, and other 

priority stewardship needs of partner MPA programs 

to enhance the national system’s effectiveness. With 

this in mind, collaborative efforts should work to 

enhance the effectiveness of and provide benefits to 

existing efforts of MPA programs without creating 

additional responsibilities that detract from the 

important work of partners in meeting their existing 

programmatic authorities. 

Formalizing regional coordination mechanisms 

via the national system offers a unique forum for 

collaboration to improve the effectiveness and 

stewardship of existing MPAs by identifying common 

needs across MPA programs. To this end, the MPA 
39

Center will consult with participating federal, state, 

and tribal managing entities through formalized 

regional MPA coordination and collaboration forums 

to develop regional MPA Stewardship, Science, and 

Effectiveness Strategies (Strategies). These Strategies 

will identify, inventory, and prioritize shared science, 

education, research, management, and other needs 

for improving MPA stewardship, science, and 

effectiveness. Wherever possible, these Strategies will 

incorporate or build upon relevant priorities previously 

identified through other mechanisms to avoid 

duplicative efforts. 

The development of Strategies is intended to provide 

an efficient mechanism for the MPA Center to work 

with participating MPA sites and programs to gather 

information that will serve as the basis for catalyzing 

collaborative actions to address shared priorities. The 

MPA Center will also aggregate the priorities identified 

in the regional Strategies into a national set of 

priorities and use these priorities to catalyze large-scale 

projects and initiatives. 

The following are examples of the types of priority 

science and stewardship issues that may be identified 

and addressed through the development of regional 

Strategies and subsequent collaborative actions among 

MPA programs to improve MPA effectiveness:

□ Enhancing MPA management capacity

○ management plan development and review;

○ managing visitor and user impacts;

○ enforcement and compliance practices;

○ best practices for meaningful stakeholder 

involvement; and

○ sustainable financing mechanisms.

□ Improving MPA science and research

○ developing science-based tools to identify 

and measure regional, ecosystem, and site 

connectivity; 

○ building collaborative strategies for 

establishing biophysical, social, and 

economic baselines for MPAs and 

monitoring trends in these conditions; and 

○ examining the effects of invasive species 

on MPAs.

□ Promoting outreach and education

○ developing educational programs;

○ improving awareness and understanding of 

the importance of marine resources and 

the role of MPAs in marine management; 

and

○ improving public stewardship of marine 

resources through volunteer programs and 

other efforts.

□ Improving the evaluation of MPA 

effectiveness

○ training and technical assistance on 

developing relevant indicators and 

protocols for monitoring and evaluating 

management effectiveness for individual 

MPAs and networks of MPAs; 

○ identifying consistent indicators for 

examining marine habitat and resource 

recovery and social and economic 

conditions associated with MPAs; and 

○ synthesizing recovery trajectories for 

marine resources to aid managers, 

stakeholders, and the public in interpreting 

monitoring results and understanding 

habitat and resource restoration.

The Strategies will reflect shared needs, and will be 

implemented, subject to the availability of funds 

and other resources, through partnerships among 

MPA programs and others. Possible mechanisms to 

implement the Strategies could include:
40 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

□ training and workshops;

□ direct technical assistance and tools;

□ contractual or grant funding;

□ best practices or technical publications;

□ sharing of knowledge and experience across 

MPA sites and programs;

□ clearinghouse for research on MPA issues;

□ targeted research;

□ facilitation of linkages with international MPA 

programs and activities; and

□ other mechanisms as identified.

2. Regional MPA Planning

The establishment or enhancement of regional 

MPA coordination forums via the national system 

offers an opportunity for managing entities and 

stakeholders to look beyond their individual 

jurisdictions, mandates, programs, and interests 

and consider regional and/or ecosystem-based 

approaches to MPA planning. 

The MPA Center will work with regional, national, 

and international partners, where appropriate, to 

develop and apply the natural and social science 

information, decision making tools, and stakeholder 

engagement processes to collaboratively evaluate 

conservation gaps identified in the national system 

and make recommendations about the need for new 

and/or enhanced MPAs.

Such an ecosystem-based MPA planning effort could 

include, but is not limited to, the following critical 

planning steps or components:

□ An evaluation and synthesis of national 

system design principles and conservation 

gaps and other regional and/or programmatic 

marine conservation targets, in order to 

more comprehensively establish regional 

conservation objectives to guide ecosystembased planning.

□ The characterization of marine natural 

resources (natural resources, habitats, 

ecosystems, ecological processes) and marine 

cultural resources in the region. 

□ An assessment of human uses and their 

impacts, including the documentation and 

characterization of the patterns, intensity, 

and significance of human uses; existing 

governance frameworks; and assessments of 

conflicts, compatibilities, and potential impacts 

of human uses on marine ecosystems.

□ The development and use of decision tools 

to identify and recommend areas in need of 

additional or enhanced protection.

□ Facilitation of stakeholder outreach and 

engagement processes to ensure the public 

and other stakeholders are informed of 

planning activities and have an opportunity 

to provide input into decision making 

processes.

□ Development of recommendations for new 

or strengthened MPAs to meet regional and 

national priority conservation objectives 

and mechanisms and processes for relevant 

MPA authorities in establishing new MPAs 

or otherwise implementing recommended 

actions.

B. National and International 

Coordination

National Coordination

In addition to enhancing regional coordination 

among MPAs, a corresponding national level effort 

is needed. Such an effort will represent and promote 

the priorities and issues of the various ecosystems 

and regions that make up the nation, as well as look 

more broadly at important national and international 

trends, developments, priorities, and legal obligations. 

National coordination also will serve to link across 

regions where resource conservation issues and MPA 

planning and management span regional boundaries. 

As required by the Order, the MPA Center will 
41

facilitate coordination at the national level. The 

Management Committee, described below, will be 

established as part of this coordination.

The Management Committee should, where 

possible, be composed of one representative each 

from a federal, state, tribal, and local government 

and Regional Fishery Management Council within 

the region, as well as the members of the Federal 

Interagency MPA Working Group. The committee 

will provide operational guidance to the national 

system from the perspective of MPA managers. The 

MPA FAC will continue to provide recommendations 

to DOC and DOI on the implementation of the 

Order and on national system implementation from a 

stakeholder perspective. 

The Management Committee will:

□ provide advice to the MPA Center on annual 

and long-term priorities and plans for national 

system support to sites and regions, based on 

regional stewardship and other priorities and 

the recommendations of the MPA FAC; 

□ identify management issues and 

other priorities that require interregional, national, and/or international 

coordination or efforts; and

□ review and provide comment on 

conservation gaps identified at the 

ecosystem, regional, and/or national 

levels.

Regional representatives to the Management 

Committee will be selected by the participating MPA 

managing entities in the region. Each federal agency 

will maintain an appointed ex officio member of the 

Federal Interagency MPA Working Group, who also 

will serve on the Management Committee. Finally, 

two MPA FAC members, representing different 

stakeholder interests, will serve as ex officio members 

of the Management Committee.

International Coordination 

In addition to U.S. MPA programs and authorities, 

there are numerous international MPA efforts and 

linkages that can contribute to and benefit from the 

national system. The United States shares a number 

of common resources with both neighboring and 

distant countries, and technical capabilities reside 

in many countries, organizations, and institutions 

around the world. In recognition of these important 

international connections, Section 4(a)(8) of the Order 

calls on federal agencies to identify opportunities to 

improve “linkages with, and technical assistance to, 

international [MPA] programs.” 

For instance, migratory species (e.g., whales, sea 

turtles, pelagic fishes, and birds) rely on the marine 

and coastal waters of multiple countries during 

various stages of their lives. In addition, there are 

also a number of international law and policy issues 

regarding our underwater cultural heritage. For 

example, certain cultural resources that rest in the 

seabed of U.S. MPAs, such as sunken military craft and 

associated contents that have not been abandoned, 

have a protected sovereign status and permanent right, 

title, and interest may be vested in the flag country. 

To strengthen international coordination on MPA 

issues, the MPA Center, representing the National 

System of MPAs, and the Management Committee, in 

coordination with the U.S. Department of State and 

internationally relevant regional forums, can seek to 

enhance existing or establish new linkages with efforts 

in other countries, in accordance with international 

law. Such linkages should be focused on issues 

of mutual benefit to U.S. and international MPAs 

and MPA programs, such as policy coordination, 

collaborative activities, information and capacity 

sharing, capacity building, and technical assistance. 
42 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

C. Evaluating National System 

Effectiveness

Monitoring and evaluating management effectiveness 

is a key component of an effective, adaptively 

managed national system. To this end, the Order calls 

for “practical, science-based criteria and protocols for 

monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of MPAs” 

(Section 4(a)(5)). Monitoring and evaluation efforts 

of the national system are focused on measuring the 

effectiveness of the national system in achieving its 

priority conservation objectives and management 

objectives and the contributions of participating 

national system MPAs and MPA programs in achieving 

those objectives. It is not a function of the national 

system to monitor or evaluate individual MPAs or 

MPA programs, although the national system can 

provide assistance to MPA programs to 

assist them in better evaluating their own 

efforts. Stakeholders with an interest 

in participating in the monitoring of 

individual MPAs or MPA programs 

should consult with the managing entity 

or entities. 

The national system’s approach 

to evaluating effectiveness will 

include: 

□ technical and scientific support 

for fostering sound monitoring, 

and evaluation programs at the 

participating MPA site or system 

level; 

□ development and implementation of a set of 

standards and protocols for assessing broader 

national system effectiveness. In order to 

be efficient and effective, the development 

of such standards and protocols requires 

significant input and advice from participating 

national system MPA sites and systems; and

□ cooperation with existing or developing 

observation, monitoring and evaluation 

programs.

The natural and social science data currently collected 

and used by MPA sites and systems to monitor and 

evaluate their own effectiveness will not only help 

in their adaptive management efforts, but also will 

contribute to the analysis of the national system’s 

success in meeting its goals. The national system 

will aim to support the tools and technical assistance 

needed by partner MPA sites and systems to effectively 

monitor and evaluate their own effectiveness. It will 

not create new requirements for sites or systems to 

undertake new or expanded monitoring and evaluation 

activities.

With advice from the MPA FAC, the Management 

Committee, national system MPA partners in the 

regions, and science and management experts, the MPA 

Center will develop and publish guidance for monitoring 

and evaluating the effectiveness of the national system. 

These guidelines will provide an integrated approach 

for monitoring the effectiveness of the national system, 

including the degree to which the priority conservation 

objectives are met and the benefits are provided to 

participating MPA sites and systems.

In addition, if identified as stewardship priorities by 

participating MPA sites and systems, training and 

technical assistance efforts targeted at monitoring 

and evaluation can be developed, such as establishing 

relevant sets of natural and social science indicators 

and protocols.
43

The results of monitoring and evaluating the national 

system will be used to manage the system adaptively 

and identify future focus areas for stewardship 

and other initiatives, including but not limited to: 

conservation gaps; technical and other forms of 

assistance in support of MPA sites and programs; 

and necessary changes to the national system’s goals, 

objectives, or other components.

D. Federal Agency 

Responsibilities to Avoid Harm

Section 5 of the Order calls for federal agencies to 

“avoid harm” to the natural and cultural resources 

protected by MPAs that become part of the national 

system. Each federal agency is responsible for its own 

implementation of its responsibilities under Section 5. 

The Order states:

Each Federal agency whose actions affect the natural or cultural 

resources that are protected by an MPA shall identify such 

actions. To the extent permitted by law and to the maximum 

extent practicable, each Federal agency, in taking such actions, 

shall avoid harm to the natural and cultural resources that 

are protected by an MPA. In implementing this section, 

each Federal agency shall refer to the MPAs identified under 

subsection 4(d) of this order.

