Order Code RL32154
Marine Protected Areas: An Overview
Updated March 1, 2007
Jeffrey Zinn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division


Marine Protected Areas: An Overview
Summary
Some Members of Congress (among many others) are interested in considering
limiting human activity in some areas of the marine environment as one response to
mounting evidence of deteriorating conditions and declining populations of living
resources. The purposes of proposed additional limits would be to both stem the
decline and permit the rehabilitation of these environments and populations. One
method of implementing this concept is to designate areas where activity would be
limited, often referred to as marine protected areas (MPAs). Translating the MPA
approach into a national program, however, requires resolution of many economic,
ecological, and social debates.
The complexity of creating a program is compounded by controversy over the
uses that would be allowed, curtailed, or prohibited in MPAs; the purposes of a
system of MPAs; and the location, size, and distribution of MPA units. One possible
way to get past some of these complexities is to think of MPA designations as a form
of zoning in the ocean. Experiences in using the MPA designation in other countries
may be instructive. However, questions have been raised about the effectiveness of
administration and enforcement and about changes in living resources at some of
these sites.
Although the MPA designation has not been used widely in the United States,
numerous marine sites have been designated by federal and state governments for
some kind of protection. Perhaps the best-known federal sites are units in the
National Marine Sanctuary Program. The Bush Administration has supported the
MPA concept. It designated the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National
Monument in 2006 as the world’s largest MPA and has supported the activities of the
National Marine Protected Areas Center in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. It has continued most of the Clinton Administration initiatives to
coordinate protection of marine resources at designated sites, including
implementation of Executive Order 13158, issued in May 2000, which endorsed
establishing and strengthening a comprehensive system of MPAs.
Additional actions by Congress would be needed to create a system that could
be characterized as integrated or comprehensive. Recent reports from the Pew
Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy endorsed the MPA
concept. Some issues that would likely be raised in any congressional discussions
include whether new legislation is desired or needed; what the basic characteristics
of units in any MPA system should be; how MPAs might be used to resolve use
conflicts; and whether adequate funding would be authorized and appropriated to
both enforce the protected status and monitor and evaluate the ecological and social
impacts of MPAs. Earlier Congresses examined the concepts behind MPAs and
experiences with protected areas as they considered appropriations and proposals to
reauthorize coastal and marine resource protection laws. However, Congress has not
authorized new MPA-related activities, although it addressed fishing access when
it reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
near the end of the 109th Congress. The 110th Congress is likely to continue
considering these topics. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Concept of Marine Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Managed Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Lessons from Terrestrial Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Challenges to MPA Siting and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Challenges for MPA Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Fisheries and MPAs: A Driving Force and the Center of
Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
MPAs and Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Other Benefits of MPAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Current Federal Laws and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSFCMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
National Wilderness Preservation System (Wilderness Act) . . . . . . . . 25
National Park Service Organic Act, as Amended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, as Amended . . . . . . . . 26
Northwest Straits (NS) Marine Conservation Initiative Act . . . . . . . . 26
Other Protection Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Recent Administrative Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
The Clinton Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
The Bush Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
MPA Center Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Other Recent Federal Agency Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Issues for Congressional Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Marine Protected Areas: An Overview
Many coastal and offshore ecosystems continue to be degraded, and the effects
of degradation are viewed as generally expanding, despite efforts to control or limit
some of them. The causes of degradation are numerous, and can include:
! pollutants;
! runoff from land;
! coastal development;
! introduction of non-native or invasive species;
! overfishing and bycatch;
! aquaculture;
! habitat alteration; and
! rising sea level and climate change.
The public has been made aware of marine deterioration by widely publicized
degradation, including a large seasonal “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico, declining
populations of many popular fish species to levels that can not longer sustain
commercial or even recreational harvests, and deteriorating coral reefs. These
conditions appear to be expanding. Current approaches to managing resources in the
marine environment often appear to have been ineffective, prompting a search for
alternatives.
Some observers, often including scientists and environmental advocates,
recommend designating marine protected areas (MPAs) as one way (possibly one of
many) to achieve resource management and conservation goals in marine ecosystems.
From their perspective, the designation of MPAs will not be a panacea that responds
to all causes of degradation, or leads to a quick recovery for all degraded
environments, but it can be an important component for protecting and restoring the
marine environment. Policy makers are looking at how this tool has worked,
alternative ways that it can be designed, and whether and how it might be broadly
applied. Little opposition has been expressed about the overall concept of
establishing MPAs, but some of the more specific discussions about which uses
would be limited or prohibited have been more heated.
The 110th Congress is likely to take an interest in this concept as it considers
reauthorization of laws to manage coastal zone and marine protection designations,
as well as appropriations for marine programs. Additional interest may be stimulated
because the Pew Oceans Commission made the MPA concept a cornerstone of its
recommendations in its 2003 report,1 and the final U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
1 Pew Oceans Commission, America’s Living Oceans; Charting a Course for Sea Change,
Arlington, VA (June 2003).

CRS-2
report also endorsed the MPA concept in a very wide-ranging report.2 Also, the
activities of the National Marine Protected Areas Center in NOAA, such as
cataloging all marine protected areas in federal and state waters, could provide
additional information that might attract congressional interest.
Background
The most visible and widespread support for MPAs is based on the hope that
they could be an effective tool for restoring certain over-harvested fish populations.
Overfishing not only reduces populations of desirable species, but also can degrade
habitat and other components of marine ecosystems. Among the most contentious
aspects of designating and managing MPAs is deciding whether and where this tool
might be appropriate for restoring fish populations; how to manage commercial and
recreational fishing activities within and adjacent to MPAs; and whether and how
access might be controlled.
Another widely discussed issue is the desire of some to limit or prohibit offshore
energy activities, including extraction and transportation. This issue is highly visible,
because for many years Congress addressed it annually in Interior appropriations, and
because pictures of marine damage caused by oil spills from accidents around the
world, often showing birds or animals soaked in oil in beautiful coastal areas, have
had a strong impact on public opinion. In addition to limiting oil and gas activities,
other arguments supporting MPAs have also been put forward, such as protecting or
preserving outstanding natural and cultural features; promoting research and
education; resolving use conflicts; and expanding tourism. Each of these perceived
benefits has been raised in connection with one or more past proposals to add units
to the federal National Marine Sanctuary system.
Additional motivation centers on the expectation that the intensity of many uses
and the total number of uses in the marine environment will continue to grow, that
this growth will exacerbate use conflicts and further degrade ecosystems, and that
many of the effects will be concentrated in coastal and nearshore areas. Coastal and
nearshore areas are among the most productive portions of the marine environment,
are adjacent to valuable coastal property, and are the portion of the ocean most
degraded by human activities. For example, several recent proposals to locate wind
farms in offshore areas visible from prime residential coastal property raised the same
kind of “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) responses that have been raised for decades
in response to unpopular development, such as landfills, prisons, and transmission
towers, in suburban areas. Use conflicts are not new to marine areas, and similar
responses have been raised to proposed offshore energy developments in “frontier”
areas where there is no prior history of such activity during the past 25 years.3 More
generally, thinking about future activities in the marine environment raises questions
about how uses should be monitored, whether new categories of uses can be
2 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, Washington,
D.C. (September 2004).
3 The recent passage of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, opening a new area in the
eastern Gulf to oil and gas operations, provides some sense of how contentious these issues
can be.

CRS-3
effectively addressed through existing laws and programs (an issue raised by wind
farm opponents, for example), and how public and private interests should be
considered in any decision process.
The positive view of proponents of MPAs is drawn from a combination of
observations about their use by other nations, experiences with using similar
approaches to successfully protect pristine areas and restore degraded environments
in terrestrial settings, and the conclusions they may have drawn from the management
of the numerous protected marine areas that already have been recognized by the
federal government. The United States comes relatively late to this concept, as many
other countries have been establishing MPAs far longer in other parts of the world.
Success at these MPAs appears to vary widely. One explanation for this variation is
that the MPA concept has been broadly defined to include many levels and types of
protection and diverse goals. Another is that countries commit different amounts of
financial and other resources to managing and monitoring these designations. Some
scientists have cautioned that MPA proponents may be reaching conclusions about
potential accomplishments of such designations that can not be supported by
currently available information.
Little opposition has been expressed about the concept of MPAs. However,
when this concept is translated into specifics, such as where a site might be located,
or which uses and activities would be limited or prohibited, interests who would be
adversely affected by such decisions express their concerns. In the past, opposition
has been expressed by energy, fishery, and other interests toward National Marine
Sanctuary proposals that would impose limits on resource use or removal, and similar
responses can be anticipated in the future.
A 2001 National Research Council (NRC) study, the 2003 Pew Oceans
Commission report, and the 2004 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy all conclude
that MPAs could play a central role in future management of the marine
environment. The NRC study, which centered on fishery management and
restoration issues, examined roles that marine reserves and protected areas for
conservation of marine resources might play, including to conserve biological or
habitat diversity; to sustain fisheries; to complement other management efforts; to
ensure ecosystem services; and to protect cultural heritage.4 This study recognized
that there are many other possible goals for MPAs, such as recreation, education, or
research, but these received less attention as they were not a part of this study.
The Pew Oceans Commission report calls for establishing a system of marine
reserves as an important component in efforts to restore and maintain healthy marine
ecosystems. Marine reserves are very central to its recommendations. These
reserves would play critical roles in “zoning” areas of the ocean under sovereign
control based on desired patterns and intensities of uses. This report also
recommends establishing regional ocean ecosystems councils and a new independent
federal oceans agency.
4 National Research Council, Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean
Ecosystems
(Washington, DC: 2001).