Implementation

To implement Section 5 of the Order: 

□ The MPA Center will collect, maintain, and 

make publicly available via the MPA Center’s 

website, http://www.mpa.gov, and Federal 

Register notices, all relevant regulatory and 

resource information for MPAs that are 

subject to agency requirements under Section 

5, in the form of a List of National System 

MPAs. National system MPAs included 

in the List are those that have satisfied the 

requirements outlined in Sections III (B) 

and (D) of the Framework and are officially 

a part of the National System of MPAs. 

Information maintained for each national 

system MPA on the List will include: site 

name, location, national system MPA category, 

priority conservation objective(s) contributed 

to, boundaries, key resources protected, 

authorizing legislation, level and types of 

protection, managing authority/program, 

name of point of contact, and relevant contact 

information. 

□ Federal agencies shall: (1) identify their 

activities that affect the natural or cultural 

resources protected by individual national 

system MPAs, and (2) to the extent permitted 

by law and to the maximum extent practicable, 

avoid harm to those resources. Both of 

these activities should be accomplished 

through existing natural or cultural resource 

management or review authorities and 

procedures, including, but not limited to those 

under:

○ National Environmental Policy Act;

○ Coastal Zone Management Act;

○ National Historic Preservation Act;

○ Endangered Species Act;

○ Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean 

Water Act);

○ Marine Mammal Protection Act;

○ National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act;

○ National Park Service Organic Act;

○ Rivers and Harbors Act;

○ Sunken Military Craft Act;
44 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

○ National Marine Sanctuaries Act (Title III 

of the Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act);

○ Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act;

○ Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act;

○ Coral Reef Conservation Act; 

○ Energy Policy Act of 2005; and

○ Other pertinent statutes and Presidential 

Executive Orders.

□ Upon receipt of a federal agency’s request 

for assistance, the MPA Center will work to 

facilitate support for policy and coordination 

assistance through existing agency review 

processes.

□ As needed, the MPA Center, working with 

federal agencies, will produce voluntary 

technical guidance and best practices on 

priority issues to assist federal agencies in their 

determination of impacts to marine resources 

protected by national system MPAs and 

options for avoiding harm. The MPA Center 

also will work with federal agencies to provide 

clear public outreach materials to educate and 

inform the public on the requirements of 

Section 5. 

□ Federal agencies will report their actions to 

implement Section 5, any comments received, 

and responses to such comments on an 

annual basis as part of the agency report 

required by Section 6 of the Order. The 

MPA Center, as required by the Order, will 

post these reports on the http://www.mpa.

gov website.

Activities to Be Considered

The implementation of Section 5 is governed by 

existing authorities, each with its own threshold and/

or trigger for requiring individual federal agencies 

to identify, review, mitigate, or otherwise alter their 

activities based on impacts to natural or cultural 

resources. The Order does not provide any new 

authority for any federal agency or the MPA Center to 

review activities of any other federal agency or alter 

standards for existing review. The thresholds and/

or triggers for agency action under Section 5 are the 

same as those listed under any existing authority or 

authorities that normally require agency review of a 

proposed activity. Section 5 does, however, require 

agencies to ensure that their activities avoid harm 

to the natural and cultural resources as protected by 

the MPAs included in the national system (to the 

extent permitted by law and to the maximum extent 

practicable) when fulfilling their existing requirements 

for identifying, reviewing and implementing activities. 

Furthermore, there is no single definition for key terms 

used to describe the requirements under Section 5, 

including but not limited to: “avoid harm,” “affect,” or 

“to the extent permitted by law and to the maximum 

extent practicable.” Instead, the meaning of any of 

these terms, as applied to an agency’s requirements 

under Section 5, is dependent on the agency’s 

interpretation, consistent with any requirements of 

the legal framework used to protect the resources 

of the MPA and any other applicable natural or 

cultural resource review or protection authorities or 

procedures. 

Pursuant to Section 5 of the Order, agency 

requirements apply only to the natural or cultural 

resources specifically afforded protection by the site 

as described on the List of National System MPAs. 

For example, within national system MPAs established 

for sustainable production, other resources not 

specifically protected by the MPA would not be subject 

to the “avoid harm” provision. For sites that have 

both a terrestrial (i.e., an area that falls outside of the 

definitional boundaries of ‘marine’) and marine area, 

only the marine portion and its associated protected 

resources will be included on the List of National 

System MPAs and subject to Section 5 of the Order.

To implement Section 5, each federal agency shall 

identify its activities that affect the natural or cultural 

resources protected by a national system MPA 

through the existing natural and cultural resource 

review processes normally required for these activities. 
45

Similarly, the determination of whether an agency 

in taking such actions is avoiding harm to those 

resources, to the extent permitted by law and to the 

maximum extent practicable, will be made by the 

individual agency using its existing natural and cultural 

resource review processes and/or authorities.

Comment and Response on Agency Actions 

Comments from any person, organization, or 

government entity concerning federal agency 

compliance with Section 5 should be directed to the 

relevant lead federal agency for the action or actions 

that are the subject of the comments. Each agency 

shall make a determination on the response and 

take appropriate action. Similarly, any requests for 

information regarding 

compliance with Section 

5, including those 

under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA), 

should be directed to 

the lead agency for 

the action or actions 

that are the subject 

of the request. Any 

comments or requests 

for information received 

by the MPA Center 

or any federal agency 

in regard to another 

agency’s compliance 

with this Section shall, pursuant to FOIA procedures, 

be forwarded in a timely manner to the relevant 

responsible agency for its consideration, with due 

notice given to the sender. 

Reporting and Periodic Review

As required under Section 6. Accountability of the 

Order, “[e]ach Federal agency that is required to take 

actions under the order shall prepare and make public 

annually a concise description of actions taken by it 

in the previous year to implement the order, including 

a description of written comments by any person or 

organization stating that the agency has not complied 

with this order and a response to comments by the 

agency.” These annual reports, including a point 

of contact for each federal agency, will be posted 

at http://www.mpa.gov. In addition, on a biennial 

basis, the MPA Center will consolidate agency annual 

reports into a biennial “State of the National System 

of MPAs” report. The biennial report will include an 

assessment of overall progress to develop the National 

System of MPAs and the effectiveness of meeting its 

stated goals and objectives, including those related 

to Section 5 of the Order. More information on the 

biennial report can be found below in Section V (E) 

of this document.

E. Tracking and Reporting

Tracking and reporting of the national system are 

important activities for 

communicating regional and 

national accomplishments 

and priority future efforts in 

need of support. In order 

to track and report progress, 

the MPA Center will 

coordinate a biennial “State 

of the National System of 

MPAs” progress report and 

post all available data and 

assessments on the http://

www.mpa.gov website. In 

addition, the MPA Center will 

work with the Management 

Committee and participating 

MPA sites and programs to determine how best 

to comprehensively track overall national system 

priorities once efforts to establish the sytem have been 

initiated. Additional information on these efforts is 

provided below.

Biennial “State of the National System of 

MPAs” Progress Report

On a biennial basis, the MPA Center, working with 

its national system partners, will develop and publish 

on the http://www.mpa.gov website a consolidated 

“State of the National System” progress report, in 

accordance with Section 6 of the Order. The report 

will consolidate and summarize the annual reports 

submitted by federal agencies for the period and 
46 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

also will include information from states and other 

management entities. It will include: 

□ a list of existing National System MPAs and 

newly added or removed sites;

□ a summary of federal activities taken in 

support of the national system;

□ a summary of regional, national, and 

international planning efforts;

□ a summary of assistance provided to national 

system MPAs;

□ an evaluation of the effectiveness of the 

national system in meeting its goals and 

objectives at the national and regional levels;

□ a summary of actions taken to implement 

Section 5 of the Order;

□ any recommendations developed by the MPA 

FAC during the period;

□ a description of public comments received and 

responses sent during the period; and 

□ regional, national, and international priorities 

for future coordination, planning, technical, 

and other types of support (see Sections V (A) 

and (B) of this document).

MPA.gov Website

As required by the Order, the website http://www.

mpa.gov will be maintained to communicate and 

archive all information about the development and 

implementation of the national system. The website 

will house information about a variety of technical, 

scientific, governance, and other MPA topics relevant 

to the breadth of MPA stakeholders, including 

the MPA FAC. In addition, the website will house 

information on national system progress, priorities, 

and plans, including:

□ MPAs found to be eligible for nomination to 

the national system;

□ MPAs and MPA systems that have been 

included in the national system; 

□ areas and resources identified as national 

system conservation gaps;

□ recommendations for new or enhanced MPAs 

resulting from regional MPA planning; 

□ regional MPA science, stewardship, and 

effectiveness strategies and national and other 

priorities for improving stewardship and 

effectiveness;

□ international activities and commitments;

□ information on the nomination process and 

supporting analyses;

□ information related to the evaluation of 

national system effectiveness; 

□ agency and MPA Center reports;

□ public comments received on MPA 

nominations to and removals from the national 

system; and

□ the official List of National System MPAs. 

F. MPA Federal Advisory 

Committee

The MPA FAC is authorized by the Order to provide 

expert advice and recommendations to DOC and 

DOI on the development and implementation of the 

National System of MPAs and implementation of the 

Order. The MPA FAC is comprised of 30 non-federal 

members representing regionally diverse perspectives 

and areas of expertise from all regions of the country, 

including natural and social science, commercial and 

recreational fishing, tribal and state governments, oil 

and gas, tourism, environmental organizations, and 

others. It also includes ex officio members from 

pertinent federal agencies. A full description of the 

MPA FAC can be found in Appendix B and a list of 

the MPA FAC members, past and present, can be 

found in Appendix E of this document. 
47

Throughout the development and implementation of 

the national system, the MPA FAC will continue to 

advise DOC and DOI on priority topics and issues 

as identified by the agencies. The MPA FAC also 

will provide recommendations to the MPA Center 

concerning national system conservation gaps, as 

described in Section IV (D) above.

G. Role of the National MPA 

Center in the National System

The specific roles of the MPA Center in 

coordinating the national system are to:

□ provide coordination and facilitation of the 

national system as a whole (individual MPA 

programs and managing entities remain 

responsible for administering their sites and 

systems);

□ coordinate processes to identify, nominate, and 

include eligible MPAs in the national system, 

remove MPAs from the national system, and 

maintain the List of National System MPAs;

□ build public and private partnerships and 

catalyze action to support the identified 

science, stewardship, and effectiveness 

priorities of participating MPA programs;

□ facilitate the development and maintenance 

of regionally appropriate MPA coordination 

mechanisms among participating programs, 

and, where possible, maintain a Regional 

MPA Coordinator in the field to support such 

efforts;

□ develop, in consultation with participating 

programs, regional MPA Science, Stewardship, 

and Effectiveness Strategies;

□ lead collaborative efforts to identify 

conservation gaps in the national system;

□ build and catalyze partnerships and actions 

to provide technical or scientific information, 

staff, or other support for collaborative 

ecosystem-based MPA planning in order to 

identify and recommend new or enhanced 

MPAs;

□ promote stewardship of the national system 

through effective outreach and education;

□ support the operation of the MPA FAC 

and the coordination of the MPA Federal 

Interagency Working Group and Management 

Committee;

□ track, communicate, integrate, and recommend 

suggested MPA science and other national 

system priorities, needs, and commitments 

across the regional, national, and international 

levels;

□ develop a biennial “State of the National 

System of MPAs” report and maintain 

comprehensive information about the national 

system’s priorities and progress on the http://

www.mpa.gov website;

□ monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of 

the national system and implement adaptive 

management strategies based on results; and

□ maintain the http://www.mpa.gov website as 

a mechanism for communicating information 

about the national system.
48 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
49

The following are definitions of key terms as used in this 

Framework document. See Table 2 for the full definition 

of key terms used in the definition of an MPA.