CRS-4
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy also endorses MPAs, but its report is
more wide-ranging than the Pew effort, and MPAs play a much smaller role in its
recommendations. The MPA recommendations center more on coordination and the
process for designation rather than the goals and benefits that could result if a system
of MPAs were to be created.5
Numerous studies have looked at some portion of the MPAs that either are
located in a specified area or protect one subset of marine resources. For example,
the NRC study included a table reviewing the effect on fisheries at 27 sites around
the world (including one domestic site, Looe Kay National Marine Sanctuary in
Florida). It identified nine criteria used a total of 61 times to measure changes of
fisheries, and showed which of these criteria were used by analysts for each site, and
whether these analysts concluded, for each criterion, that conditions improved,
remained the same, or worsened after the designation.6 Since these are all qualitative
changes, there is no indication of either the pace or magnitude of change, or more
specifically, exactly what has changed. Nonetheless, when these criteria were
applied, improvements were reported in 47 instances, no change was reported in 12
instances, and decline or deterioration was reported in only 2 instances.
While these studies were being conducted, the federal government moved
forward on the topic of MPAs. On May 26, 2000, President Clinton issued Executive
Order (E.O.) 13158 to provide direction to the federal effort. This order created a
National Marine Protected Area Center in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) “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.”7 The Center has
been preparing an inventory of what it is calling “marine managed areas” (MMAs)
and developing criteria for a national system of MPAs. It works with a national
advisory group of recognized experts and publishes a monthly newsletter.
There does not appear to be any comprehensive worldwide catalogue of MPAs.
Inventories could be useful if they enable public agencies at all levels of government
and nongovernmental organizations to compare their experiences. Inventories also
provide a sense of the range of types of protection and a composite of protections that
are being provided. In an action in fall 2002 that received international attention in
the press, Australia announced that it had established the world’s largest reserve
around an island group near the Antarctic Circle encompassing more than 25,000
square miles. (The 2006 National Monument designation of the Northwest Hawaiian
Islands by the Bush Administration is slightly larger.) Within the designation,
Australia stated that it intends to further restrict fishing activity while strengthening
surveillance and enforcement efforts.
5 For additional background on the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans
Commission, see CRS Report RL33603, Ocean Commissions: Ocean Policy Review and
Outlook
, by Harold F. Upton, John R. Justus, and Eugene H. Buck.
6 National Research Council, pp. 85-87.
7 For information on the activities of this center, go to [http://www.mpa.gov].

CRS-5
Many proponents of protecting marine areas look for useful lessons from similar
experiences in terrestrial settings. The national debate over protection of natural
resources on land has a long, rich, and varied history, one that has been tied to public
ownership and a complex array of federal and state resource protection activities and
programs. The debate over marine areas, by contrast, started more recently and has
generally been less intense. In both marine and land areas, debate continues over
whether enough of the “right” areas are being protected, and exactly how much of
which resource uses should be allowed in those areas. Many of the large
environmental organizations, which have been very active in protecting terrestrial
areas, are increasingly showing a similar interest in marine areas.8 Scientists,
environmentalists, resource users, and others examine these questions through very
different perspectives and reach very different conclusions. These debates may be
easier to resolve for marine areas, where uses are more dispersed, less intense, and
do not involve private ownership of land and rarely involve private control of
resources, except in a few coastal areas.
The Concept of Marine Protected Areas
Overview. MPAs have been proposed to control resource uses in specified
regions of the ocean for any of three general purposes. These proposals are being
made more frequently and reflect greater awareness and knowledge about how MPA
designations can be more effective. One purpose is to limit uses that are
incompatible with protecting identified values, usually ecological or environmental.
A second purpose is to create a setting where degraded habitats and reduced
populations have the opportunity to restore themselves. A third purpose is to
preserve healthy marine habitats and ecosystems from degradation by preventing
overuse. The benefit most often cited by proponents of MPAs is protection and
restoration of ecosystems generally, and more specifically, valued fish populations.
Additional benefits may include new educational and recreational opportunities,
expanded tourism, protection of cultural resources (shipwrecks, for example), and
contributions to basic science and to improved environmental conditions.
MPAs have been defined in many ways. Definitions usually include three
criteria: (1) geographically defined and bounded places; (2) approaches that manage
systems rather than individual resources or species; and (3) approaches that take a
long-term perspective on resource management. The definition currently being used
in this country, found in Section 2 of E.O. 13158 on Marine Protected Areas, defines
MPAs 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 MPA Center in NOAA
is using this definition as it coordinates and leads federal efforts, and one aspect of
8 See, for example: Natural Resources Defense Council, Keeping Oceans Wild: How Marine
Reserves Protect Our Living Seas
(New York City: 2001), 29 pp., World Wildlife Fund,
Fully-Protected Marine Reserves: A Guide (Washington, D.C.: 2000), 131 pp., or The
Conservation Law Foundation, Marine Ecosystem Conservation for New England and
Maritime Canada: A Science-Based Approach for Identifying Priority Areas for
Conservation
(Boston: 2006), 18 pp.

CRS-6
its draft framework for an MPA national system, currently undergoing public review,
is to examine the definition of some key terms.
The E.O. 13158 definition may have been drawn, in part, from what is probably
the most widely used definition in the world, developed by the World Conservation
Union (IUCN) about a decade ago. It stated that an MPA is “[a]n area of intertidal
or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna,
historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective
means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment.”9 Each designated area
must be a minimum of 1,000 hectares. This definition is then applied to distinct
categories of areas that reflect a wide range of possible management objectives. The
IUCN specifies that sites meet this definition only when at least three-quarters of a
designated MPA is managed for the primary category and management of the
remaining area is not in conflict. The categories are as follows:
Category 1: Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area, managed mainly for
science or wilderness protection
Category 1a: Strict nature reserve managed mainly for science
Category 1b: Strict nature reserve managed mainly for
wilderness protection
Category 2: National Park; protected and managed mainly for ecosystem
protection and recreation
Category 3: National Monument; managed mainly for conservation of
specific natural features
Category 4: Habitat Species Management Area; managed mainly for
conservation through management intervention
Category 5: Protected Landscape/Seascape; managed mainly for
landscape/seascape conservation and recreation
Category 6: Managed Resource Protected Area; managed mainly for the
sustainable use of natural ecosystems
As one becomes more specific about possible goals and objectives for an MPA,
the question of how MPAs will be defined quickly grows complex. They could
involve state and federal jurisdiction, each with different goals and responsibilities.
They could emphasize either some species (perhaps the commercially most valuable
or the rarest ones) over others, or the general health of the entire ecosystem over
maximizing the benefits to specified individual components. Among the questions
currently receiving the most attention are: (1) will certain activities or uses be
automatically prohibited at all places designated as MPAs, such as automatically
closing them to all extractive activities, or will a list of permitted and prohibited
activities be developed for each designated area or category of areas; and (2) will
environmental conditions or resource uses beyond the boundaries of MPAs be
managed to limit adverse effects on resources within MPAs?
Definitions are one way to convey expectations about the program. For
example, one could conclude that most of the Gulf of Maine is protected by an
9 International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN).
Guidelines for Protected Are Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland. 1994.

CRS-7
impressive web of designated areas protected for a variety of reasons. However, a
closer examination shows that most of these designations protect a single commercial
fish species or limit a specified activity such as exploration for oil and gas, and the
composite of protection is less than it might have seemed on initial inspection.10
Some will want MPAs to be based on an inclusive definition to encompass
designations where protections are limited to a few resources or uses, while others
will want it to only apply to sites where many resources are strictly protected.
Between these two possibilities are many alternative intermediate approaches. This
debate over definition continues because the MPA concept has been used in many
different ways. Several narrower terms are being used to describe types of places that
provide high levels of protection, and they also have been used with different
meanings. These places might also be called MPAs, although they are often
expressed as if they were alternatives to MPAs. These terms include:
! marine reserve, where uses that remove resources are generally
prohibited (these areas may also be called ecological reserves);
! ocean wilderness, like the terrestrial concept for wilderness areas on
public lands where no alterations or activities that leave lasting
impacts are permitted, but low-impact recreational activities may be
permitted;
! fully protected marine area, generally a “no-take” area where a wide
variety of extractive and consumptive uses/activities are prohibited;
! national marine sanctuary, a specific designation created in
legislation more than 30 years ago and defined in regulations to
include areas of special national significance due to resources or
human use values that are designated to ensure conservation and
management;
! marine managed area, managing for multiple objectives, where
protection is not the only, and may not even be the prime, objective;
and
! marine park, like the terrestrial concept for a park.
Managed Areas. NOAA’s MPA Center is in the process of building a
domestic inventory of marine managed areas (MMAs) that it will then use as a basis
for developing the inventory of MPAs that is called for in E.O. 13158. The definition
of MPA is likely to be somewhat narrower, so not all MMAs are likely to meet the
criteria that will be developed to designate MPAs. According to an August 2006
press release, there are more than 1,500 MMAs in the United States. A majority of
the sites are established and managed by states. Of the federally controlled sites, 162
are units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, administered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Sites under NOAA jurisdiction include the 14 designated marine
sanctuaries, 36 sites protected by the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the 25
units of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, which are located in state
waters and managed by states. About 90% of the 1,500 sites permit access and
10 This may be one of the reasons why the Conservation Law Foundation and World
Wildlife Fund Canada joined together to prepare their report on marine ecosystem
conservation in these waters, cited in footnote 8.

CRS-8
multiple use, including fishing. Most are permanent, providing protection throughout
the year, and most have been established since 1970.11
This survey is the most recent and comprehensive inventory effort. An earlier
inventory, assembled by staff at NOAA in 1998, looked at what portion of the marine
environment in federal and state waters was protected. It identified 390 sites totaling
almost 240,000 square miles protected in some fashion by federal agencies and 736
sites totaling 4,000 square miles protected by states (as well as 128 sites totaling
more than 300 square miles protected by non-governmental organizations).12 The
overall area may seem large (it is about equal to Oregon), but these areas encompass
only about 6% of the ocean floor that is within 200 miles of all states and territories,
known as the Exclusive Economic Zone.13 Since 1998, additional marine areas have
been protected in some fashion, and not always by the public sector. For example,
in October 2002, an oyster company reportedly donated almost 18 square miles
(11,500 acres) under water in Great South Bay along the south shore of Long Island
to The Nature Conservancy to protect marine ecosystems.
The places included in these inventories are concentrated in coastal and
nearshore waters, which are ecologically among the most productive and diverse
marine environments and are sites of the most concentrated and intensive uses and
alterations. Therefore, protection efforts (including efforts to designate MPAs) also
have been concentrated in these same areas. Almost all coastal states have been
addressing the pressures in or affecting state waters for many years, generally using
their federally approved and funded coastal zone programs. A few states emphasize
the marine side of their coastal zone, as management of ocean resources is one of the
eight purposes for which states can receive “enhancement grants” under this program.
However, most state coastal management programs generally concentrate their efforts
on the land and shore side of the coastal interface.
An MPA designation may not have to mean that the entire site is administered
by one set of rules. Many proponents have advocated a zoning approach, subdividing
a site into subunits with different levels of protection, or protection for different
purposes. Zoning would allow managing agencies to achieve multiple policy
objectives. Subdividing sites is recognized in the IUCN definition, discussed above,
through the structure of the categories. Zoning of a protected marine area to provide
different levels of protection was probably first implemented by the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority in Australia in the early 1980s, and has more recently
been adopted elsewhere, such as the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
11 Information on the inventory is at [http://www.mpa.gov/helpful_resources/inventory].
12 Surveys are also being done at the state and other levels. For example, an inventory for
Alaska was recently published, generally using the National MPA Center’s criteria. David
Witherell and Doug Woodby, “Application of Marine Protected Areas for Sustainable
Production and Marine Biodiversity off Alaska,” Marine Fisheries Review, v. 67, no. 1,
2005, pp. 1-27.
13 By contrast, the total dry land area of the states and territories is about 3.6 million square
miles, and about 29% of that total or more than a quarter, about 1.0 million square miles, is
protected in some fashion by a public entity.