Adaptive management – “A systematic process 

for continually improving management policies and 

practices by learning from the outcomes of operational 

programs.“ (British Columbia Forest Service, http://

www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/amhome/Amdefs.htm). 

Area – Must have legally defined geographical 

boundaries and may be of any size, except that the site 

must be a subset of the United States federal, state, local, 

or tribal marine environment in which it is located.

Biodiversity – The variety of living organisms in all 

their forms. Technically, biodiversity includes variety at 

three levels of biological organization: genetic variation 

within species, the variety of species, and the variety of 

ecological communities.

VI. Glossary of Key

Terms
50 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Conservation area – Multiple uses allowed; however, 

uses and activities may be restricted or zoned and access 

limited, as necessary to meet site management goals. 

Cultural heritage – The cultural resources that reflect 

the nation’s maritime history and traditional cultural 

connections to the sea, and the uses and values they 

provide to present and future generations. 

[Marine] Cultural resource – A tangible entity that is 

valued by or significantly representative of a culture, or 

that contains significant information about a culture. 

Cultural resources for purposes of the MPA Executive 

Order are tangible entities at least 50 years in age that 

reflect the nation’s maritime history and traditional 

cultural connections to the sea, such as archaeological 

sites, historic structures, shipwrecks, artifacts, and 

traditional cultural properties. Cultural resources are 

categorized as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects for the National Register of Historic Places, 

and as archaeological resources, cultural landscapes, 

structures, and ethnographic resources for MPA 

management purposes. Ethnographic resources 

include natural resources and sites with tribal or 

traditional cultural meaning, value and use.

Ecological network – A set of discrete MPAs 

within a region that are connected through dispersal 

of reproductive stages (eggs, larvae, spores, etc.) 

or movement of juveniles and adults. The effective 

management of certain marine species may require 

networks of discrete MPAs encompassing regional 

collections of local populations linked by dispersal 

and movement, which may be essential for some local 

populations to persist. The creation of MPA networks 

must take into consideration other non-MPA areas that 

provide similar linkages, which does not necessarily 

imply additional management measures outside MPAs 

or the creation of a “super MPA” with boundaries 

encompassing all MPAs in the network.9

Ecosystem – A geographically specified system of 

organisms, including humans and the environment and 

the processes that control its dynamics. 

Ecosystem approaches to management (or 

Ecosystem-based management) – A management 

approach that “looks at all the links among living 

and nonliving resources, rather than considering 

single species in isolation.” This approach “reflects 

the relationships among all ecosystem components, 

including humans and nonhuman species, and the 

environments in which they live. This system of 

management considers human activities, their benefits, 

and their potential impacts within the context of the 

broader biological and physical environment.”10

Extractive – Activities that remove or are intended to 

remove living or nonliving resources from an MPA.

Large Marine Ecosystems – Regions of ocean space 

encompassing coastal areas from river basins and 

estuaries out to the seaward boundary and continental 

shelves and the seaward margins of coastal current 

systems. They are relatively large regions on the order 

of 200,000 square kilometers or greater, characterized 

by distinct bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and 

trophically dependent populations.

Lasting – For natural heritage and cultural heritage 

MPAs, the site’s authority must clearly state its intent 

to provide permanent protection. For sustainable 

production MPAs, the site must be established with 

the intent at the time of designation to provide, at 

a minimum, the duration of protection necessary 

to achieve the mandated long-term sustainable 

production objectives for which the site was 

established. 

Local government – A legally established unit 

of government at a level below state government, 

including but not limited to county, city, town, or 

village.

Management [managing] entity or entities – The 

federal, state, local, or tribal entity or entities with 

legal authority to designate, promulgate regulations 

for, and/or manage an MPA. In many cases, 

authority lies with one entity or program; however, in 

certain instances, such as the federal/state National 

9 MPA FAC, 2005.

10 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP). 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, Washington, D.C.
51

Estuarine Research Reserve System and state/tribe 

co-management arrangements, authority is formally 

shared or split among two or more entities.

Marine environment – 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.

Marine Protected Area – 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. See also Area, Marine 

environment, Reserved, Lasting, 

and Protection.

Marine Reserve – A type of 

MPA where extractive uses are 

prohibited (also referred to as 

“no-take” reserve).

National System of MPAs 

– The group of MPA sites, 

networks, and systems established 

and managed by federal, state, 

tribal, and/or local governments 

that collectively enhance 

conservation of the nation’s 

natural and cultural marine 

heritage and represent its diverse 

ecosystems and resources. 

National system MPAs work together at the regional 

and national levels to achieve common objectives for 

conserving the nation’s important natural and cultural 

resources.

Natural heritage – The nation’s biological 

communities, habitats, ecosystems, and processes and 

the ecological services, uses, and values they provide to 

present and future generations.

[Marine] Natural resource – Any biological or 

physical component of the marine environment 

that contributes to the structure, function, goods, or 

services provided by a marine ecosystem.

Network – 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 (see “Ecological 

network”).

Precautionary design – Decisions are based on 

the best information currently available from natural 

science, social science, customary and local knowledge, 

and other sources. Where information is limited, 

decisions should reflect a precautionary approach.

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 long-term 

conservation of these 

resources, beyond any 

general protections that 

apply outside the site.

Region or Regional –

An area inclusive of and 

determined by participating 

national system sites and 

systems that is based on 

common management interests, similar or linked 

ecological characteristics, and/or other factors that 

provide a foundation for meaningful coordination.

Reserve area – No extractive uses allowed, except 

permitted scientific and educational uses; destructive 

or disruptive activities are limited; other uses and 

activities may be restricted or zoned; and access is 

limited, as necessary to meet site management goals.

Reserved – Must be established by and currently 

subject to federal, state, local, or tribal law or 

regulation.
52 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Stakeholder – Individuals, groups of individuals, 

organizations, or political entities interested in and/

or affected by the outcome of management decisions. 

Stakeholders may also be individuals, groups, or other 

entities that are likely to have an effect on the outcome 

of management decisions. Members of the public also 

may be considered stakeholders. 

State – See United States.

Stewardship – Careful and responsible management 

to ensure goals and objectives are being achieved for 

the benefit of current and future generations.

Sustainable production resources – The nation’s 

renewable living resources and their habitats (including, 

but not limited to, spawning, mating, and nursery 

grounds and areas established to minimize bycatch 

of species) and the social, cultural, and economic 

values and services they provide to present and future 

generations.

System – A set of MPAs connected by shared 

programmatic, administrative, or other organizing 

principles or purposes. A system of MPAs is not 

necessarily confined to a specific geographic area such 

as a region or ecosystem.

Tribe – A federally recognized American Indian or 

Alaska Native government.

United States – Includes the several states, the 

District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, American 

Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and Guam.
53

1. Nothing in Executive Order 13158 or this 

Framework shall be construed as altering 

existing authorities regarding the establishment 

of federal MPAs in areas of the marine 

environment subject to the jurisdiction and 

control of states, the District of Columbia, 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and 

the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands.

2.Neither Executive Order 13158 nor this 

Framework creates any right or benefit, 

substantive or procedural, enforceable in law or 

equity by a party against the United States, its 

agencies, its officers, or any person.

3.Neither Executive Order 13158 nor this 

Framework diminishes, affects, or abrogates 

Indian treaty rights or U.S. trust responsibility 

to Indian tribes.

4.Federal agencies taking actions pursuant to 

Executive Order 13158 or under this Framework 

must act in accordance with international law 

and with Presidential Proclamation 5928 of 

December 27, 1988, on the Territorial Sea of 

the United States of America; Presidential 

Proclamation 5030 of March 10, 1983, on the 

Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States 

of America; and Presidential Proclamation 7219 

of September 2, 1999, on the Contiguous Zone 

of the United States.

VII. Administrative

and National Policy

Requirements
54 FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
i

Appendix A. Acronyms and Abbreviations Used 

Acronyms

COP – Commission on Ocean Policy

DOC – Department of Commerce 

DOI – Department of the Interior 

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

FOIA – Freedom of Information Act 

FMC – Federal Fishery Management Council

FWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

LME – Large Marine Ecosystem

MLCD – Manele-Hulopoe Marine Life Conservation District

MPA – Marine protected area 

MPA FAC – Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee 

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NRCE – National Register Criteria for Evaluation 

NRHP – National Register of Historic Places

NERRS – National Estuarine Research Reserve System 

NMFS – National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NRCE – National Register Criteria for Evaluation 

NRHP – National Register of Historic Places

SIMOR – Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean Resources

VIII. Appendices
ii

FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. – United States of America

USOAP – U.S. Ocean Action Plan (USOAP)

USGS – US Geological Survey

WCPA/IUCN – World Commission on Protected Areas/International Union for 

Conservation of Nature

Abbreviations

Framework – Framework for Developing the National System of MPAs 

MPA Center – National Marine Protected Areas Center 

National System – National System of Marine Protected Areas 

NOAA Fisheries Service – NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service

Order – Executive Order 13158 of May 26, 2000 

Management Committee – National System Management Committee

Strategy – MPA Stewardship, Science and Effectiveness Strategy

Appendix B. Existing U.S. MPA Programs, Federal MPA 

Initiatives, and Tribal and International Efforts

The nation’s existing suite of MPA sites, programs, authorities, and systems at all levels of 

government are the fundamental components of the national system. The recognition of and 

full participation by these federal, state, tribal, and local government programs are critical to the 

national system’s success. Working together, these existing programs and authorities, federal 

MPA coordination initiatives, and linkages to international MPA initiatives will make important 

contributions to and receive benefits from the development of an effective national system. This 

section provides an overview of these major efforts and generally describes their respective roles in 

the national system.

A. U.S. MPA Programs and Authorities

MPAs in the United States are managed by a number of entities and programs at federal, state, 

tribal, and local government levels. This section provides a brief summary of these programs 

and describes the nature of their role in the development of the national system.

Federal and Federal/State MPA Programs

Currently, there are several federal MPA programs and one federal/state partnership MPA 

program in the United States. Each has one or more specific legal mandates that it is required 

to fulfill. Many of these programs have established and actively manage systems of MPAs 

designed to fulfill their responsibilities to the nation. As described below, the federal MPA 

programs include DOI’s National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System and 

NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary System, National MPA Center, and National Marine 

Fisheries Service programs. The National Estuarine Research Reserve System is composed of 

NOAA/state partnerships. 

National Park System: The National Park System is administered by DOI’s National Park 

Service with a mission to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife 
iii

therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means 

as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. The National Park 

System preserves unimpaired natural and cultural resources and values representative of the 

nation’s ocean heritage in superlative natural, historic, and recreation areas in every region. 

The National Park System currently contains 72 ocean and Great Lakes parks. 

National Wildlife Refuge System: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) mandate is to 

provide the federal leadership to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of people. The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, a program within the DOI FWS, is to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans. There are 177 ocean and Great Lakes refuges.

National Marine Sanctuary System: Under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, NOAA 

establishes areas of the marine environment that have special conservation, recreational, 

ecological, historical, cultural, archaeological, scientific, educational, or aesthetic qualities as 

national marine sanctuaries to: (A) improve the conservation, understanding, management, 

and wise and sustainable use of marine resources; (B) enhance public awareness, 

understanding, and appreciation of the marine environment; and (C) maintain for future 

generations the habitat and ecological services of the natural assemblage of living resources 

that inhabit these areas. There are currently 13 sanctuaries and one marine national 

monument in the national marine sanctuaries system.

National Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA Center): The mission of the MPA Center is to 

facilitate the effective use of science, technology, training, and information in the planning, 

management, and evaluation of the nation’s system of marine protected areas. The MPA 

Center is housed within NOAA and coordinates across NOAA programs, as well as with 

pertinent federal, state, tribal, and local MPA and MPA-support entities. At the federal level, 

the MPA Center coordinates closely with DOI. The MPA Center’s specific national system 

roles are described in detail in Section V (G) of this document.