CRS-9
Subdividing designated areas may be especially useful use pressures and activities
are most concentrated.
The notion of zoning is well-developed on land, but there is little experience
with what adjustments might be needed to apply it effectively in an aquatic
environment. One reason is that this concept is at odds with the traditional view that
the ocean is “free to all” and “boundless,” able to accommodate all uses in its vast
expanses. This view, which was more widely accepted when technology to gain
access to deep water resources was limited and the deep ocean was characterized as
a vast and largely unknown “ocean desert,” has contributed to widespread support for
treating the ocean as common property beyond territorial boundaries. In these
offshore areas, the ocean has no owners and is considered to be managed as a public
trust to benefit humanity.
In recent years, however, zoning has been getting more attention.14 This
attention is a response to technological advances that permit greater access and more
uses of the marine environment, including the water column, ocean floor, and
subsurface resources. Nations have become more aware of the need to discuss how
to manage uses that affect common property and open access resources, and how to
distribute the benefits from exploiting those resources, and zoning is one component
of these discussions. At the same time, scientific research is developing a more
accurate accounting of baseline conditions in the marine environment and effects of
technologies on these conditions. Policies that recognize these finite qualities are
more likely to recognize the benefits of establishing MPAs.
Most coastal nations, including the United States, already have taken unilateral
actions to assert jurisdiction over resources within 200 miles of their coasts. The
United States established a 200-mile fishery conservation zone in the Fishery
Conservation and Management Act in 1976 (FCMA), and created eight Regional
Fishery Management Councils to develop management plans for those fisheries that
are determined to require active federal management. This zone was superceded by
the declaration of an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) through presidential
proclamation in March 1983 (Presidential Proclamation 5030). The EEZ applies to
a broader range of resources and uses. In 1996 amendments to the FCMA, Congress
authorized the Councils to designate and manage essential fish habitat. Some view
actions by the Councils implementing this amendment as a possible basis for MPA
designations.
Lessons from Terrestrial Experiences. Discussion of the MPA concept
may benefit by drawing analogies with comparable terrestrial resource protection
efforts, both to explain this concept in terms that more individuals are more familiar
with and to recognize differences between aquatic and terrestrial environments.
Terrestrial protection efforts have a longer and richer (and very contentious) history,
can be directly observed, and are occurring at many more sites. The center of debate
over these efforts has been tied to public land ownership. Frequent topics of debate
include whether enough (or too much) and the “right” areas are being protected, and
14 Garry Russ and Dirk Zeller, “From Mare Liberum to Mare Reservarum,” Marine Policy,
v. 27 (2003): 75-78.

CRS-10
whether the desired level and type of protection is being provided using parks,
refuges, and the many other available designation options.
In both terrestrial and marine settings, scientists, environmentalists, developers,
users, and others examine the question of resource protection from different
perspectives, which lead most individuals in each group to reach vastly different
conclusions. To simplify, many ecologists see the greatest benefits when large and
interconnected areas are protected; environmentalists generally would like to protect
large areas and provide more stringent levels of protection, including additional
limits on access to those areas; and many local residents and economic interests
would like protected areas to be more limited and managed to permit more uses that
seem compatible.
One terrestrial designation is “wilderness,” and some have equated MPAs to the
wilderness concept. The wilderness designation is applied by Congress only on
federally owned land where there is little sign of human alteration, and often in
places where there is little potential for large-scale activity; nonetheless, the National
Wilderness Preservation System encompasses more than 100 million acres of federal
land.15 Others appear to think of MPAs as more like national parks or wildlife
refuges, where some compatible uses are allowed and higher levels of human use are
expected. These are but two of many federal approaches to managing resources on
federal lands.16 A discussion of alternative approaches in terrestrial situations also
may be instructive in efforts to develop a definition of MPAs.
The rationale behind designating sites in both aquatic and terrestrial settings are
similar: to protect resources from environmental degradation or overuse; to provide
areas where specific biological resources can restore themselves (either with active
intervention, or by leaving them alone); to conserve biological diversity; and to
allocate resource access and use among diverse interests and users. Factors in marine
systems that indicate the declining quality of ocean resources — that designations,
such as MPAs, would seek to reverse — include water quality degradation, bottom
alteration, coral reef die-off, and fish and marine mammal population declines;
similar factors, including deteriorating air and water quality and declining animal
populations, have been used to measure damage or deterioration and to justify a need
for increased protection in terrestrial locations.
Knowledge about terrestrial and marine environments is not uniform. In
terrestrial environments, far more is known about temperate areas than about the less
accessible desert, polar, tropical, and alpine sites. In marine locations, more is
known about shallow and nearshore areas than about deeper or more distant sites.
In general, much more is known about terrestrial than marine sites. For example,
discoveries of new mammals on land are now very rare while new fish species are
being discovered every year, and there have been no discoveries on land that compare
with the discovery of undersea heated vents and entire ecosystems — different from
15 See CRS Report RL31447, Wilderness: Overview and Statistics, by Ross W. Gorte.
16 For an overview of federal land management, see CRS Report RL32393, Federal Land
Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management
, coordinated by
Carol Hardy Vincent.

CRS-11
any other known living systems — that have evolved in those environments, which
occurred only about 35 years ago.
Many terrestrial analogies do not appear to transfer smoothly to marine
situations because of the substantial differences between marine and terrestrial
environments. Differences center on the ability to observe change and the precision
with which conditions can be measured, the ability to locate and administer precise
boundaries, questions of ownership and control, and harvesting techniques and
technologies. Changes in the marine environment are much more difficult to observe
and measure with precision, and more expensive to monitor. The challenge of
observation means that much less is known about the basic components of the marine
environment, especially in deeper waters, and the available information is less
complete.
In terrestrial settings, boundaries are easy to precisely locate, can be marked in
many effect ways, and can be efficiently administered. Scientists generally have
much better knowledge about where boundaries should be placed to benefit species
and ecosystems, and about the implications of boundaries for biological resources in
terrestrial locations. A boundary on land, such as a fence, can also be an effective
barrier that helps keep undesirable or incompatible elements out and restrains
desirable elements. In the ocean, more species, as well as other elements of the
marine environment, move freely over large distances, and physical impediments to
passage are less common. The concept of installing and monitoring a barrier to limit
movement in the water column or along the ocean floor is not a practical
management tool in most circumstances, and the idea of precise lines as boundaries
is not so useful except in locations where there is a distinct physical change, such as
the edge of a submarine canyon.
Ownership and control are viewed differently in marine areas, where there is
little private ownership, although sections of land, especially in nearshore areas, may
be leased. Within the territorial sea (within 12 miles of the coast line), the federal
government and states manage the water column, ocean floor, and subsurface. From
the outer edge of the territorial sea to 200 miles, an area known as the EEZ,
governments can assert some jurisdiction. Governments also protect environmental
quality, and lease the surface and subsurface for numerous activities, most notably
oil and gas extraction and fish harvesting. Beyond the territorial sea, the long-
accepted tenet that all nations should have access to the ocean and its resources, and
that resources should be managed for the benefit of humanity, remains accepted more
widely, although how to translate this broad concept into actual management efforts
has proven elusive.
Resources are harvested differently in terrestrial and marine environments. In
terrestrial environments, animals raised for human consumption live in controlled
conditions, are often very densely concentrated, and are raised and harvested under
precise parameters. On the seas, by contrast, harvesting these resources is far less
selective and far less efficient. Aquaculture attempts to replicate many of the
economic benefits of terrestrial farming, but only has worked for a few species, and
only under certain physical and economic circumstances. Harvesting in marine
environments can result in significant bycatch of non-targeted species as well as
alteration of the ocean floor. On the other hand, terrestrial harvesting is based on

CRS-12
dense concentrations of identical animals, be they fish, fowl, or livestock, which
raises concerns about environmental quality and animal rights that do not occur
generally in the marine environment. Terrestrial analogies to ocean harvesting, while
imprecise, might be the equivalent of harvesting free ranging animals, such as deer
or elk.
A recognition of major differences, such as the ones discussed above, that make
drawing analogies for how to manage marine resources environments from terrestrial
experiences difficult leads to several general observations. One observation is that
applying the concept of adaptive management, which is currently favored in many
terrestrial systems where resource management efforts are frequently adjusted as new
information becomes available, will be more difficult to administer in the marine
environment because of the general lack of information and the cost and difficulty
of obtaining information. This more flexible approach to resource management,
which is viewed by many scientists and other experts as more effective and efficient
than traditional approaches, may not be a feasible option in many marine settings.
A second observation is that some might conclude that management of marine
resources should incorporate a greater margin for error to offset less precise
knowledge about existing and changing conditions, and less ability to observe and
measure change.
Even with all these differences between these two types of environments,
terrestrial experience in resource management may be instructive in some instances.
For example, mobility is an extremely important consideration when attempting to
protect either migratory bird species or migratory fish species. Efforts by scientists
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to identify and protect critical sites along
routes of travel that have resulted in larger populations of migratory bird species may
offer some useful lessons for deciding where protected marine sites should be
located.
When the differences are considered in composite, management in marine
environments may center on leaving resources alone rather than either initiating
proactive actions, such as improving habitats or migratory corridors, or very precise
management regimes that require extensive monitoring. However, other differences
may make management decisions easier to resolve in the marine environment, where
uses are more dispersed, less intense, and do not involve private ownership. When
considering the MPA concept, questions must be answered that are similar to the
debate about the goals for terrestrial protection and restoration of biological
resources, including the number and size of units, the degree of ecological or physical
representation, the desirable portion of the total area that should be protected, how
to identify and respond to incompatible or undesirable uses, and how to measure
actual changes over time.
Challenges to MPA Siting and Design. Translating the concept of MPAs
into a viable program would present multiple challenges. Many of these can be
documented by tracking the experiences and issues addressed at both NOAA’s MPA
Center and at other organizations around the world charged with MPA-related
responsibilities, or by reviewing the types of controversies that have been raised
when marine sanctuaries have been proposed. An initial set of challenges centers on