National Marine Fisheries Service Programs and Federal Fishery Management Councils (FMC): Under 

a number of statutory authorities, the National Marine Fisheries Service establishes and 

manages MPAs to rebuild and maintain sustainable fisheries, conserve and restore healthy 

marine habitats, and promote the recovery of protected species, including marine mammals 

and anadromous fish. These sites fall under four major categories: Federal Fisheries 

Management Zones, Federal Fisheries Habitat Conservation Zones, Federal Threatened and 

Endangered Species Protected Areas, and Federal Marine Mammal Protected Areas. FMCs 

have been established for the stewardship of fishery resources through the preparation, 

monitoring, and revision of fishery management plans. These FMCs enable states, the 

fishing industry, consumer and environmental organizations, and other interested persons to 

participate in and advise on the management of marine fisheries and to take into account the 

social and economic needs of the states. FMC-recommended actions are subject to review 

and approval by the Secretary of Commerce through a delegation of authority to the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. The National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible for the 

promulgation of site-specific regulations to delineate MPA boundaries and establish associated 

protective measures. 
iv FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS): The mission of the NERRS is to promote 

stewardship of the nation’s estuaries through science and education using a system of protected 

areas. The NERRS, which is currently made up of 27 sites, is a unique partnership program 

between NOAA and the coastal states to protect estuarine land and water, which provides essential 

habitat for wildlife, and offers educational opportunities for students, teachers, and the public. The 

NERRS sites serve as living laboratories for scientists. With its unique state/federal partnership, 

the NERRS participation with the national system will require close consultation and coordination 

with the NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division and state agency or university staff of NERRS sites.

National Monuments: In June 2006, President Bush established the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

Marine National Monument under Presidential Proclamation 8031 (71 FR 36443, June 26, 2006) 

under the authority of the Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431). This was the nation’s first marine 

national monument. The Monument – renamed the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National 

Monument in March 2007 to reflect Hawaiian language and culture – is approximately 100 nautical 

miles wide and extends approximately 1,200 miles from northwest to southeast around the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In December 2006, the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior 

and the Governor of Hawai‘i signed a Memorandum of Agreement to jointly manage federal and 

state lands and waters within the Monument as Co-Trustees, to collectively conserve and manage 

Monument natural and cultural resources. 

State and Local Government MPA Programs

Each U.S. coastal state also has a variety of MPA programs and authorities, often at both the state 

and local government levels. State MPA programs can include: Historic Preservation offices; Fish 

and Wildlife agencies; Coastal Zone Management programs; Fishery Management agencies; Parks 

and Recreation agencies, and other authorities. MPAs are used by states for a variety of purposes 

ranging from managing fisheries, recreation, tourism, and other uses to protecting ecological 

functions, preserving shipwrecks, and maintaining traditional or cultural connections to the marine 

environment. In addition, local governments within coastal states, such as counties and other 

municipalities, have programs that establish and manage MPAs for protecting marine species, 

nursery grounds, shellfish beds, and other important natural and cultural resources. Similar to 

their federal analogs, some state MPA programs have also developed and continue to manage their 

existing sites as systems of MPAs.

Given the significant coastal and marine resources under state jurisdiction, the large number 

of state MPAs – roughly 83 percent of the national total – compared to federal sites, 

and the potential impacts and benefits to states from MPAs located in federal waters, full 

state participation in the development of the national system is critical to its success. It is 

important to note, however, that state and local government participation in the national 

system is voluntary under the Order. The MPA Center will work closely with states to 

determine their interest in participating. State government agencies, programs, and authorities 

that elect to participate in the national system will be full partners and will have an equal voice 

in decision making to set priorities for collaborative efforts at the regional and national levels.

Tribal MPA Authorities, Programs, and Linkages

Tribal governments have an integral role to play in resource management—legally, culturally 

and economically. The Order “does not diminish, affect, or abrogate Indian treaty rights or 

United States trust responsibilities to Indian tribes,” and calls on NOAA and DOI to “consult 
v

with...tribes...and other entities to promote coordination of federal, state, territorial, and 

tribal actions to establish and manage MPAs.” Because the federal government has a trust 

responsibility to all federally recognized tribes, conservation goals and management practices 

for MPAs should be established through government-to-government consultations. 

In addition, several Indian tribes in Western Washington and the Great Lakes have treatyreserved fishing rights. These tribes share co-management authority and responsibility for 

marine resources in their usual and customary fishing areas with the federal government 

and/or states, depending on the specific resource and area identified. Tribes that have sole 

management authority may choose to establish MPAs as a tool to meet conservation goals 

for areas where they have management responsibilities. For areas where tribes share comanagement authority with the federal government and/or states, any entity wishing to 

establish MPAs must do so through government-to-government consultations. The MPA 

Center will work closely with tribes to determine their interest in participating in the national 

system. Tribal governments that elect to participate in the national system will be full partners 

and will have an equal voice in decision making to set priorities for collaborative efforts at the 

regional and national levels.

Numerous opportunities to enhance coordination and collaboration with tribes on issues 

related to MPAs are possible through the development of the national system. Some of 

these opportunities could include a range of potential partnerships aimed at the sharing 

of information; enhancing technical, scientific, and management capacity; and developing 

conservation strategies for marine resources of mutual concern. The MPA Center and national 

system partners, many of whom have ongoing relationships with tribes, will consult with tribal 

governments to determine their interest in participating in the national system and will work 

with them to develop appropriate mechanisms and protocols. 

B. Linkages to Related Federal MPA Initiatives

There are several other significant federal MPA initiatives that are either directly or indirectly 

linked to the development of the national system. These efforts make important contributions 

to and can benefit from the development of the national system. This section provides an 

overview of each of these efforts and further describes their relationship and role in the 

development of the national system.

MPA Federal Advisory Committee

The MPA FAC is authorized by the Order to provide expert advice and recommendations 

to DOC and DOI. The MPA FAC is comprised of 30 non-federal members representing 

diverse perspectives and areas of expertise, including natural and social science, commercial 

and recreational fishing, tribal and state governments, oil and gas, tourism, environmental 

organizations, and others. The MPA FAC also includes ten federal ex officio members 

to provide information and support from entities managing, supporting, or potentially 

affecting MPAs. The MPA FAC completed its first report in June 2005, which provided 

recommendations on the goals, objectives, principles, and structure of the national system, 

and its second report in October 2007, which provided recommendations regarding the 
vi FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

development of the national system. The MPA FAC will continue to advise DOC and DOI 

on aspects of developing and implementing the national system. Information on MPA FAC 

members and its work products are posted at http://mpa.gov/mpafac/fac.html. 

The Federal Interagency MPA Working Group 

The Order directs DOC and DOI to work closely with the other federal agencies to develop the 

national system. To provide a mechanism for this coordination, the MPA Center established the 

Federal Interagency MPA Working Group, which includes representatives from the Departments 

of Commerce, the Interior, Defense, Homeland Security, State, Agriculture, Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Agency for International 

Development. The Federal Interagency MPA Working Group meets several times a year to 

provide input on policy issues related to national system development, coordinate activities related 

to the Order, and support the work of the MPA FAC. In addition, members of the Federal 

Interagency MPA Working Group will serve as members of the National System Management 

Committee (see Section V (B)).

U.S. Ocean Action Plan 

The U.S. Ocean Action Plan (USOAP) outlines a variety of actions for promoting the responsible 

use and stewardship of ocean and coastal resources for the benefit of all Americans. A Cabinetlevel “Committee on Ocean Policy” (COP) was established by Executive Order 13366 (December 

17, 2004) to coordinate the activities of executive branch departments and agencies regarding 

ocean-related matters in an integrated and effective manner to advance the environmental and 

economic interests of present and future generations of Americans. The President further 

directs the executive branch agencies to facilitate, as appropriate, coordination and consultation 

regarding ocean-related matters among federal, state, tribal, and local governments; the private 

sector; foreign governments; and international organizations. Subcommittees of the COP also 

have been formed as part of the ocean governance structure described in the USOAP, including 

the Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean Resources (SIMOR) and the Joint 

Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology. Many of the activities outlined in the USOAP 

and the subsequent work plans of the COP’s subcommittees complement efforts to develop 

the national system. Similarly, many of the collaborative actions under the national system may 

offer opportunities to help advance the USOAP. As these efforts proceed, the MPA Center will 

work closely with SIMOR to evaluate progress and plans for developing the national system in 

order to ensure coordination and consistency with the USOAP’s governance structure and overall 

approach.

In support of this effort, the USOAP calls on National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National 

Marine Sanctuaries, and National Estuarine Research Reserves to, “coordinate and better 

integrate the existing network of marine managed areas.” Many of these sites overlap or lie 

adjacent to each other and a history of collaboration between parks, marine sanctuaries, refuges, 

and reserves provides a model for this expanded network. Although these sites were created 

under separate agency authorities and statutory mandates, they are united by their proximity 

and similar science and management priorities. These actions to coordinate and better integrate 

efforts have been aptly named and are referred to as the “Seamless Network” initiative. The 
vii

Seamless Network concept reflects the Administration’s emphasis on greater scientific and 

programmatic coordination between ocean agencies, and complements efforts to implement 

the MPA Executive Order. In addition, the USOAP calls on the National Park Service to 

adopt an Ocean Parks Stewardship Action Plan. Both the Seamless Network and Ocean Parks 

Stewardship Action Plan are described below.

Seamless Network Initiative

The USOAP calls on the four above mentioned MPA systems to work together, “to 

promote coordination of research, public education, and management activities at 

neighboring parks, refuges, sanctuaries, and estuarine reserves.” Two federal interagency 

agreements are called for under this effort. The first is a general agreement that 

enables site-based, regional, and national collaborations among the partner agencies, 

and is currently under development. The second is a separate cooperative enforcement 

agreement signed in August 2005 among the National Wildlife Refuge System, National 

Park Service, National Marine Sanctuary Program, and National Marine Fisheries Service. 

When implemented, these agreements will ultimately contribute to several important 

elements of the national system, such as the identification of science and stewardship 

priorities for enhancing MPA effectiveness through enhanced interagency cooperation 

and information sharing. Known as the Seamless Network initiative, this effort will 

provide a coordination mechanism for these MPA systems in the development of the 

national system and will build on existing collaborative efforts. In many cases these MPAs 

have ongoing collaborations and the Seamless Network will expand and enhance those 

relationships. The wider set of eventual national system partners such as other federal 

programs and state, tribal, and local government MPA sites and systems may benefit from 

this model. An active dialogue exists and will be maintained between the developing 

national system and the Seamless Network Initiative efforts in order to ensure that they 

complement one another.

Ocean Parks Stewardship Action Plan 

The USOAP calls for the adoption of an Ocean Parks Strategy by the National Park Service. 

Key elements of this strategy include: characterizing marine species and habitats; evaluating 

and monitoring their condition; increasing the scientific understanding of how marine 

ecosystems function; and developing cooperative science-based fishery management plans 

between parks and state agencies. This plan was issued in December 2006 and can be viewed 

at http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/oceans/Ocean_Park_ActionPlan.pdf. This important 

effort offers opportunities for collaborative approaches between the National Park Service, 

the Seamless Network initiative, and the national system to address shared science and 

management priorities.

C. International MPA Programs and Authorities

In addition to U.S. MPA programs and authorities, there are numerous international MPA 

efforts and linkages that can contribute to and benefit from the national system. Marine 

ecosystems and their associated natural resources rarely align with the political boundaries 

of sovereign countries. Moreover, ecosystems often overlap with adjacent countries and 
viii FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Table 4. Examples of Existing U.S. MPAs

* Only the marine portion of the described areas are considered to be a part of the MPA; the 

terrestrial components, while a part of the larger management unit, are not considered to be part 

of the MPA.

MPA Name and 

Location

Name of Managing 

Entity and Type of 

Management 

MPA Description*

Ashepoo-CombaheeEdisto (ACE) Basin 

National Estuarine 

Research Reserve

South Carolina

Federal/State 

Partnership 

Management: 

National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric 

Administration and 

South Carolina 

Department of 

Natural Resources

ACE Basin is one of the largest undeveloped estuaries on the East 

Coast. Diverse estuarine wetlands provide an extensive complex 

of wildlife habitat types; the region contains 91,000 acres of tidal 

marshes, 26,000 acres of managed impoundments, and 12,000 acres 

of maritime islands.

Manele-Hulopoe 

Marine Life 

Conservation District 

(MLCD)

Hawaii

State Management: 

Hawaii Department 

of Land and Natural 

Resources

The Manele-Hulopoe Marine Life Conservation District (MLCD) 

is located in the waters offshore of Palawai and Kamao on the 

southwestern coast of Lanai. Within Manele Bay corals are most 

abundant along the sides of the bay near the cliffs, where the bottom 

slopes off quickly to about 40 feet. The middle of the bay is a sand 

channel. Just outside the western edge of the bay near Pu‘u Pehe 

rock, is “First Cathedrals,” a popular SCUBA destination. Hulopo‘e 

Bay has large tidepools at its left point. A shallow reef is just 

offshore, providing excellent snorkeling opportunities. Pu‘u Pehe 

Cove has clear water and considerable marine life. Coral growth is 

interspersed with sand patches, and most coral is found away from 

the narrow beach in about 10 to 15 feet of water.

North Fork, St. Lucie 

Aquatic Preserve

Florida

State Management: 

Florida Department 

of Environmental 

Protection

The North Fork, St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve contains various aquatic 

habitats such as riverine, blackwater stream, tidal marsh, slough, 

and floodplain forest communities. The headwaters of the North 

Fork are composed of freshwater from Ten Mile and Five Mile 

Creeks. Downstream, brackish conditions support tidal marshes with 

mangroves, leatherfern, and sawgrass.

Monomoy National 

Wildlife Refuge

Massachusetts

Federal Management: 

Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

Monomoy is comprised of 7,604 acres of barrier beach, sand dunes, 

freshwater ponds, and saltwater marshes. Monomoy provides habitat 

for hundreds of species of resting, feeding, and migratory birds. 

The refuge supports the largest nesting colony of common terns in 

the Gulf of Maine and second largest on the Atlantic Seaboard with 

close to 8,000 nesting pairs in 2001. Monomoy is the largest haul-out 

site of gray seals on the Atlantic Seaboard as well.
ix

some natural resources may move back and forth between distant countries. In recognition of 

these important international connections, section 4(a) of the Order calls on federal agencies 

to identify opportunities to improve “linkages with, and technical assistance to, international 

[MPA] programs.” 

The United States shares a number of common resources with both neighboring and distant 

countries. For instance, migratory species (e.g., whales, sea turtles, pelagic fishes, and some 

birds) rely on the marine and coastal waters of multiple countries during various stages of their 

life. There are also a number of international law and policy issues regarding our underwater 

cultural heritage. For example, certain cultural resources that rest in the seabed of U.S. MPAs, 

such as sunken military craft and associated contents that have not been abandoned, retain 

their protected sovereign status and permanent right, title, and interest may be vested in the flag 

country. 

Enhancing existing or establishing new linkages among systems in other countries can mutually 

benefit the United States and international MPAs through coordination of efforts, information 

and capacity sharing, and technical assistance. Along with sharing common resources, the 

United States also shares the consequences of potentially harmful activities occurring outside 

of U.S. waters, including pollution, over-harvesting of marine resources, and degradation of 

associated habitats. By coordinating with international MPA programs, the United States can 

minimize the harmful impacts of external activities and maximize the benefits of MPAs. 

For U.S. MPAs, important international linkages include, but are not limited to, those relating 

to Canada, Mexico, and Russia, as well as those amongst multiple countries in the Arctic, 

Pacific Islands, and Caribbean. Several legal mechanisms, such as bi-lateral and multi-lateral 

agreements and treaties, exist to address many of these resource management issues. For 

example, the International Maritime Organization’s Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas program 

and the Wider Caribbean Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife are two 

MPA-related international efforts of significance. The MPA Center and/or its federal partners 

are actively involved in a number of such efforts, including the Commission on Environmental 

Cooperation’s development of a North American MPA Network (NAMPAN) and the exchange 

of training and technical assistance with other nations. The national system can facilitate a 

dialogue and develop collaborative efforts between the United States and other countries to 

complement and support the work of MPA programs.

Appendix C. Programmatic Environmental Assessment 

Lead Agency: 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Ocean Service

Cooperating Agency: 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service
x FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

For further Information Contact:

Lauren Wenzel

National Marine Protected Areas Center

1305 East West Hwy, Room 9143

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Phone: (301) 563-1136; Fax: (301) 713-3110

E-mail: Lauren.Wenzel@noaa.gov

Purpose and Need for this Programmatic Environmental Assessment

The purpose of this Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) is to fulfill the requirements 

of Executive Order (EO) 13158, which are to develop, design and build a National System of 

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). 

Executive Order 13158 on MPAs

Executive Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas (2000) calls on the Department of Commerce 

and the Department of the Interior (DOI), in consultation with other federal agencies and 

stakeholders, to develop a national system of marine protected areas (MPAs) to enhance the 

conservation of the nation’s natural and cultural marine heritage. The Executive Order created 

the National Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA Center) within the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to coordinate this effort. The mission of the MPA Center 

is to facilitate the effective use of science, technology, training, and information in the planning, 

management, and evaluation of the nation’s system of marine protected areas.

The National System of MPAs

Currently, nearly 1,700 marine areas have been identified in the United States (U.S.). These 

areas are managed under the authority of hundreds of federal, state and territorial (state), tribal, 

and local laws and regulations. Familiar examples of MPAs include national and state marine 

sanctuaries, parks, wildlife refuges, and some fishery management areas. This patchwork of 

protected areas is an important component of the nation’s marine conservation mission, but would 

be greatly enhanced by the improved coordination and integration across sites and MPA programs 

that a national system will provide. 

The National System of MPAs (national system) will be built collaboratively by existing MPA sites 

and systems through partnerships at the ecosystem, regional, and national levels. The national 

system will focus on supporting shared priorities for enhancing coordination and stewardship 

of partner MPA sites and systems in order to improve effectiveness. The national system may 

ultimately include some new areas vital to the conservation of significant natural and cultural 

marine resources. These may be identified by national system partners through regional planning 

or other processes, and will be based on the best available science and stakeholder involvement. 

Any new MPAs would need to be designated through an existing federal, state, tribal, or local 

authority, as the Executive Order provides no authority to create new MPAs. 

Need for Action

The Executive Order calls on the MPA Center to develop a Framework for the national system 

(Framework). The first draft was published for public comment in September 2006, and was 
xi

revised after due consideration of comments and recommendations received. A second draft was 

published for an additional round of public comment during March-May 2008, and again has been 

revised with consideration of input received. This PEA has also been revised based on comments 

received during the 2006-2008 comment period.

The purpose of the Framework is to serve as a “road map” for developing the national system that 

will specify a common vision, and common goals, objectives, and criteria for the national system, 

as well as the process for partnerships among federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies 

and stakeholders to develop it. While the Executive Order and the Framework document are nonregulatory, the MPA Center developed this PEA to provide federal and state agencies, tribes, and 

other stakeholders with the best available information on the potential impacts of the Framework 

document during its two public comment periods.

Scope of this Analysis

This PEA considers the programmatic environmental consequences of proposing the Framework. 

As previously described, the Framework itself only lays out a strategic process to achieve a national 

system of MPAs. The Framework itself does not propose any new MPAs, nor does it create or 

recommend any new authority under which they may be designated. 

The consideration of designating additional MPAs or expanding existing MPAs will occur solely 

at the discretion of the state, federal, tribal, and local agencies which have the authority to develop 

different MPAs to fulfill their own missions and implement the national system. As such, any 

potential site-specific environmental, economic, and social impacts cannot be meaningfully 

analyzed until these agencies consider individual MPA proposals under their own authorities. 

Therefore, the potential effects of any detailed regional, state, or local MPA alternatives proposed 

by a federal agency under this Framework would be further analyzed under NEPA at the time they 

are proposed, including in environmental assessments tiered from this PEA as appropriate.

Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternatives Considered, but Rejected

In considering alternatives for proposing the Framework, the following three were selected as 

constituting a reasonable range of alternatives for this PEA: “Alternative A: Take No Action,” 

“Alternative B: Propose the Draft Framework for Developing the National System of Marine 

Protected Areas” and “Alternative C: Propose the Framework for the National System of Marine 

Protected Areas of the United States of America.” Numerous other possible alternatives were, 

however, considered by NOAA for analysis, but ultimately rejected. For example, a wide range of 

alternatives would have resulted from all the possible permutations of changes in the Framework’s 

approach to meeting the various requirements of the MPA Executive Order. Several factors led 

to the determination that the approach of analyzing a wide range of many potential alternatives 

should be rejected.

First, the Framework lays out a series of processes for U.S. MPA programs, managing entities, 

authorities, and other stakeholders around the country to work together to determine eligible 

MPAs and the most appropriate, specific approaches for developing the national system. Because

the Framework is focused on managing entity and stakeholder processes to determine specific 

approaches and actions, the environmental consequences of these permutations cannot be 

predicted to be significantly different than Alternative C. 
xii FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Second, and most important, the processes outlined in the elements of the Framework are based 

on input received from consultations with and recommendations from MPA stakeholders around 

the country, including the MPA Federal Advisory Committee, as required by the Executive Order. 

Creating a range of alternatives that are either independent of these consultations or consider 

only some of the recommendations received would not meet the requirements of the Executive 

Order.

Therefore, having considered additional alternatives for proposing the Framework for the national 

system, NOAA has determined that the three alternatives described below constitute a reasonable 

and practical range of alternatives for assessing the anticipated environmental consequences of 

fulfilling the need to develop the Framework.

Alternative A: Take No Action

Under this alternative, NOAA would not propose a Framework as required by the MPA Executive 

Order. The MPA Executive Order would stand alone without any further detail of the processes 

necessary for developing the national system. There would be no description of processes for 

identifying and including existing MPAs in the national system, working with MPA programs to 

collaboratively identify and address common stewardship needs, or identifying place-based gaps in 

protection.

Alternative B: Propose the Draft Framework for Developing the National System of 

Marine Protected Areas

NOAA proposed the first draft of the Framework published in September 2006. As noted by 

the MPA Federal Advisory Committee and many public comments, this draft document lacked a 

strategic focus to describe how the national system would target priority conservation objectives; 

lacked design and implementation principles to guide development of the system; and provided 

only a minimal description of how the national system would be coordinated and conduct gap 

analyses on a regional basis. 

Alternative C: Propose the Framework for the National System of Marine Protected 

Areas of the United States of America (Preferred)

This alternative would fulfill the directive of the MPA Executive Order to develop a Framework. 

The Framework provides guidance for developing the national system and therein implementing 

key elements of the Executive Order. The full descriptions of the proposed national system 

elements and associated processes are contained in the Framework and summarized here as:

□ Summary of authority for developing the Framework and national system.

□ Overview of key U.S. MPA programs and related initiatives.

□ Key definitions for developing the national system.

□ Goals and objectives for the national system.

□ Sequence and steps for implementing the Framework.

□ Process for identifying, nominating, and including MPAs in the national system.
xiii

□ Options for building collaborative efforts to enhance stewardship and regional 

coordination of MPAs.

□ Process for identifying conservation gaps in the national system.

□ Maintenance of the official List of National System MPAs.

□ Process for implementing the “avoid harm” provision.

□ Options for evaluating effectiveness of the national system.