CRS-13
selection of sites. The approach to establishing MPAs often reflects the answers to
several questions.
! What criteria (e.g., representative habitats, ecological integrity,
social acceptability, degree of degradation, diversity of species,
presence of endangered species) should determine MPA locations,
sizes, and boundaries?
! Should MPA locations be selected using a single or several different
approaches (choices include representative or diversity approach,
hotspot approach, social acceptability approach, threat-based
approach, opportunistic approach, and degradation/recovery
approach)?
! Should particular species or ecosystems be protected? If protection
is based on ecosystems, can only portions be protected, both because
it is almost impossible to protect an entire ecosystem in such a
dynamic setting, and because migratory species move across many
ecosystems?
! Should boundaries of an MPA be decided based on geographic areas
or on ecosystems, which are often fragmented? If an MPA is
adjacent to the coast, could it also include waterways that drain into
it or associated terrestrial areas?
! Should sites that are already protected under other designations with
purposes that are similar to MPAs be given a higher priority to
receive an MPA designation, or lower since they are already
protected?
These challenges are only a fraction of the siting issues. Many of the areas that
are likely to be considered for MPAs already have had extensive human use, and
effects of these uses is frequently a source of pressure for designation. In these
places, the management goal is typically restoration, which may require efforts
beyond the mere act of site designation, although even considering a designation
proposal can be controversial. As noted above, proposals to designate units under
the federal National Marine Sanctuaries Program have generated controversy as
interests who would have their uses curtailed by the designation oppose it either
because they believe they are not the cause of problems or because they state that
they can adopt acceptable practices that would permit them to continue using
resources within the site. The designation process, which has lasted multiple years
in some cases, has provided ample opportunity for protracted debates among all
interests, or stakeholders, and some proposals have been rejected because of an
inability to resolve these conflicts.
A hallmark of the marine sanctuary designation process (and many other
processes that could lead to protecting natural resources) has been a perception of
inequities among the various stakeholders. This perception of inequities is often
manifested in a belief that socio-economic harm will be concentrated locally, and that
the broader social good is being provided at the expense of local stakeholders and
their opportunity to earn a livelihood. In marine areas, this perception is amplified
for those who believe that either marine resources are common property and the
government should not intervene to complicate individual decisions about levels and
characteristics of use, or when traditional uses of long standing will be curtailed.

CRS-14
Taking a different perspective based on a view that federal intervention can have
benefits, at least one attorney has argued that the 1906 Antiquities Act, which allows
the President to unilaterally declare locations of scientific or historical interest as
national monuments, should be used to designate protected areas in the marine
environment expeditiously. This observer notes that even using this law, success will
still require “negotiation, education, and consensus-building” including congressional
funding commitments and involvement of local committees representing interested
and affected parties.17 Use of this act would likely raise the same type of objectives
that have been voiced in the past over unilateral action without the opportunity for
public input and debate.18 However, when the Bush Administration used it in 2006
to create the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument, including
the proposal to phase out commercial fishing in five years, there was little public
outcry.
The success or failure of MPA designations is far more likely to reflect
socioeconomic, cultural, and political factors than biological considerations.
Perceptions are likely to be positive for stakeholders (including resource users), if
designations are viewed as based on: a fair, equitable, and transparent process for
establishing and managing sites; clearly stated goals for the site; and expanding
benefits while containing costs. Accurate discussion of these factors is difficult for
sites in marine environments, where the inability to observe and measure change
means that competing views about conditions are hard to resolve and expensive to
verify. In one example, a study compared a successful National Marine Sanctuary
designation in American Samoa with an unsuccessful one in Puerto Rico, and
attributed much of the difference in outcomes to the attention given to local cultural,
social, and economic circumstances and institutions. One such difference was that
success required retaining a local voice in management decisions.19
Measuring economic changes and considerations in marine areas is also
complex. This complexity is apparent in the discussion of the economics of a reserve
for fisheries in the NRC report, which examines six topics: yield, displacement of
activity, enforcement, management, economic activity, and non-market values.20
Many of the costs that would result from establishing an MPA can be measured in
market terms; fishermen, for example, will have increased costs if they have to travel
greater distances and spend more time to reach new fishing grounds. But many of
the benefits of taking such action are measured in non-market terms, such as larger
populations of various species and improved habitat quality that attract divers to one
location over another, or a research site that will not be altered by human activity.
In addition, there may be historical and cultural benefits, such as from the presence
17 Jeff Brax, “Zoning the Ocean: Using the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the
Antiquities Act to Establish Marine Protection Areas and Marine Reserves in America,”
Ecology Law Quarterly, v. 29, no. 1 (2002): 71-129.
18 See CRS Report RS20902, National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
19 S. J. Fiske, “Sociocultural Aspects of Establishing Marine Protected Areas,” Ocean and
Coastal Management
, v. 17, no. 1 (1992): 25-46.
20 National Research Council, p.59.

CRS-15
of shipwrecks or other artifacts, that attract interest (and tourists), but the value is
difficult to measure directly.
Analysis of the economics must also assess spillover effects, where some
portion of populations within the reserve migrate into surrounding waters where they
can be harvested. These effects may be substantial, but also may be difficult to
account for. For fishermen, these effects may involve some combination of higher
pressure to harvest species in nearby areas (a cost) with larger overall catch or larger
fish on average because of the sanctuary provided by the designated site (a benefit).
Challenges for MPA Management. A continuum of possible management
options in MPAs is available, as mentioned earlier, from no or few restrictions on
access or uses to prohibiting all access and potential uses, reflecting different visions
for goals and objectives of the MPA (or system of MPAs). In addition, different
parts of the same MPA could be managed for different levels or types of uses, or
there could be different types of designations within a system, as reflected in the
IUCN categories listed earlier. Use of the term MPA could encompass a wide
assortment of protections applied to marine and coastal resources that may be
exercised over a specified area. Thus, examples of MPAs could range from a defined
area of the Chesapeake Bay that has limits on the number of commercial crab pots
used, to a state park in California that restricts public access at coastal beaches and
waters, to a Marine Sanctuary that prohibits anchoring on coral reefs, or the
definition could exclude one or all of these types of protections.
Choosing which mechanism will be used to manage human activities so that the
appropriate level of protection is provided can generate numerous contentious
questions. One set of these management questions centers on what uses should be
permitted and which ones should be prohibited. For economic endeavors, like
commercial fishing, there are many options to control or limit effort, and to harvest
the resource, and these considerations vary widely among the many species that are
commercially harvested. How should permitted activities within MPAs be regulated;
should some uses be allowed under some but not all circumstances; and should
access be limited under certain circumstances? Should permitted activities and uses
in these areas change seasonally or in some other cycle? What management activities
(e.g., enforcement, research, monitoring, restoration, education) are necessary at
MPAs, and is there a distinction between what is minimally necessary for the site to
function and the level of effort that would be desirable? With proper management,
certain areas within MPAs might be designated for specific activities, with the
managing agency having the authority to curtail or halt activities whenever necessary.
Many supporters of MPAs view this designation as a way to protect the integrity
of an entire marine ecosystem in addition to protecting individual species or
components. This may be based on the belief that more fractured approaches to
dealing with resource management specie by specie or component by component
have been ineffective. Some proponents of a system of MPAs believe that it will
only be effective if it includes representative areas encompassing all important
habitats in a biogeographic region. This approach is already being applied to the
National Estuarine Research Reserve System, a component of the Coastal Zone
Management Program. These proponents may advocate that consumptive
exploitation be prohibited (i.e., no-take areas) throughout each MPA in a system, or

CRS-16
only in designated portions of especially high value. These proponents claim that no-
take areas are vital for baseline and comparative studies, and would play an important
role in conservation and management of rare or commercially important species.
Creation of MPAs, like public designation of almost any area in recognition of
socially valuable resources, raises three broad sets of management issues where
stakeholders may have very different expectations. One set of management issues
centers on how these expectations might be met, especially since they may not always
be compatible, and may even be mutually exclusive. These expectations are likely
to be expressed, in part, through participation in the development and implementation
of a management plan that would protect the site’s resource values. Stakeholders
who must comply with the provisions of a plan will express views about
reasonableness, enforcement, costs and benefits, and the like. Achieving compliance
with a plan from users can be a challenge if input from all members of that
community had not been solicited in developing the MPA. Dissatisfaction from key
members can be a critical factor in eroding confidence in a management authority.
A second set of management issues revolve around what the managing agency
will be trying to accomplish in each site, as well as any system of sites. Questions
related to balancing resource use and conservation are vital because marine natural
resources and their living space are sought by many different users for many different
purposes. Decisions will also need to be made about whether MPAs should primarily
protect pristine sites or restore damaged sites, or do both. Restoration of specific
species or entire ecosystems could be a major activity at MPAs. Restoration could
be primarily passive, as managers allow natural processes to occur at their own rates
and patterns, or managers could actively work to create a desired ecosystem or an
optimum environment for preferred species. An example of active restoration is
efforts to increase waterfowl populations at many units of the wildlife refuge system,
which are referred to as “duck factories” by some. If restoration is a major activity,
it usually requires that the source of damage be identified and addressed.
Sufficient staff and financial resources will need to be committed for MPAs to
be successful. A lack of resources would make it far more difficult for MPAs to
achieve their objectives, and could result in what are referred to as “paper parks,”
which can be little more than designations on a map. Among the problems that have
occurred in some designated areas are a lack of financial and technical resources, lack
of a trained staff, lack of enforcement, and lack of needed management information.
Any of these deficiencies can lead to insufficient capacity to meet objectives. If the
gap between what defines success and what can be done becomes too great, potential
users may not respect the designation and advocates of the designation may look for
other vehicles that will provide the levels and types of protection they are seeking.
It is unclear whether MPAs would be established with either performance standards
to be met, or goals around which they are managed, and if there will be any penalties
if standards are not attained or goals are not met. In locations where competing users
can apply strong pressure, or there are many users, administrative costs could be
especially high.
A third set of management issues revolve around monitoring and enforcement.
The managing agency will need a legal mandate and financial and other resources to
perform these functions. Two possible purposes of monitoring could be to gather the

CRS-17
information necessary to be made aware of any threat that is incompatible with the
MPA or its resources, and to document changes that are occurring over time. An
agency will need to be made responsible for enforcement. The primary enforcement
agency in marine areas has been the Coast Guard. If it is assigned this additional
responsibility, what priority will it be given in the post 9/11 world? Enforcement
actions being taken in protected marine areas currently have been generally receiving
little publicity.21 Enforcement of management rules would be easier and perhaps less
expensive if there is strong community support for an MPA, and especially if
stakeholders are supportive enough to make enforcement largely self-policing.22 In
addition to support by stakeholders, surveillance and enforcement efforts require the
cooperation and coordination of many agencies. These and related issues and
challenges are addressed in a recent MPA Center report.23
These three broad areas of management issues must be viewed in the context of
knowledge about the marine environment. Managing these resources poses
significant scientific and economic challenges because often little is known about
specific physical conditions in the water column and on the ocean floor, the life
histories of many species, and the complex interactions between biotic resources.
Monitoring uses and changing resource conditions, and enforcing limits on various
uses will be more expensive and time consuming in marine areas than it would be on
land. Effective administration will require adequate human and financial resources,
and equipment, such as boats and expensive electronic gear. An important aspect of
administration will be to continue to measure the costs and benefits of a designation
after it is established, and to educate stakeholders about these values.
Knowing whether an MPA system has been successful will depend on an ability
to evaluate accomplishments. Many scientists and proponents of MPAs have
discussed alternative approaches for evaluation. The IUCN is preparing a guidebook
that will provide a framework to evaluate MPA accomplishments. The method in the
guidebook, which is still in draft and is being field-tested, considers biophysical
goals, such as sustainable fisheries and conserving species and habitat, and socio-
economic goals, such as job opportunities, non-market benefits, and awareness and
knowledge. Other researchers are considering alternative approaches.24
Fisheries and MPAs: A Driving Force and the Center of
Controversy. The role that MPAs might play in fisheries management is at the
21 An example of enforcement is in a press release issued by the Florida Keys NMS on
March 14, 2002, noting that NOAA had levied fines totaling $112,000 against eight vessels
for shrimping or fishing in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. Such announcements,
however, have been uncommon.
22 In New Zealand, a private company has been involved in teaching commercial fishermen
their obligations and responsibilities for maintaining and complying with environmental law,
seeking to teach responsible compliance as an alternative to enforcing regulations on an
industry.
23 National Marine Protected Areas Center, Enforcing U.S. Marine Protected Areas:
Synthesis Report
(Washington, DC: 2005), 67 p.
24 See, for example, Jacqueline Alder, et. al., “A Method for Evaluating Marine Protected
Area Management,” Coastal Management, v. 30, no. 2 (2002): 121-131.

CRS-18
heart of many discussions, and continues to be vociferously debated. How to manage
commercial and recreational fishing within and adjacent to the MPA is contentious
both as a general topic and when specific sites and specific fisheries are being
considered. The National Research Council was asked to address relationships
between fisheries and protected areas in its study. Part of the current debate is over
who benefits and who is harmed when access is limited to valuable fishery resources.
Not surprisingly, some of the strongest opposition to MPAs and questions about any
limits on access is raised by those fishing interests, who could be adversely affected
by a designation. The strongest and most vocal support often is based on the
potential role for MPAs in protecting and restoring fishery populations by limiting
the efforts of commercial and recreational fishermen.
Over-exploitation of resources can degrade habitat and reduce resource
abundance. The degree to which commercially valuable fishing stocks have been
overused, leading to drastic reductions in populations, has been widely publicized for
specific stocks. Early in 2003, a study concluded that many of the world’s major fish
stocks had fallen to 10% of their historic levels.25 This study concluded that the
comprehensiveness and magnitude of loss is higher than earlier studies had
concluded.
Supporters of MPAs see the potential for many benefits. As the fisheries issue
is so central to the MPA debate, both the Pew Oceans Commission and the National
Research Council studies focused on the benefits to fish populations of MPAs.26 The
benefits of MPAs identified in these studies include:
! protecting individual species and biodiversity more generally within
MPA boundaries;
! managing commercial fishery populations by controlling harvest
rates and protecting locations where populations congregate at
critical points in their life cycles, such as where they spawn;
! reducing damage to habitat;
! protecting rare, threatened or endangered species;
! preserving or restoring the viability of representative habitats, and
! protecting portions of larger ecosystems from over-harvesting.27
Fishing presents complicated scientific, social, and economic questions, and
those complications are amplified by the political strength of the recreational and
commercial communities in marine management deliberations. The central question
is whether fishing will be allowed, limited, or prohibited. Will decisions on fishing
be made on site-by-site considerations, or will there be a single policy that applies to
25 Ransom Myers and Boris Worm, “Rapid Worldwide Depletion of Predatory Fish
Communities,” Nature, v. 423 (May 15, 2003): 280-281.
26 The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, by contrast, has a single general recommendation
on protecting key fisheries habitat, and does not identify the MPA concept specifically in
that recommendation.
27 Stephan R. Palumbi, Marine Reserves: A Tool for Ecosystem Management and
Conservation
, prepared for the Pew Oceans Commission (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University, 2002), 44 pp.

CRS-19
all units of a system? If fishing is to be allowed, several other questions may need
to be addressed, including what differences, if any, should be made in regulating
commercial versus recreational fishing; whether certain fishing techniques should be
limited or prohibited because they are destructive to aspects of the marine
environment; whether fishing should be limited to certain seasons or to a certain
number of participants; and understanding the full range of the effects of an MPA on
the economic, social, and cultural well-being of nearby coastal communities.
For all the discussion of how protected areas will benefit fisheries, there remain
large uncertainties, especially about what exactly the effects might be on the size and
characteristics of fish populations and on ecosystem components more generally as
a result of a designation. Two common presumptions are that fish will grow larger
if they remain in the protected area, and some are likely to stray into adjacent
unprotected areas at times. Ranges of fish species vary widely, but for many species,
this might be analogous to managing bison herds on federal lands in the West that
sometimes wander onto adjoining private lands; in that case, unlike fisheries, close
monitoring is based on a concern that bison may transfer disease to cattle herds.
Protected habitat in designated areas may not work equally well for all marine
animals, as the modified system may favor a new grouping of species, and returning
the site to its former condition will not help some species. Beyond the science, there
are also questions about how this concept can be integrated with other resource
management tools, such as fisheries management plans and fishery regulations.
A lack of coordination between protected site management and fishery
management, as reportedly has occurred between the National Marine Sanctuary
Program and NOAA Fisheries at some designated sanctuaries, remains a potential
problem that will likely resurface, unless specifically addressed. Better coordination
between these units of NOAA could result in MPAs being designed with fisheries
and other marine resource uses in mind. With this kind of coordination, the fisheries
community might be better able to work with other interests who are concerned about
how a designation might restrict various activities, including anchoring vessels;
discharging wastes, pollutants, pesticides, fertilizers, and other materials into waters;
protecting endangered species and marine mammals; permitting mariculture
operations; collecting specimens; and diving, boating, and wading for recreation.
Balancing the needs of conservation with the social, economic, and environmental
interests of current users as well as the rights and opportunities of future generations
is the essence of resource management. Even if all these topics are addressed,
however, elements within the fisheries community may still disagree with the final
decision if other values are protected at the expense of fisheries.
Critics suggest a dire situation has resulted from the current approach to fishery
management, believing it has failed to protect many of the most valuable and popular
populations from overfishing and depletion. While some view MPAs as a possible
new tool for fishery managers to protect breeding stock and nursery areas, others
caution that MPAs should not be viewed as a “quick fix” to the composite of
activities that has resulted in overfishing.
The possibility of adopting MPAs as an approach to managing the marine
environment and proposals for MPA-type designations fuel the debate over
conflicting views of how no-take areas and other limits or controls might affect fish

CRS-20
populations, since various effects of MPAs on fish populations have been reported
in the limited literature on this subject.28 Protected areas, such as MPAs, appear to
be most beneficial (i.e., promoting increases in abundance, size, and/or diversity) to
sedentary, reef-associated species; or more generally, to species which strongly
associate with certain habitat features that cause these species to restrict their
movement to this habitat. In these situations, species benefit if unique habitat can be
identified and protected. These studies are not uniform in their results, however, and
some interests, centered in commercial fisheries, emphasize how such a system might
not provide the magnitude of benefits its proponents claim. Indeed, some fisheries
experts conclude that more traditional approaches to fisheries management, such as
size limits, catch limits, or seasons, are more effective management tools than
establishing places where fishing is prohibited for a large majority of all fish stocks.29
Considerable scientific and social debate continues on the potential merits of
MPAs for more migratory and transient species. In this debate, fishing interests
question whether larger MPAs to encompass more of a wide-ranging specie’s habitat
potentially necessary to be beneficial would have unacceptable socioeconomic
consequences. An important element in this discussion of possible tradeoffs is the
recognition that MPA designations can displace resource use from the protected area
to nearby areas, either transferring or raising new management issues that arise from
reallocation of the fishing effort. It may be that without other management actions,
protecting one area will lead to overuse or excessive harvest in other areas, moving
rather than resolving the biological management issues.
Recent studies from around the world generally show MPAs have beneficial
effects not only on commercial species, but entire marine biological communities.
The compilation in the recent NRC study documents this conclusion. Effects do vary
among species, and short-lived and fast-growing species that migrate little during
their life cycles tend to benefit most rapidly from inhabiting protected areas. It is also
important to remember that, because effects differ, designations probably would not
have the same results for all species in all situations.
If fishing and other interests all endorse MPAs, they are likely to be doing it for
different reasons. If MPAs are successful in providing habitat that leads to
resuscitating populations to a size that supports commercial harvest, they may raise
other conflicts, such as: when to reinitiate harvest; the appropriate size of the harvest;
if and how the fishery should be restricted in the future; and whether the basic
categories of users (commercial harvesters, recreational users, and Native Americans)
should be treated the same or differently.
MPAs and Climate Change. Global climate change is being forecast to alter
the ocean environment in many significant ways, including higher water
28 Some of these studies are catalogued on NOAA’s website for marine protected areas,
[http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov/news/research_updates/mpa_facts.html]. This site is
updated regularly.
29 D. Robert L. Shipp, Take Marine Protected Areas (nMPAs) as a Fishing Management
Tool: A Programmatic Perspective
(Alexandria, VA: 2002). A Report to the FishAmerica
Foundation.

CRS-21
temperatures, shifting ocean currents, and elevated sea level. Some alterations seem
less certain than others, and the magnitude of some of these alterations will depend
on the rate and extent of climate change. MPAs may prove to be useful in helping
some living marine resources to respond to these changes.