□ Mechanisms for tracking and reporting national system progress and priorities.

Description of Affected Environment

The geographic extent of the Framework and the nation’s existing MPAs that it aims to support 

span the United States’ territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zone waters of the Pacific 

Ocean, including the Bering Sea; Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean 

Sea; Arctic Ocean; and the Great Lakes. This environment encompasses the entire range of the 

nation’s marine ecosystems, including their natural heritage, cultural heritage, and sustainable 

production resources and functions, goods, and services. The following are general descriptions of 

five valued environmental components that may be affected programmatically by the Framework. 

More detailed descriptions of specific affected environments will be given in future tiered analyses 

based on future consideration of MPAs which may occur under the authority of individual state, 

federal, tribal, and local agencies.

Natural Heritage Resources

The nation’s existing MPAs, whether managed by federal, state, tribal, or an inter-governmental 

collaboration of entities help to conserve and restore the wealth of U.S. natural marine 

environments, including but not limited to, kelp forests, warm and cold water coral reefs, rocky 

intertidal areas, offshore banks and seamounts, estuarine areas, the Great Lakes waters, deep sea 

vents, and sand and mud flats. In these marine environments, MPAs play an important role in 

protecting the significant natural biological communities, endangered and threatened species, 

habitats, ecosystems, processes, and the ecological services, uses, and values they provide to this 

and future generations. These various components of the nation’s marine environment are critical 

to maintaining the integrity and health of marine and coastal ecosystems. Oftentimes managing 

for one of these elements means protecting the others. For example, to effectively manage 

endangered or threatened species, the habitat they rely upon must also be protected. 

Sustainable Production Resources

Existing U.S. MPAs are also designed and established with the intent to help ensure the 

sustainability of the renewable living resources and their habitats, including, but not limited to, 

spawning, mating, and nursery grounds, and areas established to minimize bycatch of species that 

are important to the nation’s economy and the livelihoods and subsistence needs of its citizens. 

MPAs can help to sustain commercial and recreational fisheries by controlling fishing effort, 

protecting critical stages in the life history of fishery species, conserving genetic diversity of 

exploited species, reducing secondary impacts of fishing on essential fish habitat and other species, 

and ensuring against fisheries collapse (Murray et al. 1999; NRC, 2001). MPAs may allow site-
xiv FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

specific regulation of selected species, selected gear types, or fishing methods. Certain MPAs 

or zones within MPAs may be fishery reserves that protect all or nearly all species from fishing. 

Many studies indicate that abundance and size of target species increase in marine protected 

areas that limit extractive use (Dugan and Davis, 1993; Crowder et al., 2000; Halpern, 2003). 

Cultural Heritage Resources

The nation’s existing MPAs preserve and protect important cultural resources. These cultural 

resources reflect the nation’s maritime history and traditional cultural connections to the sea, 

as well as the uses and values they provide to this and future generations. Examples include 

archeological sites that contain significant cultural artifacts; sunken historic ships, aircraft, or 

other vessels; and areas important to specific cultures. Protecting cultural resources in MPAs 

reduces the chance that artifacts will be removed or damaged from modern-day commercial or 

recreational activities. Unlike many biological communities that have some level of resilience 

to recover from degradation, once cultural sites are damaged, the information and value of 

these non-renewable resources may be lost forever. MPAs are an important tool for conserving 

cultural resources by monitoring the environment for change and stabilizing deteriorating 

structures. MPAs also encourage actions to find, preserve, and interpret the associated artifacts 

that may otherwise be inaccessible to the public. By protecting marine sites that are important 

to the nation’s diverse cultures, existing U.S. MPAs preserve a part of history for future 

generations.

Current Governmental Management Structure 

The past several decades have witnessed a dramatic increase in the use of MPAs as a 

conservation and management tool to protect the nation’s most important natural and cultural 

marine resources and areas. Over 90 percent of U.S. MPAs were established after 1970 

(National MPA Center Marine Protected Area Inventory, 2008). The growth in MPAs has 

not only resulted in increased protections to certain natural and cultural marine resources, but 

also brought about a significant number of new MPA programs and authorities at all levels of 

government, each with their own requirements, levels of protection, and associated terms.

These programs and the MPA sites that they manage are components of a complex 

sociopolitical landscape that features diverse institutions, governance structures, and processes. 

They include, for example, federal programs such as the National Marine Sanctuaries and 

National Parks; tribal MPA authorities and co-management arrangements with states; state 

programs such as fish and wildlife, coastal zone management, and historic preservation; and 

other governmental approaches to MPAs.

Each of these programs has its own mandate it is required to fulfill. These mandates often 

overlap in both geographic scope and the conservation purposes for which they were 

established. In addition, while many existing MPA programs comprise a system of MPAs, 

there are a limited number of mechanisms in place to coordinate MPA efforts across 

ecosystem, regional, national, or international levels among MPA programs and levels of 

government. This is not to say that no such coordination is happening. In fact, there are 

a number of good examples of existing MPA sites and programs in a common geography 

working together, which serve as excellent models. However, there is no overarching MPA 

framework for facilitating and promoting such coordination across levels of government and 

at an ecosystem or regional scale around the nation. Similarly, the effectiveness of the existing 
xv

suite of MPAs in contributing to the long-term sustainability of important resources, habitats and 

ecosystems, and the services and values they provide, is largely yet to be determined.

Social, Economic and Cultural Benefits

MPAs in the United States and its territories provide social, economic, and cultural benefits by 

protecting resources and environments. These benefits come in many forms, both tangible 

and intangible and direct and indirect. Direct, tangible benefits may include supporting the 

socioeconomic well-being of communities tied to our nation’s fisheries by enhancing stocks 

for sustainable harvest and recreational opportunities. These communities provide significant 

inputs to the U.S. economy and many have long and storied historical connections to the marine 

environment. MPAs that ensure sustainable production have the intangible benefit of promoting 

cultural continuity and identity, which is instrumental in maintaining healthy communities.

By protecting key resources and habitats, MPAs can also promote greater economic returns from 

tourism through enhanced visitor experiences. These direct economic benefits are inextricably 

linked with the intangible quality of visitor experience. Good water quality, abundant living 

resources, and scenic, aesthetic ocean environments attract visitors to coastal areas around the 

globe. These visitors engage in diverse activities that include non-extractive uses of the marine 

environment, such as scuba diving, snorkeling, wildlife watching, boating, and surfing, as well as 

extractive uses such as fishing. All of these activities rely on healthy marine environments. U.S. 

MPAs help ensure that marine environments will continue to draw the visitors that have become 

critical to many coastal economies. For example, in Monroe County, Florida, location of the 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and other marine-related parks and wildlife refuges, the 

estimated total tourist contribution to the economy (1995-1996) is over 60 percent (English et al., 

1996). 

MPAs also provide direct, tangible benefits by providing opportunities for research and education. 

Certain MPAs feature academic and applied monitoring of short-term events and long-term 

environmental trends, as well as biomedical research (Salm et al, 2000). 

MPAs can provide hands-on experience and outdoor laboratories for bringing classroom studies 

to life. MPA educational programs have the potential to promote public awareness of the 

importance of marine ecosystems and their many benefits.

MPAs also protect historic connections to our nation’s heritage that are critical to social and 

cultural continuity. People and communities are connected to marine resources, including both 

natural and cultural features. These connections are affirmed through direct practice, oral and 

written narrative, and everyday discourse. MPAs can enhance cultural connectivity to places by 

ensuring their protection for future generations, allowing traditional cultural practices, promoting 

awareness of our nation’s heritage, and acknowledging existence and bequest values inherent in 

marine resources. 

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action and Alternatives

As previously noted, the Framework only provides a strategic process for establishing the National 

System of MPAs, rather than proposing any specific action itself. Therefore, at a programmatic 

level, the environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives are negligible. 
xvi FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The specific environmental, economic, social, and cumulative impacts of proposed new or 

expanded MPAs later proposed by a federal agency under this Framework would be further 

analyzed under NEPA at the time they are proposed, including in environmental assessments 

tiered from this PEA as appropriate.

Alternative A: Take No Action

Environmental Impacts

Taking no action would result in no predictable direct or indirect environmental impacts, either 

positive or negative. The ‘Take No Action’ alternative would not allow for the realization of 

the benefits expected from the proposed Framework’s greater integration and coordination of 

conservation efforts among existing authorities and sites.

Socioeconomic Impacts

Taking no action would result in no predictable direct socioeconomic impacts, either positive or 

negative. The ‘Take No Action’ alternative would not allow for the realization of the benefits 

expected from the proposed Framework’s greater integration and coordination of conservation 

efforts among existing authorities and sites.

Alternative B: Propose the Draft Framework for Developing the National System of 

Marine Protected Areas

Environmental Impacts

The Draft Framework would not be expected to result in adverse impacts on the environment. 

The Draft Framework proposed to coordinate the activities among federal, state, tribal, and 

local MPA sites and systems to reduce administrative costs and promote efficiency and the 

effective use of existing management infrastructure for marine resource protection. However, 

because of the lack of a strategic focus within this alternative, the expected beneficial long-term 

environmental impacts and improved quality of the nation’s marine resources would not be as 

great as those under Alternative C. 

Socioeconomic Impacts

Similar to Alternative C, the proposed Draft Framework would not be expected to result 

in adverse socioeconomic impacts. However, because of the lack of focused design and 

implementation principles, and a clear vision for regional coordination, there is less potential, 

relative to Alternative C, for long-term positive socioeconomic impacts from promoting 

integration among government authorities, enhancing knowledge and awareness of MPAs as a 

tool of ecosystem-based management, and supporting processes for incorporating stakeholders 

and communities in ecosystem management.

Alternative C: Propose the Framework for the National System of Marine Protected 

Areas of the United States of America (Preferred)

Environmental Impacts

The Framework is not expected to result in adverse impacts on the environment. The 

Framework proposes to coordinate the activities among federal, state, tribal, and local MPA 
xvii

sites and systems to reduce administrative costs and promote efficiency and the effective use of 

existing management infrastructure for marine resource protection. 

Implementation of the Framework provides opportunities for shared information, resources, 

scientific expertise, and lessons learned for individual MPAs. The proposed Framework mostly 

involves a number of low or no impact activities that will positively affect the stewardship and 

management of individual MPAs and ultimately lead to beneficial long-term environmental 

impacts and improved quality of the nation’s marine resources relative to Alternative 

A. Additional environmental analysis of future activities, as required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other acts and executive orders, would be prepared as 

necessary by the relevant entity or entities taking any such actions.

The Framework also promotes activities over time to identify gaps in protection of important 

marine resources and subsequent area-based conservation priorities that would be needed to 

manage and protect those resources. This component of the Framework is similarly comprised 

of a number of low or no impact activities that ultimately could lead to beneficial long-term 

environmental impacts relative to Alternative A. In order to realize these benefits, however, 

actions to implement new or increased protections would be needed. Activities taken by individual 

entities in the future, such as changes in MPA regulations or the establishment of new MPAs as a 

result of the implementation of the proposed Framework will undergo separate NEPA analysis by 

entities taking such actions as required and appropriate. 

Socioeconomic Impacts

The proposed Framework is not expected to result in adverse socioeconomic impacts. The 

Framework provides guidance for the implementation of the national system. It does not 

establish new MPAs or directly affect the stewardship and management, including human uses and 

values, associated with existing MPAs. The socioeconomic impacts of, for example, the longterm cumulative effects of developing the national system will be assessed as necessary under 

NEPA and other federal mandates for specific actions taken by those entities or programs with the 

authority to establish and manage MPAs and/or alter MPA regulations. 