Other Benefits of MPAs. While debate about the benefits and costs of
MPAs center most frequently on the role they might play in the recovery of fish
populations, they could provide other benefits. Some benefits could accrue at some
or all MPAs, while others occur only if a system of sites is designated. In addition,
if sites are managed only to expand fish populations, other potential benefits may not
be realized. Some of these benefits may be far more speculative than others.
! MPAs could be a source of baseline scientific data about current and
changing conditions in the marine environment, and serve as a
system so that baselines and changes could be compared among
locations. In this capacity, MPAs would provide a set of benefits not
unlike one of the purposes that was articulated in legislation creating
the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, a component of
the federal Coastal Zone Management Program, discussed below.
! MPAs could serve as education destinations, providing opportunities
for diving to observe the marine environment. Related on-shore
support centers could be developed to inform a larger segment of the
general public about resources protected in an MPA and the benefits
that accompany the protected designation.
! MPAs could provide other environmental services, such as
sequestering carbon, providing improved habitat for corals,
expanding mangroves that could dampen the damages from coastal
storms, purifying water and responding to chemical and oil spills
through bioremediation. Some of these benefits may be very
speculative.
! MPAs could protect cultural artifacts, such as shipwrecks and other
places of historical significance, including places held sacred by
native peoples. It is interesting to note that the first national marine
sanctuary was designated to protect the site where the remains of the
Civil War ironclad, the Monitor, came to rest after sinking in 1862
off North Carolina.
! MPAs could become an attraction that makes them destinations for
tourists and recreation activity. Activities that may take place in
MPAs or in nearby shore facilities, such as aquaria or museums. A
unit in the National Park Service system, Buck Island Reef National
Monument, with its snorkeling trail, is such a place.
Current Federal Laws and Programs
No current federal laws and programs protect marine areas as comprehensively
as many of the proponents of MPAs envision for this concept. Many of these laws
have limited geographic reach (applying only in state or federal waters), or the
limited number of uses or activities that are controlled (such as a focus on fishing).
However, most of these laws could play significant roles in a more comprehensive
effort. Using them in combination without amendment likely would not lead to a

CRS-22
seamless system of MPAs, if past efforts to combine existing programs (each with
different purposes) to serve a new purpose is any model.30 This discussion does not
include state laws and programs, which vary widely, and would become important
for MPAs that include nearshore areas or have some interaction with activities in
areas under state jurisdiction.
The following laws allow designation of protected areas in the marine
environment, and most apply to coastal sites, but they were enacted for different
purposes and take different approaches.31 If Congress chooses to authorize an MPA
system, it might conclude that one or some combination of these programs can
provide the basis for such a system, or it might conclude that it should enact entirely
new authorizing legislation.32 Any resulting legislation could draw from the
experiences of each of these programs.
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). The NMSA (16 U.S.C. §§
1431, et seq.) comes closest to authorizing what many proponents envision as MPAs.
It authorizes NOAA to designate specific sites for comprehensive and coordinated
management and conservation. The broad NMSA mandate allows NOAA to
designate areas to preserve or restore conservation, ecological, aesthetic, or
recreational values of the designated areas. It requires the development and
implementation of management plans, which serve as the basis for prohibiting or
limiting incompatible activities. The NMSA mandates that if additional protection
is necessary, the sanctuary program must first consult with the appropriate agencies
and constituents. The NMSA includes many provisions that limit its application
geographically and over the activities of any foreign vessel or foreign national.33
Thirteen sanctuaries have been designated, ranging in size from less than a
square nautical mile to more than 100,000 square miles. Each site was designated
for a specific reason, ranging from protecting cultural artifacts to protecting entire
ecosystems. At most of these sites, particularly contentious questions when
developing or amending management plans have centered on which activities will be
incompatible with the purposes of the designation, and how incompatible activities
will be limited. Since the management plans and regulations have been developed
individually for each sanctuary and each sanctuary was established for a specified
30 Wetland protection efforts are an analogous situation, where there is no single federal
wetland protection law. The many laws that address wetland protection do not apply
uniformly to all areas defined as wetlands by scientists, and the coverage of where each law
applies varies widely.
31 For a more detailed review of current federal programs and laws, see National Research
Council, “Chapter 8: Historical Background and Evaluation of Marine Protected Areas in
the United States,” pp. 145-173.
32 For example, the IUCN adopted a framework in the mid 1990s for protected marine areas
that identified eight categories of areas. For each category, it provides a definition,
management objectives, selection guidance, and preferred management responsibilities.
These categories are listed, with little additional detail, on page 5 of this report.
33 For a detailed review of the legislative history of the NMSA, see William L. Chandler and
Hannah Gillelan, “The History and Evolution of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act,”
Environmental Law Reporter, no. 34 (2004): 10506-10565.

CRS-23
reason, they vary widely in how uses are managed and what uses are permitted. The
Florida Keys Sanctuary is cited as one location where the MPA concept is being
applied. Within this sanctuary, 24 sites amounting to 6% of the total area have been
set aside as fully protected places where harvesting marine life is greatly restricted.
However, this is an exception, as few of the existing sanctuaries restrict fishing,
shipping, or recreation, although most prohibit oil and gas exploration and
development. This has led some to characterize sanctuaries as more like multiple use
areas rather than areas where no uses are allowed that could damage the marine
environment.
Using sanctuaries to protect and restore fishery populations has been debated in
recent years. Fishing can be regulated in sanctuaries, although this has rarely
occurred. In considering whether to regulate fishing, the NMSA provides the
appropriate Regional Fishery Management Council the opportunity to determine
whether sanctuary fishing regulations are needed and to prepare draft fishing
regulations. The Secretary of Commerce must accept the Council’s proposals or
determinations unless they fail to fulfill the purpose and policies of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (discussed below).
Regional Councils have supported only a few areas that have been completely closed
to all forms of fishing. As sanctuaries revise and update their management plans,
whether and how to limit fishing is likely to receive more attention at many of them.
In this setting, some MPA proponents do not view the sanctuary system, as it
currently exists, as an effective approach for fish recovery efforts.
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451
et seq.) established a coastal zone management program and an estuarine sanctuary
program, now called the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, and made 35
states and territories eligible to participate. The coastal zone management program
provides grants to these states and territories to develop and implement plans that
address several broad categories of development and resource protection activities
in a state’s coastal zone. Incentives to participate are not only these modest grants,
but also a consistency provision that requires federal actions in or affecting the
coastal zone to be consistent with federally approved plans. These incentives appear
to be sufficient, as only one of the 35 eligible states and territories, Illinois, is
currently not participating.
Protecting marine areas can be addressed by states using coastal zone
enhancement grants. These grants are available to participating states and territories
who are successfully implementing programs and wish to do more. These grants are
available for nine program areas, one of which is “planning for the use of ocean
resources.” A report from NOAA reviewed activities under this program area for
1992 through 1996, and found a majority of states had some level of activity.34 But
the organization of the report makes it difficult to determine how designation and
34 U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, Coastal Programs Division, State Enhancement Grant Assessments and
Strategies: Ocean Governance
(Washington, D.C.: Oct., 1999), 63 p. NOS/OCRM/CPD
990-08

CRS-24
management of protected areas in state waters fit into the activities of these states,
or even where it might be occurring.
The National Estuarine Research Reserve System is a component of the federal
coastal zone management program. States identify research reserve sites in state
waters and, after federal approval, manage them. Even though this program is part
of the CZMA, states that were not administering a federally approved coastal zone
management program at the time proposed research reserves and received federal
approval and funds. States with research reserves have integrated them into their
coastal management efforts, although all research reserves do not play identical roles.
The 25 National Estuarine Research Reserves that have been designated were
federally approved, in part because they each represent one of the diverse estuarine
ecosystems of the marine coast (including the Great Lakes). Each site is suitable for
long-term research, conservation, and education programs. The program is viewed
as both providing a laboratory for research and education programs that help states
and communities address coastal resource issues, and creating a network that permits
research comparing biological or other characteristics at multiple units of the system.
Incompatible uses that would compromise the value of research reserves for these
three types of programs, such as more intensive development along the shore or
major navigational improvements in the waters, are controlled or prohibited. Each
research reserve operates under a management plan; ecological restoration is a goal
at many of them. The research reserves range in size from 365,000 acres to 571
acres. NOAA is considering two additional proposals for reserves.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSFCMA). The MSFCMA (16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.) established federal fishery
management authority in a zone extending from the outer boundary of state coastal
waters to 200 miles from the U.S. coastline. It included the authority to regulate
fishing effort up to and including closing areas to protect significant spawning and
rearing habitats.35 Such closures, which are often a response to overfishing, may be
of limited duration or permanent, and they may affect some or all fishing activity
covered by federally approved fishery management plans. Closures are usually
imposed by NOAA on the recommendation of a Regional Fishery Management
Council. Since the overarching purpose of the MSFCMA is to promote sustainable
commercial and recreational use of renewable fishery resources, complete area
closures remain uncommon.
Implementation of marine reserves as an element of fishery management seems
to be gaining interest among the Regional Fishery Management Councils. As
recognition that selective protection of unique habitats can benefit multiple species
grows, Regional Councils are beginning to consider and create longer-term marine
reserves (for examples, see “Recent Administrative Actions,” below) in lieu of
temporary fishery closures for individual species or other extreme gear or quota
35 Similar closures occur in state coastal waters under the authority of various state laws and
interstate compacts as well as internationally under the authority of negotiated conventions
and agreements.

CRS-25
reductions. Partial closures, which might limit gear used, amount of fishing effort
allowed, or times when fishing is allowed, are also becoming more common.
The effectiveness of fishery controls, as measured by changes in fish
populations, like the effectiveness of other MPA controls, has generated controversy
among competing community stakeholders. With three requirements in the
MSFCMA for (1) recovery schedules for overfished stocks, (2) harvest of U.S. fish
at sustainable levels, and (3) minimization of fish, bird, turtle, and marine mammal
incidental bycatch, the management of U.S. marine fisheries has become significantly
more restrictive since 1996. Some critics of MPAs believe that these changes in the
MSFCMA reduce the need for MPAs as a fishery management tool. Other critics
believe that the tendency of some fishery interests to oppose marine reserves has been
counterproductive, inhibiting cooperation in managing them. Reauthorization of the
MSFCMA in the closing hours of the 109th Congress authorized increased attention
to protecting deep sea corals as well as additional emphasis on managing marine
ecosystems as opposed to individual commercially valued species.
National Wilderness Preservation System (Wilderness Act). This law
(16 U.S.C. §1131 et seq.) established a system of congressionally designated areas
of federal-owned land where many activities are restricted or prohibited to minimize
human alterations. Although the extension of this act’s authority into marine waters
is questioned by those who envision the ocean as common property, marine areas
under federal jurisdiction beyond state boundaries but within 200 miles of the
coastline could be eligible for designation as “wilderness” by Congress, although
none have been designated to date.
Goals of the Wilderness Act are to allow unfettered operation of natural
processes and provide for only those human uses, such as primitive recreational
activities, that do not affect those processes. The act generally prohibits commercial
activities, permanent facilities, and use of motorized equipment or motorboats,
landing of aircraft, unless the use had become established before the area was
designated. However, Congress may also authorize activities that do not conform
with these general prohibitions. For example, the act allows for commercial uses
when they are necessary “for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes
of the area;” the use of motorboats may be authorized where such use is already
established, subject to “desirable” restrictions.36
The prospects of establishing “marine wilderness” are being increasingly
explored. Some interests who want the strongest possible protections in designated
marine areas view this law as creating a model approach to the levels and kinds of
protections that should be placed in MPAs, even if the law itself may not be readily
transferred to marine areas for other reasons. A portion of these interests believe that
the wilderness designation should be a starting point because too many incompatible
uses are still allowed. Others counter that wilderness designations are too restrictive.
Many of the terrestrial wilderness debates that have taken place center on whether the
Wilderness Act’s allowances for recreation, boating, or commercial use will be
36 See CRS Report RS22025, Wilderness Laws: Permitted and Prohibited Uses, by Ross W.
Gorte.