In proposing to integrate the activities and conservation objectives among the various authorities, 

the Framework will have its most immediate effects upon the communication and organizational 

structures across the various levels of MPA governance. As a result, there is great potential, 

relative to Alternative A, for long-term positive socioeconomic impacts from promoting 

integration among government authorities, enhancing knowledge and awareness of MPAs as a tool 

of ecosystem-based management, and supporting processes for incorporating stakeholders and 

communities in ecosystem management.

Furthermore, the implementation of the national system as proposed by the Framework will have 

long-term positive impacts, relative to Alternative A, for participating MPA sites, their associated 

marine resources, and the wider ecosystems of which they are a part. The national system will 

seek to integrate natural heritage, cultural heritage, and sustainable production objectives in order 

to minimize adverse socioeconomic impacts and promote comprehensive MPA conservation and 

management. It will focus on improving the effectiveness of MPA design, management, and 

evaluation through dissemination and use of the best available science and tools. 
xviiiFRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Additional socioeconomic analysis as required under NEPA and other acts and executive 

orders, would be prepared by the relevant entity or entities as necessary for future specific 

actions.

Cumulative Effects 

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.8) define cumulative effects 

as “impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency or person undertakes such actions.” At a programmatic level, the integration and 

coordination of federal, state, local and tribal agencies to improve MPA conservation and 

management are anticipated to have no significant adverse cumulative impact to environmental 

or socioeconomic resources. Relative to Alternative A, the proposed action has beneficial 

cumulative impacts to the resources that the National System of MPAs will protect. At a 

programmatic level, socioeconomic impacts are anticipated to be negligible (see above). Future 

tiered analyses on specific alternatives and resources will occur as entities consider future 

actions which fall under this Framework. 

References 

Crowder, L.B, S.J. Lyman, W.F. Figueira, and J. Priddy. 2000. Source-sink population 

dynamics and the problem of siting marine reserves. Bulletin of Marine Science 66(3): 

799-820.

Dugan, J.E. and G.E. Davis. 1993. Applications of marine refugia to coastal fisheries 

management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 50:2029-2042.

English, D. B.K., W. Kriesel, V. R. Leeworthy, and P. C. Wiley. 1996. Economic 

Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, MD. I + 22pp.

Halpern, B.S. 2003. The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does reserve 

size matter? Ecological Applications 13(1) Supplement: S117-S137.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2001. Marine protected areas: Tools for sustaining ocean 

ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

Murray, S.N., R.F. Ambrose, J.A. Bohnsack, L.W. Botsford, M.H. Carr, G.E. Davis, 

P.K. Dayton, D. Gotshall, D.R. Gunderson, M.A. Hixon, J. Lubchenco, M. Mangel, A. 

MacCall, D.A. McArdle, J.C. Ogden, J. Roughgarden, R.M. Starr, M.J. Tegner, and M.M. 

Yoklavich. 1999. No-take reserve networks: Protection for fishery populations and marine 

ecosystems. Fisheries 24(11):11-25.

Salm, R.V., J. Clark, and E. Siirila. 2000. Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for 

Planners and Managers. IUCN. Washington, DC. xxi + 371pp.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations state that the determination 
xix

of significance using an analysis of effects requires examination of both context and intensity, 

and lists ten criteria for intensity (40 CFR 1508.27). In addition, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6 Section 6.01b. 1 - 11 provides 

eleven criteria, including the same ten as the CEQ Regulations and one additional, for determining 

whether the impacts of a proposed action are significant. Each criterion is discussed below with 

respect to the proposed action and considered individually as well as in combination with the 

others.

1. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to cause both beneficial and adverse 

impacts that overall may result in a significant effect, even if the effect will be beneficial?

NOAA expects the implementation of the proposed Framework will result in a number of 

activities that will positively affect the stewardship and management of individual MPAs and 

ultimately lead to beneficial long-term environmental impacts and improved quality of the nation’s 

marine resources. The specific environmental, economic, social, and cumulative impacts of any 

proposed new or expanded MPAs later proposed by a federal agency under this Framework would 

be further analyzed as required by NEPA at the time they are proposed.

2. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to significantly affect public health or 

safety?

No negative impacts to public health or safety are associated with these activities. 

3. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in significant impacts to 

unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural 

resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically 

critical areas?

The Framework for the national system will not have significant adverse impacts on the areas 

listed above. It will provide a mechanism for coordination among existing marine protected areas, 

including those that protect significant natural and cultural marine resources. The Framework 

is expected to enhance the effectiveness of participating MPAs in contributing to national 

conservation objectives, such as the protection of spawning and nursery areas or the conservation 

of resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

4. Are the proposed action’s effects on the quality of the human environment likely to be 

highly controversial?

While individual MPAs are often a contentious subject, the effects of the proposed Framework 

on the human environment are not likely to be controversial. The actions and activities associated 

with the various components of the Framework focus on promoting coordination, collaboration, 

opportunities for stakeholder input, and enhancing scientific understanding in support of the 

effective use of MPAs. These activities largely have little or no impact on the human environment, 

but are envisioned to positively affect the stewardship and management of individual MPAs and 

ultimately lead to beneficial long-term impacts on the human environment and improved quality of 

the nation’s marine resources.

5. Are the proposed action’s effects on the human environment likely to be highly 

uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks?

The Framework’s effects are not expected to involve unique or unknown risks. Work will focus 

on enhancing coordination; sharing best management practices, technologies and science; and 

establishing conservation partnerships across all levels of government and with stakeholders. 
xx FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

6. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to establish a precedent for future 

actions with significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a future 

consideration?

The Framework does not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects. 

Regional conservation gap analyses will identify ecologically and culturally significant areas that 

may require additional protection. However, the Framework does not have any authority to 

establish a new MPA or another type of protection for these areas. Any additional protection 

would be provided under existing federal, state, local or tribal laws, and would be subject to the 

required review processes under the respective authority.

7. Is the proposed action related to other actions that when considered together will have 

individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts?

The activities associated with the proposed Framework largely have little or no impact on the 

human environment, but are envisioned to positively affect the stewardship and management of 

individual MPAs and ultimately lead to beneficial long-term impacts on the human environment 

and improved quality of the nation’s marine resources. By providing the first national geospatial 

database of MPAs across all levels of government, the national system will provide an 

opportunity to better understand the cumulative effectiveness of existing MPAs and to identify 

opportunities for collaboration. The cumulative effects of specific MPAs that may be proposed 

under the Framework will be analyzed in the NEPA analysis prepared for that proposed action.

8. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to adversely affect districts, sites, 

highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register 

of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or 

historical resources?

The Framework will not adversely affect any of the aforementioned areas. It will benefit 

significant scientific, cultural and historical resources and areas listed in or eligible for listing in 

the National Register of Historic Places, as the protection of these areas is included in the goals 

and objectives of the national system. 

9. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to have a significant impact 

on endangered or threatened species, or their critical habitat as defined under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973?

The Framework will not adversely affect endangered or threatened species or their critical 

habitat. The conservation of critical habitat for threatened and endangered species is an 

objective of the national system. The national system will provide tools for analyzing and 

mapping existing protected areas that contribute to the conservation of threatened and 

endangered species, as well as gaps in the protection of critical habitat where new MPAs may be 

needed.

10. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to threaten a violation of Federal, 

state, or local law or requirements imposed for environmental protection?

The Framework will not threaten any violation of Federal, state, or local law or requirements for 

environmental protection.
xxi

11. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in the introduction or spread of 

a nonindigenous species?

The Framework will not result in the introduction or spread of any nonindigenous species. By 

providing a mechanism for regional coordination, it will help MPAs develop shared strategies and 

partnerships to prevent and contain the impacts of nonindigenous species. 

List of Preparers and Agencies Consulted

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Department of the Interior, National Park Service 

Appendix D. Executive Order 13158

Executive Order 13158 

Presidential Documents 

Executive Order 13158 of May 26, 2000 

Marine Protected Areas

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of 

America and in furtherance of the purposes of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 

et seq.), National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), National 

Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 

et seq.), Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 

1362 et seq.), Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Environmental Policy Act, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (42 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), and 

other pertinent statutes, it is ordered as follows: 

Section 1. Purpose. This Executive Order will help protect the significant natural and cultural 

resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations by 

strengthening and expanding the Nation’s system of marine protected areas (MPAs). An expanded 

and strengthened comprehensive system of marine protected areas throughout the marine 

environment would enhance the conservation of our Nation’s natural and cultural marine heritage 

and the ecologically and economically sustainable use of the marine environment for future 

generations. To this end, the purpose of this order is to, consistent with domestic and international 

law: (a) strengthen the management, protection, and conservation of existing marine protected areas 

and establish new or expanded MPAs; (b) develop a scientifically based, comprehensive national 

system of MPAs representing diverse U.S. marine ecosystems, and the Nation’s natural and cultural 

resources; and (c) avoid causing harm to MPAs through federally conducted, approved, or funded 

activities. 
xxiiFRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Sec. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this order: 

a. “Marine protected area” means 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. 

b.“Marine environment” means those areas of coastal and ocean waters, the Great Lakes 

and their connecting waters, and submerged lands thereunder, over which the United 

States exercises jurisdiction, consistent with international law. 

c.The term “United States” includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, American 

Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

Sec. 3. MPA Establishment, Protection, and Management. Each Federal agency whose authorities 

provide for the establishment or management of MPAs shall take appropriate actions to enhance 

or expand protection of existing MPAs and establish or recommend, as appropriate, new MPAs. 

Agencies implementing this section shall consult with the agencies identified in subsection 4(a) 

of this order, consistent with existing requirements. 

Sec. 4. National System of MPAs. (a) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the 

availability of appropriations, the Department of Commerce and the Department of the 

Interior, in consultation with the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the 

United States Agency for International Development, the Department of Transportation, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and other pertinent Federal 

agencies shall develop a national system of MPAs. They shall coordinate and share information, 

tools, and strategies, and provide guidance to enable and encourage the use of the following in 

the exercise of each agency’s respective authorities to further enhance and expand protection of 

existing MPAs and to establish or recommend new MPAs, as appropriate: 

1. science-based identification and prioritization of natural and cultural resources for 

additional protection; 

2. integrated assessments of ecological linkages among MPAs, including ecological reserves 

in which consumptive uses of resources are prohibited, to provide synergistic benefits; 

3. a biological assessment of the minimum area where consumptive uses would be 

prohibited that is necessary to preserve representative habitats in different geographic 

areas of the marine environment; 

4. an assessment of threats and gaps in levels of protection currently afforded to natural 

and cultural resources, as appropriate; 

5. practical, science-based criteria and protocols for monitoring and evaluating the 

effectiveness of MPAs; 

6. identification of emerging threats and user conflicts affecting MPAs and appropriate, 
xxiii

practical, and equitable management solutions, including effective enforcement strategies, 

to eliminate or reduce such threats and conflicts; 

7. assessment of the economic effects of the preferred management solutions; and 

8. identification of opportunities to improve linkages with, and technical assistance to, 

international marine protected area programs. 

b. In carrying out the requirements of section 4 of this order, the Department of Commerce 

and the Department of the Interior shall consult with those States that contain portions 

of the marine environment, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the 

United States, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, tribes, Regional Fishery Management Councils, and other entities, as appropriate, 

to promote coordination of Federal, State, territorial, and tribal actions to establish and 

manage MPAs. 

c. In carrying out the requirements of this section, the Department of Commerce and the 

Department of the Interior shall seek the expert advice and recommendations of nonFederal scientists, resource managers, and other interested persons and organizations 

through a Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee. The Committee shall be 

established by the Department of Commerce. 

d. The Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior shall establish and jointly 

manage a website for information on MPAs and Federal agency reports required by this 

order. They shall also publish and maintain a list of MPAs that meet the definition of MPA 

for the purposes of this order. 

e.The Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall 

establish a Marine Protected Area Center to carry out, in cooperation with the Department 

of the Interior, the requirements of subsection 4(a) of this order, coordinate the website 

established pursuant to subsection 4(d) of this order, and partner with governmental and 

nongovernmental entities to conduct necessary research, analysis, and exploration. The 

goal of the MPA Center shall be, in cooperation with the Department of the Interior, 

to develop a framework for a national system of MPAs, and to provide Federal, State, 

territorial, tribal, and local governments with the information, technologies, and strategies 

to support the system. This national system framework and the work of the MPA Center is 

intended to support, not interfere with, agencies’ independent exercise of their own existing 

authorities. 

f. To better protect beaches, coasts, and the marine environment from pollution, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), relying upon existing Clean Water Act 

authorities, shall expeditiously propose new science-based regulations, as necessary, to 

ensure appropriate levels of protection for the marine environment. Such regulations may 

include the identification of areas that warrant additional pollution protections and the 

enhancement of marine water quality standards. The EPA shall consult with the Federal 

agencies identified in subsection 4(a) of this order, States, territories, tribes, and the public 

in the development of such new regulations. 
xxivFRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Sec. 5. Agency Responsibilities. Each Federal agency whose actions affect the natural or cultural 

resources that are protected by an MPA shall identify such actions. To the extent permitted by 

law and to the maximum extent practicable, each Federal agency, in taking such actions, shall 

avoid harm to the natural and cultural resources that are protected by an MPA. In implementing 

this section, each Federal agency shall refer to the MPAs identified under subsection 4(d) of this 

order. 