CRS-26
incompatible with protections that proponents seek through a wilderness designation.
If this concept is considered for marine areas, similar debates can be anticipated.
National Park Service Organic Act, as Amended. This law (16 U.S.C.
§§ 1, 2-4) created the National Park Service (NPS) to administer units of the National
Park System, to preserve the lands and resources unimpaired and to foster public use
and enjoyment. Each unit has its own management structure; individual laws
creating most of the units have placed limits on specified incompatible uses. A total
of 39 NPS units in coastal areas have significant marine components.37 Many of
these units are in the National Seashore system. Many National Park units permit
recreational fishing, and a few even allowed commercial fishing.38 The Park
Service’s dual mandate of preservation and public use and enjoyment has resulted in
conflict between interest groups who debate the desirability of providing greater
access and visitor facilities over higher levels of protection.
National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, as Amended. This law
(16 U.S.C. §668dd) establishes the primary purpose of units of the National Wildlife
Refuge System to be the conservation of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, and
allows other compatible uses if such uses are determined to be consistent with refuge
goals. Recreational fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, environmental education
and interpretation, and nature photography are priority public uses, and are allowed
on many refuges, and oil and gas extraction occurs on a few units. More than 140
refuges are located along the nation’s coasts, and some include offshore areas. Some
of the most important functions for sanctuaries in marine areas are managing
ecosystems and providing habitat for endangered species and migratory birds as well
as nursery areas that support key components of coastal and marine ecosystems.
However, many regard refuge system jurisdiction as limited in the marine
environment.39
Northwest Straits (NS) Marine Conservation Initiative Act. This law
(Title IV of P.L. 105-384) established the Northwest Straits Advisory Commission,
and authorized the Secretary of Commerce to provide assistance to be used in
accordance with the Northwest Straits Citizen’s Advisory Commission Report of
August 20, 1998. The NS are the waters of northern Puget Sound and southern
Georgia Strait in Washington State. The priorities of the Commission are to: (1)
collect marine resources data in the NS; (2) coordinate federal, state, and local marine
resource protection and restoration activities in the NS; and (3) carry out other
activities identified in the Report as important to such protection and restoration.
Under this authority, seven county Marine Resource Committees are advising the
Commission in its consideration of designating MPAs within the NS.
37 Acadia National Park, Gulf Islands National Seashore, and Buck Island Reef National
Monument were among the 39 National Park System units listed in the ongoing federal
inventory of U.S. MPAs.
38 In one of these areas, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska, commercial fishing
is currently being phased-out.
39 A Department of Justice report of September 15, 2000, by Randolph D. Moss, Assistant
Attorney General, concluded: “We are unconvinced, however, that the President would have
the authority to establish a national wildlife refuge in either the territorial sea or the EEZ....”

CRS-27
Other Protection Efforts. Many other federal laws affect the quality of the
marine environment by regulating coastal and offshore activities. These laws
typically set minimum environmental quality standards or protect certain elements
of the marine environment rather than designate areas for use or protection.
Particularly noteworthy laws in this group include the Endangered Species Act, the
Clean Water Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Certain offshore areas in federal waters have been protected specifically from
oil and gas activities for the past two decades. Starting with the FY1982 Interior
Appropriations Act, Congress annually has prohibited these activities in areas that
have grown to include waters off New England, the mid-Atlantic states, portions of
Alaska and California, the Pacific Northwest, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. In
1990, President Bush issued a directive limiting OCS activities to federal waters off
Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and portions of Alaska. In 1998, President Clinton
extended this moratorium to OCS activities in other areas through 2012. More
recently, during its closing days the 109th Congress enacted the Gulf of Mexico
Energy Security Act of 2006 (Division C, Title I, of P.L. 109-432), which opens up
a portion of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico that had previously been closed.
In addition to the federal laws with authority over MPA designation and
management, state and local laws as well as numerous international agreements and
conventions may have marine protection components. Some states have been
designating areas that have been characterized as MPAs by researchers. Studies of
California and Washington published in the late 1990s identify about 100 MPAs in
each state. Sites were designated for a wide variety of purposes not only by public
entities, such as cities and counties, but also by private entities, such as The Nature
Conservancy and various land trusts. A 1997 study concluded that almost 20% of
California’s state waters were protected in some fashion by a total of 101 MPAs, but
that only about 10% of these sites and 10% of the area encompassed in these sites
prohibit fishing.40 Existing obligations and restrictions under international
conventions, such as the Law of the Sea Treaty, affect a coastal state’s MPA
authority beyond the territorial sea.
MPA activity has been extensive in some other countries. The United States has
come somewhat later to this concept than many other nations. The National
Research Council document cites a study reporting almost 1,500 MPAs around the
world in 1994, with many more sites under study for possible designation. MPAs in
other countries may be in such different political, cultural, and/or economic settings
that experiences at many of these sites may offer few lessons to the United States.
Many of these designated sites, for example, do not prohibit marine harvests. In
addition, whatever coordination there might be among sites within a single country
is in stark contrast to the general lack of any coordination between countries. Finally,
there may be a large gap between how many of the MPAs that seem, on paper, to
address the relevant issues, and how they are actually managed in terms of
controlling activities or enforcement. MPAs are being designated at an accelerated
rate. Canada, for example, announced on March 7, 2003, that it was designating an
40 D. McArdle, California Marine Protected Areas (La Jolla, CA: California Sea Grant
College System, 1997), Publication T-039.

CRS-28
initial MPA to protect some thermal vents along its Pacific coast, and the government
is considering 13 additional locations for possible designation.41
Recent Administrative Actions
The protection of marine resource areas is not a new concept, as can be noted
from the various authorities discussed in the previous section. However, what is new
is the increasing interest in developing a coordinated, nationwide system of marine
protected areas. This interest has been heightened by actions initiated by the Clinton
Administration and continued by the Bush Administration. The impetus behind this
concept has diffuse roots, and is most evident among scientists and with some non-
governmental organizations.
The Clinton Administration. The Clinton Administration responded to
growing concerns about marine resource degradation in several ways. It issued
Executive Order 13089 on coral reef protection in June 1998 (1998 was also the
internationally recognized “Year of the Ocean”). In late 1999 and early 2000, it
issued action plans calling for the federal government to work with state, territorial,
and nongovernmental partners to expand and strengthen MPAs throughout the United
States.42 On May 26, 2000, the Clinton Administration issued the Marine Protected
Areas Executive Order, E.O. 13158.43 This order called for “strengthening and
expanding the Nation’s system of marine protected areas ... throughout the marine
environment ... [to] 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.”44 More specifically, this order:
! aims to increase coordination and effectiveness of MPAs (but did
not change existing MPAs nor establish new MPAs);
! directs federal agencies to comply with existing regulations
regarding MPAs (but did not alter existing regulations or
authorities); and
41 The monthly newsletter published by the University of Washington, MPA News:
International News and Analysis on Marine Protected Areas
, reports frequently on MPA
activities and experiences in other countries.
42 The first plan, Turning to the Sea: America’s Ocean Future, was prepared by a Cabinet-
level task force created at the National Ocean Conference in 1998. It was released
September 2, 1999. The second was the National Action Plan to Preserve Coral Reefs,
prepared by the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and released on March 2, 2000.
43 The order defines MPAs 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.”
44 The order also directed the EPA to reduce pollution of beaches, coasts, and oceans by
strengthening water quality protection for marine waters.

CRS-29
! charges NOAA and the Department of the Interior to lead federal
efforts by (1) creating a list of existing MPAs in the United States;45
(2) creating a national MPA webpage about MPAs;46 (3) establishing
a national MPA Center to provide tools and strategies for promoting
MPA effectiveness; (4) establishing an MPA Advisory Committee
to provide recommendations from stakeholders outside the federal
government;47 and (5) consulting with governmental and non-
governmental stakeholders.
Finally, on December 4, 2000, it issued E.O. 13178, creating the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve. This reserve,
encompassing about 120,000 square miles (about 77 million acres), is the largest
protected area ever established in the United States. Within the overall reserve, 15
Reserve Preservation Areas encompassing about 6,200 square miles (nearly 4 million
acres, or about 5% of the reserve) were designated where all consumptive or
extractive activities are limited. NOAA manages the Reserve under the authority of
the NMSA.
The Bush Administration. The Bush Administration has generally
continued the initiatives started by the Clinton Administration, and has expanded on
them in some cases. On June 4, 2001, after a review, Secretary of Commerce Donald
L. Evans of the Bush Administration cabinet announced the retention of E.O. 13158
about marine protected areas. The Administration announced that it had selected 30
members for the MPA Advisory Committee on January 3, 2003. They represent all
the marine regions, including the Great Lakes and the United States territories, and
a wide range of expertise, including resource management, science, policy, and
marine industries. The committee has met periodically since the summer of 2003.
MPA Center Activities. The MPA Center, created by E.O. 13158, was
established at NOAA headquarters in suburban Washington to coordinate many
federal activities and interests in this topic. The MPA Center is supported by two
institutes: the Institute for MPA Science, whose creation at a new federal fishery
research facility in Santa Cruz, California, was announced by then Secretary of
Commerce Norman Mineta on October 18, 2000; and the Institute for MPA Training
and Technical Assistance in Charleston, South Carolina, announced by NOAA in
early January 2001. On September 26, 2006, the Center released a draft framework
containing a set of recommendations for developing a national system of MPAs. The
framework, developed after numerous workshops and meetings, proposes guiding
principles, goals and objectives, and definitions for a national system. The comment
period on this draft framework closes February 14, 2007.48
45 The Administration’s inventory of existing U.S. MPAs can be found on the website at
[http://www.mpa.gov/mpaservices/mpa_inventory.html], July 1, 2003.
46 Detailed information on current Administrative actions can be obtained from the MPA
website at [http://www.mpa.gov], July 1, 2003.
47 A request for nominations was published at 65 Fed. Reg. 50503 (Aug. 18, 2000).
48 National Marine Protected Areas Center, Draft Framework for Developing the National
(continued...)

CRS-30
Another major activity at the Center has been creating a list of MPAs by
identifying existing federal, state, local, and tribal protected sites that meet the
order’s definition of an MPA. The current inventory effort is compiling a list of
marine managed areas by 2004, from which it can then develop a list of MPAs. As
it undertakes this effort, the Center is developing definitions and criteria so there will
be consistency among the designations. Three purposes of this inventory are to
provide information that can be used in environmental assessments; to lay a
foundation for objective analysis in designing a national MPA system; and to provide
a centralized source of information that can be used to help protect the resources
within every MPA. The information gathered through this inventory will be
available to federal, state, local, and tribal governments, who can use it to enhance
or strengthen protections to fulfill regional conservation goals. On January 25, 2005,
NOAA issued a notice detailing the final criteria and data fields that will be used in
building the inventory.49
Other initiatives of the Center include an education project to increase
knowledge and awareness about MPAs. It provides educators with materials about
topics that are relevant to MPAs, such as marine habitats and fisheries, through a
website and workshops. It holds workshops and other events to inform the public
about MPAs. It is also leading a multi-year pilot program in California, Oregon, and
Washington to try to improve approaches for designing and managing a system of
MPAs at a regional level.
Other Recent Federal Agency Actions. While the Center has coordinated
many aspects of the federal interest in MPAs, other federal government agencies have
been active in recognizing MPAs. The examples below indicate the breadth of
resources being protected and actions taken in recent years.
! The EPA Administrator signed a proposed rule on January 19, 2001,
that would establish Special Ocean Sites to protect outstanding
values of (1) Flower Garden Banks off Texas, (2) Golda Ridge-
Blanco Fracture Zone off Oregon, (3) Escanaba Trough off
California, and (4) Northern Right Whale Critical Habitats off the
Atlantic coast.
! Regional Fishery Management Councils and the NOAA Fisheries
established six areas on George’s Bank and adjacent areas off New
England where all fishing is prohibited to foster groundfish recovery.
! In March 2002, NOAA took additional steps to protect the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve by
(1) initiating the process for designating the Reserve as a National
Marine Sanctuary; (2) issuing a draft Reserve Operations Plan for
public comment; (3) releasing the Western Pacific Fishery
Management Council’s Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management
Plan for public comment; and (4) releasing a final rule concerning
the harvest of precious corals.
48 (...continued)
System of Marine Protected Areas, July 2006, 78 pp.
49 70 Fed. Reg. p. 3512-3521 (Jan. 25, 2005).

CRS-31
! The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has designated a
marine reserve in Southeast Alaska,50 an Aleutian Islands Habitat
Conservation Area, Aleutian Islands Coral Habitat Protection Areas,
Alaska Seamount Habitat Protection Areas, a Bowers Ridge Habitat
Conservation Zone, Gulf of Alaska Coral Habitat Protection Areas,
and Gulf of Alaska Slope Habitat Conservation Areas.51
! The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary have been coordinating the public
process of designating portions of the sanctuaries as fishery no-take
zones.
! Extensive stakeholder participation highlighted the establishment of
two marine reserves near the Dry Tortugas National Park with
collaboration among the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary,
the National Park Service, and the State of Florida.
States have also been active in the field of MPAs, with perhaps California being
the most active. California authorities have been working to reach consensus on a
comprehensive program of MPAs in state coastal waters under the 1999 Marine Life
Protection Act (Assembly Bill 993), as well as on a network of marine reserves
around the Channel Islands under discussion by a Marine Reserves Working Group.
In November 2006, the California Department of Fish and Game released a draft
environmental impact statement in which it proposed establishing 29 marine reserves
along the central California coast between Santa Barbara and Half Moon Bay. The
reserves would ban fishing within 110 square miles and limit fishing in an additional
94 square miles. These sites encompass 18% of central California’s coastal waters.
Recreational and commercial fishing interests oppose the proposal because of the
reduced harvest opportunities it will impose, while environmental interests view this
as a good start to more extensive protection in the future. Other states have also
taken action. For example, Hawaii enacted legislation (Act 306 in 1998) to establish
a network of marine aquarium reserves along the Kona-Kohala coast of the Island of
Hawaii.
Issues for Congressional Consideration
The 110th Congress is likely to discuss MPAs both indirectly and directly. The
indirect references will occur as Congress discusses specific topics, such as coastal
management or marine mammal protection in which MPAs might play a role. More
direct discussions of how the MPA concept might be applied, either alone or in the
context of the existing programs that already protect marine resources, also seem
likely. This topic may receive much more attention if Congress draws from reports
and recommendations from the Pew Oceans Commission in 2003 and the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy in 2004.
These reports, as well as the 2001 report from the National Research Council,
view the current piecemeal approach of dealing with marine resource needs and
50 65 Fed. Reg. 67305 (Nov. 9, 2000).
51 71 Fed. Reg. 36694 (June 28, 2006).

CRS-32
management options as contributing to the decline in marine environmental health.
Many supporters of the MPA concept draw from these reports as they encourage
Congress to replace the current approach with a more systematic and coordinated
response. Many of these supporters have endorsed the Pew Oceans Commission and
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommendations as a starting place for policy
discussions.
The 2001 NRC report on MPAs did not make a recommendation about whether
additional legislation might be desirable or whether a new law addressing this topic
is needed, although it did recognize the fragmented nature of the current effort. It did
discuss the costs and benefits of MPAs in comparison to more conventional
management tools, explored the feasibility of implementation, and assessed the
scientific basis and adequacy of techniques for the design of MPAs and marine
reserves. Among its conclusions were that MPAs can be most successful if:
! all stakeholders are enlisted to participate in developing management
plans;
! effective planning and design are provided; and
! integral components include regular monitoring, assessment,
enforcement, and community education.
The NRC report endorsed using marine reserves as resource and fishery
management tools in combination with traditional management measures. It asserted
that federal and state agencies need to provide resources, expertise, and coordination
for integrating individual MPAs into the framework for coastal and marine resource
management to meet the goals established at state, regional, national, or international
levels.
The Pew Commission report does call for legislation. In the report, released in
June 2003, the Commission provides a major overview of marine policy, which it
characterized as “the first comprehensive review of U.S. ocean policy in more than
30 years.” While this claim is subject to challenge, it is certainly among the most
comprehensive studies in recent decades. The commission calls for a system of
marine reserves to be established. It recommends a context for ocean management
based on restoring and maintaining healthy marine ecosystems within which marine
reserves would be critical elements. Other recommendations, while not mentioning
reserves directly, suggest that they would be part of a broad marine management
effort that would also center on ocean zoning and on establishing both regional ocean
ecosystem councils and a new independent federal ocean agency.
The Pew Commission viewed reserves as sites that would transcend federal-
state boundaries. It calls on Congress to enact a mandate to establish such as system
and provide the necessary institutional structure and legal authorities to implement
it. It also states that federal agencies should use existing authorities to establish
reserves within areas that have already been designated for protection until such a
mandate is enacted. In numerous recommendations about fisheries management,
reserves are rarely mentioned, although the notion of zoning the ocean to segment use
areas appears at several places, drawing on a background report on marine reserves,
mentioned above.

CRS-33
The report from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy may have the greatest
impact on congressional considerations, since Congress created this commission in
legislation and it reported to Congress and the Administration. The commission’s
recommendations are limited to a single indirect reference in the fisheries chapter to
pursue an ecosystem approach to identify and designate “essential fish habitat” that
uses current efforts to “identify important habitats and locate optimum-sized areas,”
and a more explicit recommendation in the chapter that discusses coordinated
management in federal waters calling for a uniform process to designate, design, and
monitor MPAs.52 If Congress considers MPA-related legislation, it may raise many
questions about the concept and how it might be applied. Some of these questions
are identified below.
Congress could decide to respond to these recommendations by amending any
of these laws discussed above. However, changes to promote more comprehensive
protection could hamper ongoing activities under them and lead to legal challenges.
The diversity of these laws and the fractured administrative responsibilities
(including regulatory and implementation authorities) result in fragmented
components rather than an integrated system to manage complex marine ecosystems.
In the federal community, the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and
the Interior all protect areas for diverse purposes; even the U.S. Forest Service plays
a major role in some areas along the Pacific coast.
A central component of any congressional consideration is likely to pit
economic interests, who oppose MPAs because designation would place limits on the
use or extraction of ocean resources, against environmental and research interests,
who would like to see more widespread or systematic protection of ocean resources,
especially living resources that are either scarce or threatened. MPA advocates favor
primacy for sustainable resource protection over revenue-generating activities, and
believe that quick congressional action is needed to prevent further destruction or
deterioration, while opponents say the benefits of such designations are far from
proven.
If Congress decides that current laws and programs are insufficient to conserve
coastal and marine resources, it must then determine what new or changed laws are
needed to protect additional places or to provide more consistent protection. If it
decides that MPAs can play a role in an expanded effort, it would then need to
determine whether marine resource protection efforts will be better served through
a comprehensive statute on MPAs that provides a systematic approach rather than
amendments to the current mix of existing authorities and unit-by-unit designations.
In examining this question, it might look to the work of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy. Part of such an examination could center on whether the strength of
statutory language to provide a legislative mandate is needed in place of the
executive order on MPAs issued by the Clinton Administration.
As Congress examines the adequacy of existing authorities that are viewed by
some as options to new MPA legislation, it may try to determine if these laws
adequately recognize the interests of stakeholders and provide a forum for resolving
52 Recommendations 19-21 and 6-3, respectively.

CRS-34
conflicts among them. It may review the activities of NOAA’s MPA Center as a
possible model for such a forum. The NRC report notes the importance of engaging
all stakeholders in crafting management plans for MPAs. Both the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act require extensive public participation as well as thorough environmental, social,
and economic analyses prior to closing areas to specified activities.
Proponents of increased public participation may point to the Northwest
Hawaiian Reserve, created by a Clinton Administration executive order and
mentioned above, as an example where the time available to receive public input on
use restrictions was insufficient. In that instance, elements of the commercial fishing
industry, in particular, who had used large portions of the area that was placed within
this new reserve, claimed that they were not involved in deciding what areas should
exclude fishing. The Clinton Administration claimed, however, to have sought to
involve many interests in the planning process, noting that more than 430
stakeholders attended public meetings and more than 1,000 written comments were
received on this reserve proposal. In addition, it created an advisory panel of
community stakeholders to guide the planning for and implementation of this reserve.
Since stakeholder involvement can be crucial, any legislation may need to include
provisions clarifying acceptable levels of participation. The Bush Administration
seems to have reached a similar conclusion about support for the Northwest
Hawaiian designation, when it expanded its size and re-designated it as a national
monument.
Congress may take many recent experiences of marine deterioration into account
as it considers whether and how to respond to the recommendations of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy, as well as the growing number of analyses of the MPA
approach. Drafting new MPA legislation, that tries to accommodate all the various
reasons MPA advocates put forth for protection and includes a framework under
which these reasons can be weighed against each other, would be challenging. If
MPA legislation were enacted, other laws may need to be modified or repealed for
greater consistency.
Any new legislation might also address whether all currently protected marine
areas should be automatically moved into a new MPA system as an additional form
of protection, or whether any proposed MPA system should replace only some of
those protections and designations. It also might have to address more specific
questions, such as how to deal with sites that lie in both federal and state waters. In
these situations, legislation might include incentives to states to take complementary
actions to protect marine resources. Other considerations might include the costs of
an MPA program, how to monitor the effectiveness of an MPA programs, and how
various marine users might be affected by an MPA program.