Sec. 6. Accountability. Each Federal agency that is required to take actions under this order shall 

prepare and make public annually a concise description of actions taken by it in the previous 

year to implement the order, including a description of written comments by any person or 

organization stating that the agency has not complied with this order and a response to such 

comments by the agency. 

Sec. 7. International Law. Federal agencies taking actions pursuant to this Executive Order must 

act in accordance with international law and with Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 

27, 1988, on the Territorial Sea of the United States of America, Presidential Proclamation 5030 

of March 10, 1983, on the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States of America, and 

Presidential Proclamation 7219 of September 2, 1999, on the Contiguous Zone of the United 

States. 

Sec. 8. General. 

a.Nothing in this order shall be construed as altering existing authorities regarding the 

establishment of Federal MPAs in areas of the marine environment subject to the 

jurisdiction and control of States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Guam, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Indian tribes. 

b.This order does not diminish, affect, or abrogate Indian treaty rights or United States 

trust responsibilities to Indian tribes. 

c.This order does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable in 

law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person. 

(Presidential Sig.) William J. Clinton 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

May 26, 2000. 
xxv

Appendix E. MPA FAC and Ex Officio Members, and the 

Federal MPA Interagency Working Group

CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE MPA FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

CHAIR

Dr. Mark Hixon, Professor, Department of Zoology, Oregon State University

VICE-CHAIR

Mr. Robert Zales, II, Owner, Bob Zales Charters

MEMBERS

Ms. Lori Arguelles, President and CEO, National Marine Sanctuaries Foundation

Mr. Charles D. Beeker, Director, Office of Underwater Science, School of Health, Physical 

Education and Recreation, Indiana University

Mr. David Benton, Benton & Associates

Dr. Daniel Bromley, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University 

of Wisconsin

Dr. Anthony Chatwin, Marine Conservation Planner, The Nature Conservancy

Mr. Rick Gaffney, Pacific Boats and Yachts

Dr. Steve Gaines, Professor, Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, 

Santa Barbara

Ms. Ellen Goethel, Co-Owner, “Ellen Diane” / Ocean Educator

Dr. Dennis Heinemann, Senior Scientist, The Ocean Conservancy

Mr. George Lapointe, Commissioner, Maine Department of Marine Resources

Mr. Victor T. Mastone, Director and Chief Archeologist, Massachusetts Board of Underwater 

Archaeological Resources

Ms. Melissa Miller-Henson, Program Manager, California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

Dr. Russell Moll, Director, California Sea Grant College Program, University of California, San 

Diego

Dr. Elliott Norse, President, Marine Conservation Biology Institute
xxviFRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Dr. John Ogden, Director and Professor, Florida Institute of Oceanography, University of 

South Florida

Mr. Terry O’Halloran, Hawaii Superferry, Tourism Business Solutions, LLC 

Mr. Alvin D. Osterback, Port Director, City of Unalaska/Port of Dutch Harbor

Dr. Walter Pereyra, Chairman, Arctic Storm Management Group, Inc.

Mr. Eugenio Piñeiro-Soler, Chairman, Caribbean Fishery Management Council

Dr. Robert S. Pomeroy, Sea Grant Fisheries Specialist, Connecticut Sea Grant Office, University 

of Connecticut at Avery Point

Mr. Gilbert Radonski, Fisheries Consultant, Former President, Sport Fishing Institute

Mr. James P. Ray, President, Oceanic Environmental Solutions, LLC

Captain Philip G. Renaud, USN (Ret.), Executive Director, Living Oceans Foundation

Mr. Jesús C. Ruiz, President, California Divers

Mr. Bruce A. Tackett, Manager, Legislative and Regulatory Issues, ExxonMobil Biomedical 

Sciences, Inc.

Mr. David H. Wallace, Owner, Wallace and Associates

Mr. Robert Wargo, President, North American Submarine Cable Association, Marine Liaison 

Manager, AT&T

EX OFFICIO FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES

Department of Commerce

Ms. Laura Furgione, Assistant Administrator for Program Planning and Integration, NOAA

Department of the Interior

Dr. Kaush Arha, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department 

of the Interior 

Designee: Mr. Randal Bowman, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks, 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Department of Defense/Navy

Mr. Donald Schregardus, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Environment) 

Designee: Capt. Robin Brake, Director, Marine Science, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 

Navy (Installations and Environment)
xxvii

Department of Defense/Army Corps

Mr. Joseph Wilson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division

Department of Homeland Security

Rear Admiral Wayne Justice, Assistant Commandant for Response, U.S. Coast Guard 

Designee: LCDR Chris Barrows, Commandant (CG-3RPL-4), Chief, Fisheries and Marine 

Protected Species Law Enforcement, US Coast Guard 

U.S. Agency for International Development

Ms. Jacqueline Schafer, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Economic Growth, 

Agriculture and Trade

Designee: Dr. Barbara Best, Coastal Resources and Policy Advisor, Office of Natural 

Resources Management, Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade

National Science Foundation

Ms. Roxanne Nikolaus, Ocean Sciences Division

Department of Agriculture

Mr. Merlin Bartz, Office of the Under Secretary for Conservation, Natural Resources and the 

Environment

Department of State

Ms. Margaret F. Hayes, Director of the Office of Oceans Affairs, Bureau of Oceans and 

International Environmental and Scientific Affairs

Environmental Protection Agency

Dr. Brian Melzian, Oceanographer/Project Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division

Designated Federal Official 

Ms. Lauren Wenzel, NOAA Ocean Service, National Marine Protected Area Center

PAST MEMBERS OF THE MPA FAC

MEMBERS

Dr. Tundi Agardy, Executive Director, Sound Seas

Mr. Robert Bendick, Jr., Vice President, Southeast Division, The Nature Conservancy

Dr. Michael Cruickshank, President, Marine Minerals Technology Center Associates

Ms. Carol Dinkins, Partner, Vinson and Elkins Attorneys at Law

Dr. Rodney Fujita, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense
xxviiiFRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Dr. Delores Garza, Professor, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska

Mr. Eric Gilman, Marine Ecology and Fisheries Specialist, Blue Ocean Institute

Dr. John Halsey, State Archeologist, Michigan Historical Center, Michigan Department of 

History, Arts and Libraries

Dr. Bonnie McCay, Professor, Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers University

Mr. Melvin Moon, Jr., Director, Quileute Natural Resources Department

Mr. Robert Moran, Washington Representative, American Petroleum Institute

Dr. Steven Murray, Dean, College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics and Professor of 

Biological Science, California State University at Fullerton

Mr. Michael Nussman, President and CEO, American Sportfishing Association

Mr. Lelei Peau, Deputy Director, Department of Commerce of American Samoa

Mr. R. Max Peterson, Former Executive Vice President, International Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies

Ms. Barbara Stevenson, Sellers Representative, Portland Fish Pier

Dr. Daniel Suman, Associate Professor, University of Miami

Mr. Thomas Thompson, Executive Vice President, International Council of Cruise Lines

Ms. H. Kay Williams, Member, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

Mr. Jim Woods, Sustainable Resources, Makah Fisheries Management

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS

Department of Commerce

Ms. Mary M. Glackin, Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, NOAA

Dr. Paul Doremus, Acting Assistant Administrator, Program Planning and Integration, NOAA

Department of the Interior

Ms. Kameran Onley, Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of the Deputy Secretary, U.S. 

Department of the Interior
xxix

Department of Defense/Navy

Designee: Mr. Thomas A. Egeland, Director, Environmental Planning and Conservation Policy, Office of 

the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment)

Department of Homeland Security

Designee: LT Jeff Pearson, Deputy Chief, Marine Protected Species, Commandant (CG-3RPL-4), U.S. 

Coast Guard

INTERAGENCY MARINE PROTECTED AREAS WORKING GROUP

Department of Commerce/NOAA

Mr. Joseph Uravitch (Chair), Director, National Marine Protected Areas Center

Dr. Mimi D’Iorio, Geographic Information System and Database Manager, National Marine Protected 

Areas Center

Ms. Rondi Robison, Conservation Planner, National Marine Protected Areas Center 

Ms. Kara Schwenke, Communications Coordinator, National Marine Protected Areas Center

Dr. Charles Wahle, Senior Scientist, National Marine Protected Areas Center

Ms. Lauren Wenzel, Federal Agency Coordinator, National Marine Protected Areas Center

Ms. Heather Sagar, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

Ms. Laurie McGilvray, Director, Estuarine Reserves Division (National Estuarine Research Reserves)

Mr. Brad Barr, Senior Policy Advisor, National Marine Sanctuaries Program

Mr. Mitchell Tartt, National Marine Sanctuaries Program

Department of Defense

Capt. Robin Brake, Director, Marine Science, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations 

and Environment)

Mr. Thomas A. Egeland, Director, Environmental Planning and Conservation Policy, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment)

Ms. Elizabeth Phelps, Marine Scientist, Chief of Naval Operations, Operational Environmental Readiness 

and Planning

Ms. Lynn R. Martin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources

Mr. Joseph Wilson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division 
xxxFRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Environmental Protection Agency

Dr. Brian Melzian, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental 

Effects Research laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division

Department of Homeland Security

LCDR Chris Barrows, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Fisheries and Marine Protected Species Law 

Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters (CG-3RPL-4)

LCDR Chris German, U.S. Coast Guard, US Coast Guard Liaison, NOAA, Office for Law 

Enforcement

Department of the Interior

Mr. Randal Bowman, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Parks and Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Department 

of the Interior

Ms. Elizabeth Burkhard, Marine Biologist, Minerals Management Service

Mr. Cliff McCreedy, Marine Management Specialist, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, 

National Park Service

Mr. Andrew G. Gude, Program Specialist, Refuge Marine Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Science Foundation

Ms. Roxanne Nikolaus, Ocean Sciences Division

Department of State

Ms. Margaret F. Hayes, Director of the Office of Oceans Affairs, Bureau of Oceans and International 

Environmental and Scientific Affairs

Dr. Winnie Lau, AAAS Science and Technology Fellow/Marine Science Officer, Office of Oceans 

Affairs, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs

Dr. Justin Grubich, Marine Science Officer, Office of Ocean Affairs, Bureau of Oceans and 

International Environmental and Scientific Affairs

U.S. Agency for International Development

Dr. Barbara Best, Coastal Resources and Policy Advisor, Office of Natural Resources Management, 

Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade

www.mpa.gov

FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF

MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA