Front Cover
 Front Matter
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Executive summary
 American Samoa
 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana...
 Puerto Rico
 U.S. Virgin Islands
 List of acronyms
 A functional classification system...
 Back Cover

Group Title: Report on the status of marine protected areas in coral reef ecosystems of the United States
Title: Marine protected areas managed by U.S. states, territories, and commonwealths
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/CA01300960/00001
 Material Information
Title: Marine protected areas managed by U.S. states, territories, and commonwealths
Series Title: Report on the status of marine protected areas in coral reef ecosystems of the United States
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Publisher: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Place of Publication: Silver Spring, Md.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: CA01300960
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of the Virgin Islands
Holding Location: University of the Virgin Islands
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.


This item has the following downloads:

cr_mpa_report_vol_1 ( PDF )

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Front Matter
        Front Matter
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
    Executive summary
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
    American Samoa
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
    Puerto Rico
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
    U.S. Virgin Islands
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
    List of acronyms
        Page A-0
        Page A-1
        Page A-2
        Page A-3
    A functional classification system for marine protected areas in the United States
        Page B-0
        Page B-1
        Page B-2
        Page B-3
        Page B-4
        Page B-5
    Back Cover
        Back Cover
Full Text

Marine Protected Areas
in Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States

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

Produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coral Reef Conservation Program
in cooperation with partners from State, Territorial, and Commonwealth Agencies

SNOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP 2

Cover Photos (clockwise from top left): Dana Wusinich-Mendez/ NOAA, Paige
Rothenberger/ USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Greg Moretti/
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife, Katrina

Report on the Status of Marine Protected Areas in

Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States

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

Edited by Dana Wusinich-Mendez2 and Carleigh Trappe2

Report authors by jurisdiction:

American Samoa -American Samoa Coral Reef Advisory Group
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Greg Moretti1
Florida Carleigh Trappe2 and Karen Bareford3
Guam- Meghan Gombos2, Jay Gutierrez4, and Valerie Brown5
Hawaii Jill Komoto6 and Meghan Gombos2
Puerto Rico Dana Wusinich-Mendez2, Maria del Mar L6pez-Rivera and Ernesto Diaz
U.S. Virgin Islands Dana Wusinich-Mendez2 and Susan Curtis8

Additional contributors:

Bill Millhouser, Roger Griffis, Jonathan Kelsey, Sarah Fischer, Tom Hourigan, Risa Oram, Selaina Vaitautolu,
Fran Castro, Michael Trianni, Dr. Peter Houk, John Starmer, Stephanie Bailenson, Chantal Collier, Laura
Herren, Evangeline Lujan, Athline Clark, Alton Miyasaka, Matthew Ramsey, Aida Rosario, Nora Alvarez,
Robert Matos, Clarimar Diaz, Nancy Vazquez, Nuria Mercado, Wendy Boneta, Manuel Valdes-Pizzini, Wes
Toller, Toby Tobias, Barbara Kojis, Paige Rothenberger, Nick Drayton, Mark Drew, Shona Paterson, Bill
Rohring, and Lisamarie Carruba.

NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP 2
February 2007

United States Department of National Oceanic and National Ocean Service
Commerce Atmospheric Administration

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



1Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife; 2NOAA National Ocean Service,
Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management; Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Office of
Coastal & Aquatic Managed Areas; 4Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources;
SNOAA Fisheries, Office of Habitat Conservation; 'Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of
Aquatic Resources; 7Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources; 8U.S. Virgin Islands
Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Management Division


Citation for the entire document:

Wusinich-Mendez, D. and C. Trappe (eds.). 2007. Report on the Status of Marine Protected Areas in Coral Reef
Ecosystems of the United States Volume 1: Marine Protected Areas Managed by U.S. States, Territories, and
Commonwealths: 2007. NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP 2. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program.
Silver Spring, MD. 129 pp. + Appendices.

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

Gombos, M.,J. Gutierrez, V. Brown. 2007. Guam Coral Reef MPA Summary. pp. 69-75. In Wusinich-Mendez, D.
and C. Trappe (ed.), 2007. Report on the Status of \! Protected Areas in Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States
Volume 1: Marine Protected Areas Managed by U.S. States, Territories, and Commonwealths: 2007. NOAA Technical
Memorandum CRCP 2. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. Silver Spring, MD. 129 pp. +


This report was made possible through the guidance, input, and support of the following partners:
The National Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Center for the data collected through the National Marine Managed Area
(MMA) Inventory as well as the opportunity to include additional questions in the inventory questionnaire for the seven
jurisdictions in this report; the report review team, including Bill Millhouser (NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management), Roger Griffis (NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program), Jonathan Kelsey (NOAA National
MPA Center), Tom Hourigan (NOAA Fisheries), Sarah Fischer (NOAA National MPA Center), Gerry Davis (NOAA
Fisheries), Andrew Gude (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service), and Karen Koltes (U.S. Department of the Interior Office of
Insular Affairs); and finally, the state and territory points of contact to the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force who reviewed,
contributed to, and endorsed the chapters for their jurisdictions, including Lelei Peau (American Samoa), Fran Castro
(the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands), Chantal Collier (Florida), Evangeline Lujan (Guam), Athline
Clark (Hawaii), Bill Rohring (U.S. Virgin Islands), and Aida Rosario (Puerto Rico).

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


For more information about this report or to request a copy, please e-mail (coralreef(2inoaa.gov) or fax (301-713-4389)
your request to NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation Program or visit http://www.coralreef.noaa.gov.


Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for their use by
the Unites States government.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary iii


Methods and Approach 1

Summary of Report Contents 1

Summary Statistics 4

State and Territory Coral Reef MPA Summaries

1. American Samoa 11

2. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 27

3. Florida 41

4. Guam 69

5. Hawai'i 77

6. Puerto Rico 103

7. U.S. Virgin Islands 117


A. List of Acronyms A-1

B. A Functional Classification System for Marine Protected
Areas in the United States B-1


Seven United States (U.S.) jurisdictions have abundant coral reef ecosystems within their state and territorial waters.
These jurisdictions are American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Florida, Guam, Hawai'i,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The governments of all seven jurisdictions have recognized that to
successfully conserve coral reef ecosystems, ecologically important reef areas need to be identified and managed
distinctively within the broader marine environment. As a result, each of these jurisdictions has formally acknowledged
that marine protected areas (MPAs) are an important coral reef management tool and have taken measures to officially
incorporate this tool into their local marine resource management regimes. In this report, MPAs are defined as "any
area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local laws or regulations to
provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein" (Executive Order 13158, May 26,
21 11 i). In keeping with this broad definition, the term "MPA," refers to a range of types of MPAs, from multiple-use
areas that allow fishing or other uses, to "no-take reserves" where extractive uses are prohibited.

This report, the Report on the Status of Marine Protected Areas in Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States Volume 1: Marine
Protected Areas Managed b U.S. States, Territories, and Commonwealths, was developed by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in conjunction with federal, state, territory, and commonwealth partners on the
U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF). It was produced to help fulfill the goals and objectives of the U.S. National
Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs 2 I I" I) and the National Coral Reef Action Strategy (2002), and also helps to
advance the goals of Executive Order 13158 on MPAs. Goal number five in the National Coral Reef Action Strategy
calls for "improving the use of marine protected areas in coral reef ecosystems." Objective number one under this goal
area is to "conduct and support nation-wide, state and territory assessments of the effectiveness and gaps in the existing
system of U.S. Coral Reef MPAs." This report directly addresses that objective by providing an inventory and
assessment of existing MPAs that have been established and are managed by the governments of the seven coral reef
states and territories. It illustrates the goals and objectives of these areas; describes current efforts to manage them;
recognizes common challenges to successful management; and, identifies actions that can increase the effectiveness of
MPA initiatives.

Efforts to manage a total of 207 MPAs across the seven coral reef jurisdictions are summarized in this report. The
large majority of these MPAs (76 percent) are multiple-use areas that allow some level of extractive activity throughout
the entire site. The remaining 49 MPAs include no-take areas in which the harvesting of marine resources is prohibited.
One hundred and forty-seven (71 percent) of the MPAs were established to sustain, conserve, restore, and understand
the coral reef ecosystems or ecosystem components they contain, while almost one quarter of them were established to
support the continued extraction of renewable living resources. Of the 207 sites, 86 percent are permanent sites as
opposed to conditional sites whose potential to persist must be considered after a set period of time. Nearly all of the
sites (97 percent) provide constant protection throughout the year; only three percent are seasonal sites in which
resources are protected during fixed periods of time. Most of the MPAs (78 percent) were established to provide an
ecosystem scale of protection through which management measures are intended to protect all of the components and
processes of the coral reef ecosystem within MPA boundaries. The remaining 22 percent target a particular habitat,
species complex, or single resource.

Many of the MPAs in this assessment contain priority natural resources for coral reef conservation such as fish
spawning areas found in 81 sites and the threatened or endangered species observed within 164 sites. Only 20 percent
of the MPAs (42 sites) have approved management plans (nine additional plans are in development) .,., _. ii _n that the
development of plans to guide long-term MPA management is a challenge for these sites. However, this finding does
not mean that management action is not happening on-the-ground. Of the 194 sites that reported on management
actions being implemented, approximately 42 percent have targeted research and outreach and education programs or
activities, 45 percent have on-going monitoring activities, and over 74 percent reported the existence of enforcement
activities or programs.

Finally, MPA managers and practitioners from 126 of the sites identified several key challenges that impede the
effective management of their MPAs. The most commonly noted challenges were enforcement (83 percent) and
funding and resources (80 percent). Management capacity (76 percent), monitoring (65 percent), and public support (59
percent) are also challenges for a majority of the sites. Other frequently identified challenges to management were a
lack of interagency coordination and insufficient communication between researchers and managers. These problems
must be addressed to improve MPA management effectiveness.

Assessments such as this report are critical steps in understanding the use and effectiveness of MPAs as tools to
conserve coral reef ecosystems. To successfully apply these tools, it is important to understand the strengths and
difficulties of existing efforts. If the goal of conservation efforts is to maintain the function of coral reef ecosystems so
that people can continue to enjoy and benefit from the valuable services they provide, it is necessary to assess which
components of these ecosystems would be best served by MPAs and identify the gaps in our current MPA management

This report provides a basic inventory of state and territory MPA efforts in coral reef ecosystems. It does not provide
an evaluation of the effectiveness of these MPAs in fulfilling their goals and objectives. Subsequent efforts will be
required to fully comprehend the scope and effectiveness of the use of MPAs for coral reef protection in the United
States. Two such efforts are currently underway by NOAA and the U.S. CRTF, including the development of a second
volume to this report that inventories federal MPA efforts in U.S. coral reef ecosystems, and an analysis of geospatial
information to quantitatively assess the total area of coral reef ecosystem habitat types protected by U.S. MPAs. Many
MPAs and jurisdictions are also undertaking efforts to evaluate their management effectiveness by developing and
implementing monitoring and evaluation programs. As the number of MPAs applying these evaluations increases,
there is greater opportunity to identify mechanisms for improving MPA effectiveness. This report is intended to
support other assessments that will help increase our capacity as marine resource managers, practitioners, and stewards
to conserve our nation's coral reefs.



The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coral Reef
Conservation Program developed this report of MPAs managed by state and
territory governments in conjunction with federal, state, territory, and
commonwealth partners. The information included in the report was collected
in partnership with the National Marine Managed Area (MMA) Inventory that
was conducted by the National Marine Protected Areas (MIPA) Center from
2001-2006. Inventory data was obtained through direct surveys with managers
of coral reef MPAs and review of legal documents and management plans. This
data is available in the Inventory of MMAs on the National MPA Center's
website at www.mpa.rov (National MPA Center 2006c). This report is based on
data extracted from the inventory in July 2005. In the process of writing and
reviewing this document, several of the jurisdictions revised and edited their
MMA Inventory data.

The report contains seven chapters that focus on the state and territory MPA
efforts of each coral reef jurisdiction. It does not include sites which are Matt Ramsey 2006
managed entirely or in cooperation with the federal government because the
MMA inventory of federal sites was not completed. Since the report is a collaborative effort between NOAA and the
jurisdictions, most chapters have multiple authors representing NOAA staff who work closely with these jurisdictions
on their MPA initiatives and MPA leadership in each state and territory. The authors also contacted MPA managers
and practitioners in each jurisdiction who contributed valuable information to enrich this report. As a result of this
partnership, the authors were able to expand upon and provide insight into the responses provided through the
National MbIA Inventory including recommendations to enhance local MPA efforts.


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


This section is an introduction to each state or territory that provides a description of the coral reef
resources in the jurisdiction and a broad summary of local MPA efforts.


As the core of the report, this section explores the various types or "systems" of MPAs in each jurisdiction.
The types of MPAs are not necessarily ecologically interconnected systems of MPAs, known as ecological
MPA "networks." Instead, they represent legal designations as established by the local government of each
state and territory. For each MPA type, the following information is provided:

Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Table Provides a list of all of the sites
represented by each MPA type and an accounting of the priority coral reef resources and habitats
that can be found within each site.
National Classification Categorizes the sites within each MPA type according to the national
classification system (see component 7 below).
Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency Explains the legal framework for the
establishment and management of the MPAs within each type.
Goals, Objectives, Policies and Protections Describes existing goals and objectives as stated
by site managers in management plans and in other legal documents pertaining to individual sites
or systems of sites. It also provides information on the specific policies and regulations that
distinguish the management of the MPAs from the surrounding marine environment.


Management Activities Identifies the different management activities that are currently being
implemented in the sites within each MPA type. Activities include enforcement, monitoring,
research, education and outreach, permitting, restoration, and the development of site
management plans.
Stakeholder Involvement and Public Participation- Offers a summary of the level of
involvement of relevant stakeholder groups and the general public in the MPA establishment and
management process for each MPA type. This involvement ranges from participation in public
meetings or hearings to community-based management of MPA sites whereby local stakeholders
are given complete management authority over a site or system of sites.


In order to improve the effectiveness of MPA management, it is
necessary to identify and address the challenges or obstacles that
MPA managers face. This section provides a discussion of the
MPA management challenges specific to each jurisdiction. The
National MMA Inventory included a special question on five main
challenge areas for the seven coral jurisdictions in this report.
These areas were: funding and resources, capacity, public support,
monitoring, and enforcement. For each site in the inventory,
managers identified which of these areas present challenges to the
effective management of their MPAs. Each chapter provides a
chart that depicts the predominance of these five challenge areas in
the jurisdiction. Several coral jurisdictions also identified other
challenges which are discussed in this section. Mateo Mendez 2006


This component describes existing state and territory efforts to support the development of networks of
MPAs. A network of MPAs is defined as "a set of discrete MPAs within a region or ecosystem that are
connected through complementary purposes and synergistic protections. A network of MPAs could focus
on ecosystem processes, certain individual marine species, or cultural resources. For example, an ecological
network of MPAs could be connected through dispersal of reproductive stages or movement of juveniles
and adults" (National MPA Center 2006b).


In this section, the authors and contributors of each chapter provide a series of potential next steps and
recommendations to enhance local efforts to manage existing sites and to develop effective networks of


The National Classification System was developed by the National MPA Center in an effort to develop a
"straightforward and consistent language to accurately describe the many types of MPAs occurring in our
waters and to understand their effects on ecosystems and the people that use them" (National MPA Center
2006a). The system describes MPAs in purely functional terms using five objective characteristics common
to most MPAs:

Conservation Focus each site was assigned one or more of the following three attributes:
i. Natural Heritage established and managed to sustain, conserve, restore and understand
the biodiversity, populations, communities, habitats, ecosystems, processes and services of
an MPA or MPA zone


ii. Cultural Heritage established and managed to protect and understand submerged
cultural resources
iii. Sustainable Production established and managed to support the continued extraction of
renewable living resources

Level of Protection Afforded each site was assigned one of the following six attributes:
i. Uniform Multiple-Use Consistent level of protection and allowable activities throughout
the MPA
ii. Zoned Multiple-Use Some extractive activities allowed throughout entire site, but use
marine zoning to allocate specific uses to compatible places or times
iii. Zoned Multiple-Use with No-Take Areas Multiple-use MPAs that contain one or more
zones where resource extraction is prohibited
iv. No-Take MPA sites that allow human access but prohibit resource extraction
throughout the area
v. No Impact MPAs that allow human access but prohibit all activities that could harm the
site's resources or disrupt the service they provide
vi. No Access MPAs that restrict all human access to the area unless specifically permitted
for designated special uses

Permanence of Protection each site was assigned one of the following three attributes:
i. Permanent MPAs whose legal authorities provide protection in perpetuity
ii. Conditional MPAs that have the potential to persist over time but whose legal authority
has a finite duration and must be actively renewed
iii. Temporary MPAs that are designed to address relatively short-term conservation and
management needs by protecting a specific habitat or species for a finite duration with no
expectation or mechanism for renewal

Constancy of Protection each site was assigned one of the following three attributes:
i. Year-round MPAs that provide constant protection throughout the year
ii. Seasonal MPAs that protected specific habitats and resources during fixed seasons or
iii. Rotating MPAs that cycle among a set of fixed geographic areas in order to meet short-
term conservation and management goals

Ecological Scale of Protection each site was assigned one of the following two attributes:
i. Ecosystem MPAs whose legal authorities and management measures are intended to
protect all of the components and processes of the ecosystem(s) within its boundaries
ii. Focal Resource MPAs whose legal authorities and management measures specifically
target a particular habitat, species complex, or single

Every chapter provides a table that uses this system to classify each MPA in
the jurisdiction. The table also includes information on the presence of a
management plan for each MPA site. A full description of the classification
system is available in Appendix B of this report and at www.mpa.gov -
(National MPA Center 2006a).


The close of each chapter highlights a case study that demonstrates a
successful MPA initiative. Greg Moretti n.d.



The following summary statistics provide
information on the status of coral reef
ecosystem MPAs established by the seven
states and territories. In total, 207 MPA sites
are represented in this report. The data
described in the report does not reflect the
management effectiveness of the various
sites, nor can it be inferred to indicate the
amount of effort spent by the jurisdictions to
establish or manage MPAs. As evidenced in
the MPA summaries in each chapter, many of
these sites have little on-going management
activity and are in critical need of resources
and support for increased management

Number of MPAs in Coral Reef Ecosystems by Jurisdiction
(n = 207)

Puerto Rico

USVI Samoa
24 14 CNMI


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

Level of Marine Resource Protection

In the National Coral Reef Action Strategy, the U.S. Coral Reef Task
Force calls for the establishment of "additional 'no take' ecological
reserves in a balanced suite of representative U.S. coral reefs and
associated habitats, with the goal of protecting at least 5 percent of all
coral reefs and associated habitat types in each major island group
and Florida as ecological reserves by 21'" 2, at least 10 percent by
'-- 2005, and at least 20 percent by 2010" (2002).

Of the 207 sites included in the report, less than one quarter of them
- (49 sites or 24 percent) offer some level of no-take protection (Fig.
"" .' -" B). This category includes all sites classified as no-take, no impact, no
Ben Mieremet n.d. access, and zoned multiple-use with no-take areas. The remaining
158 sites are uniform multiple-use and zoned multiple-use areas.
Approximately 45 percent of the no-take sites are located in the Atlantic-Caribbean region in the jurisdictions of
Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (Fig. C). The remaining 55 percent are found in the four Pacific
jurisdictions of American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and Hawaii. A
site's designation as a no-take area is only a characterization of the restrictions established by its authorizing legislation
or subsequent regulations; it is not an indication of the level of enforcement of those laws or regulations. Also, there
are sites that do not have no-take zones, but do have active fisheries management and enforcement. For example, only
one of the five MPAs in Guam's marine preserve system has been designated as a no-take area, but there is a permitting
system for the preserves that provides comprehensive fisheries restrictions that are vigorously enforced.


Level of Marine Resource Protection (n = 207)


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

Number of No-Take MPAs and Zoned Multiple-Use MPAs
with No-Take Areas by Jurisdiction (n = 49)


Puerto Rico


American Samoa



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


Conservation Focus

In terms of the conservation focus of the
sites included in this report, the large
majority (71 percent) are natural heritage
MPAs, meaning that they are "established
and managed to sustain, conserve, restore
and understand the biodiversity,
populations, communities, habitats,
ecosystems, processes and services of an
MPA or MPA zone" (National MPA Center
2006a) (Fig.D). Almost one quarter of the
sites were established for sustainable
production purposes. Observation of
regional trends reveals that sustainable
production MPAs are more common in the
Pacific region than in the Atlantic-
Caribbean region (Fig. E). Very few sites in
the seven coral jurisdictions have a cultural
heritage focus or multiple conservation foci.

Number of Coral Reef MPAs by Conservation Focus
(n = 207)

4 SP
FT 45


o Natural Heritage (NH)

o Cultural Heritage (CH)

o Sustainable Production (SP)

o Natural & Cultural Heritage

NH & SP 0 Natural Heritage & Sustainable
m Natural & Cultural Heritage &
Sustainable Production

Fig. D: Conservation focus of sites.

Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs within each Jurisdiction
by Conservation Focus (n = 207)







American CNMI

Guam Hawaii Florida


Fig. E: Conservation focus by jurisdiction.

Duration and Scale of Protection

The large majority of sites in the report are
permanent (86 percent), provide constant
protection throughout the year (97 percent),
and are intended to provide ecosystem level
protection (78 percent) (Fig. F). Twenty-
two MPAs are conditional, meaning that
after a specified period of time they will be
reevaluated and either continue for another
set period of time or be terminated. Seven
sites are seasonal areas in which specific
habitats and resources are protected during
fixed times of the year or periods. Forty-
five MPAs in this report have authorities
and management measures that target a
particular habitat, species complex, or
resource rather than focusing management
at an ecosystem level.

Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs by Permanence, Constancy,
and Scale (n = 207)

.," .-: : i
P.-u,- : I

,m ,, -,i J'

Permanence of

Constancy of Protection Scale of Protection

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

' I I F- r


- F

MPA Characteristics: Resources,
Management, and Challenges

Many of the MPAs represented in this report
contain significant natural resources whose
protection is essential for the effective
conservation of coral reef ecosystems.
Almost half of the 207 sites contain fish
spawning areas. Threatened and endangered
species have been observed in almost 80
percent of the sites in this report. This
statistic was formulated by calculating the
number of sites that reported the presence of
federally endangered or threatened sea
turtles, marine mammals, and/or birds. Note
that two species of coral, the Acroporapalmata
and the Acropora cerviconis, were listed as
federally threatened species after the
completion of the MMA Inventory. The
inclusion of these species in this assessment
would increase the number of sites with
threatened or endangered species significantly.







Fish Spawning Areas Threatened and Endangered

Fig. G: Coral reef ecosystem MPAs with fish spawning aggregations
and endangered sea turtles, marine mammals, and/or birds.

Of the 207 sites included in this report, 194 of them provided information on the management activities that are being
implemented within the areas. Figures H-K illustrate the proportion of sites in each jurisdiction that are currently
implementing education, research, monitoring, and enforcement activities. Some jurisdictions may not have reported
the implementation of these activities specific to particular sites, but they have comprehensive programs for education,
research, monitoring and enforcement that inherently include these MPA sites as a part of the broader coral reef
management efforts. For example, Hawai'i has an extensive coral reef outreach and education campaign that does not
focus on any specific MPA sites and therefore was not reported as a management activity for many of the sites in

Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs with Education
Activities by Jurisdiction (n = 194)








Guam Florida

American CNMI


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

Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs with Fish Spawning
Areas and Threatened and Endangered Species (n = 207)


Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs with Research Activities
by Jurisdiction (n = 194)







American CNMI Hawaii Guam Florida Puerto USVI
Samoa Rico

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

Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs with Monitoring Activities
by Jurisdiction (n = 194)



60% -


20% -

0% -
American CNMI Hawaii Guam Florida Puerto USVI
Samoa Rico

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

Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs with Enforcement
Activities by Jurisdiction (n = 194)

American CNMI

Hawaii Guam Florida Puerto USVI

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


The development of a management plan is an important step towards the successful implementation and effective
management of an MPA. A management plan serves as the framework for the implementation of an MPA and lays out
a series of goals, objectives, and management actions for a particular site or a system of sites. These plans can provide
both long-term guidance for the application
and adaptation of MPA management Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs with Management Plans
strategies as well as short-term actions to be by Jurisdiction (n = 207)
implemented in the immediate future. The 100% --- -
development of a robust management plan -.
can be quite challenging depending on the 8I -- i-
number of management authorities, 80
agencies, and other stakeholders involved in
the process, the amount of financial and 60%
human resources available to work on the
plan, and the level of local support for the 40%
MPA. These challenges are reflected in the
relatively low number of sites that have 20%-
approved management plans (Fig. L).
0% - - -
It is important to note that presence of a American CNMI Guam Hawaii Florida Puerto USVI
management plan does not necessarily Samoa Rico
signify that management actions are being Fig. L: Coral reef ecosystem MPAs with management plans.
implemented in a particular site; nor does
the absence of a management plan imply that there is no management action. Many sites without complete
management plans have significant management activity, such as permitting systems, fisheries regulations, the
implementation of no-take zones, outreach and education initiatives, and coral reef ecosystem monitoring among

Finally, 126 sites responded to a question
Percent (%) of Coral Reef MPAs that identified each issue as that asked them to identify the existing
a Management Challenge (n = 126) challenges to effective MPA
100% management. The list of challenge
options included funding and resources,
80% management capacity, public support,
monitoring, enforcement, and other.
60% Excluding the "other" options, all of the
challenge options were identified in more
40% than 50 percent of the sites indicating
that significant effort is required to
% ensure that MPA goals will be met (Fig.
M2). Enforcement was the most
commonly identified challenge followed
0% by funding and resources, capacity,
Funding/ Capacity Public Monitoring Enforcement Other n ing and pubc supor. Sera
Resources Support monitoring, and public support. Several
other challenges were identified by
Fig. M: Number of MPAs (out of 126 total responses) that identified each issue inventory respondents, such as balancing
as a challenge to effective MPA management. Of the 207 total MPAs, data was use with protection, interagency
not reported for 81 MPAs located in Florida, HI, and CNMI. coordination, a lack of comprehensive
management plans, a lack of citation and
penalty systems for illegal activity, insufficient communication between researchers and managers, a lack of
infrastructure, facilities and administrative support, conflicts with private landowners, and the poorly described or non-
existent demarcation of MPA boundaries.

The successful application of MPAs as a management tool is contingent upon the resolution of these obstacles to
effective management. If the federal, state, and territory government partners on the U.S. CRTF wish to achieve
functioning networks of coral reef ecosystem MPAs, then they must work together to address these challenge areas and
provide the resources and assistance required to build state and territory MPA management capacity.



National Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Center. 2006a. A Functional Classification System for Marine Protected Areas in the
United States. NOAA. Silver Spring, Maryland. 6 pp. Available online at: http://www.mpa.gov/pdf/
helpful-resources/factsheets /class system 0806.pdf.
2006b. Glossary. http://www.mpa.gov/glossary.html.
2006c. Inventory of Marine Managed Areas in the United States. http://www.mpa.gov/helpful resources/

U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. 2000. The NationalAction Plan to Conserve CoralReefs. Washington, D.C. Available online
at: http://coralreef.gov.

U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2002. A National Coral ReefAction Strategy: Report to Congress on
Implementation of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2002 and the NationalAction Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs in 2002-
2003. NOAA. Silver Spring, Maryland. 120 pp. + appendix.

Chapter 1: American Samoa Coral Reef MPA Summary

American Samoa Coral Reef Advisory Group'

Contributors: Meghan Gombos, Risa Oram, and Selaina Vaitautolu


As the southernmost U.S. Pacific Territory, American
Samoa lies approximately 4,2111 kilometers (km) south
of Hawaii in the South Pacific. The territory is
comprised of seven islands (five volcanic and two coral
atolls) surrounded by shallow water habitats consisting
primarily of fringing reefs, a few offshore banks, and
two coral atolls. Based on the 21 '4 NOAA benthic
habitat maps, the estimated area of coral-related habitat
in the territory is 73 km2 (Riolo 2006). This estimate
could increase significantly based on the kind of
substrates found on the newly delineated seamounts
that encircle Tutuila Island.

"Coral reefs are an
important natural resource
in American Samoa. Not
only are they important
habitats for fishes, but for
traditional and recreational
activities as well"
(Saucerman 1995). Coral
reefs provide protection,
food, medicines, and
security, as well as other Fig. 1.1: White-spotted surge
social, cultural, economic, (Brown 2006)
and aesthetic benefits. A recent economic valuation
study conducted by Jacobs Inc. indicated that the
current total coral reef annual value (US$/year at 2,I ,4
market prices) in American Samoa is $10,057,000. The
total current product added value of the direct coral reef
subsistence fishery in American Samoa is estimated to
be about US$ 544,000/year (Jacobs, et al. 2 11 4;

American Samoa's reefs have experienced numerous
destructive impacts, both natural and human induced.
The reefs have proven resilient to tropical storms,
bleaching events, and crown of thorn starfish outbreaks
in the past. This resilience is aided by high amounts of
coralline algae that promote coral recruitment, and high
herbivorous fish populations that keep macro-algae
populations low. Overall, the coral reefs in American
Samoa are considered healthy and coral cover averages

about 30 percent (Sabater and Tofaeono 2006; Fenner
and Whaylen 2005). Land-based pollution,
sedimentation, fishing pressure, global climate change,
and population pressure are among the human based
threats that are being investigated to better understand
their impacts on the reefs. While not all of these factors
may have impacted the reefs noticeably up until now,
they all potentially pose serious threats for the future.

The reef ecosystem also has been impacted by the
significant human population growth that has occurred
in the territory over the last two decades. American
Samoa has an estimated population of 66,900 people
and a population growth rate of approximately two
percent per year (Filiga 2006). "Rapid development and
the accompanying environmental degradation
have affected the South of Tutuila Island in many
ways: roads encroach on shoreline, new
construction, [and] siltation problems" (Coutures
2003). In addition, fish caught in the inner Pago
Pago Harbor are seriously contaminated with
S heavy metals such as lead and other pollutants.
The fish in the inner Pago Pago Harbor are not
safe to eat, and the sale of these fish is prohibited
(ASEPA 1991). Eutrophication and
h sedimentation are likely responsible for the
degraded condition of many coral reefs in Pago
Pago Harbor (Banner, et al. 1970; Caperon, et al.
1971; Smith, et al. 1973 in Dahl, et al. 1977). In recent
years, however, water quality in the harbor has
improved due to diversion of pollution from local
canneries, and reefs in the harbor appear to be
recovering as a result.

The American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency
(ASEPA) monitors water quality and publishes weekly
beach advisory notifications in the Samoa News
newspaper. Advisories are issued when E. coi bacteria,
an indicator of contamination by human and/or animal
wastes, concentrations exceed levels determined safe for
human exposure (ASEPA 2005). Coral reef organisms
are susceptible to diseases caused by pathogens and
parasites, as well as to those conditions caused or
aggravated by exposures to anthropogenic pollutants
and habitat degradation (Peters 1997).

1 The American Samoa Coral Reef Advisory Group (CRAG) is a collaboration of five different agencies in the territory, all of
which have some link to the coral reef environment: the Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR); the
Department of Commerce (DOC); American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA); the American Samoa
Community College (ASCC) and; the National Park of American Samoa.



Msasi CFMP

Ae CF/ P


Faglle Bay

Faganeawa &
Maltu CFMP
NU'Uul Palo SMA

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
in American Samoa

Ofu and Olosega

Manes Psik
Ofu NP

Fig. 1.2: Map of MPAs in American Samoa (Curry and Anderson 20(

The territorial government of American Samoa and the
U.S. federal government have recognized that measures
must be taken to protect the unique marine resources in
the islands. The first MPA in American Samoa, the
Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, was established in
1973. MPAs in American Samoa represent various
levels and types of MPAs, from federally managed to
community-based. Federal sites include the National
Park of American Samoa, Rose Atoll National Wildlife
Refuge, and Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
The Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary is federally
funded, but located within territorial waters; because
both federal and territorial regulations apply, it is co-

American Samoa has established 14 MPAs on the main
islands of Tutuila and Ofu that contain coral reef
resources and habitats. These sites represent three types
of MPAs: 1) special management areas i 1 ..,, 2) a
territorial marine park, and 3) community-based
fisheries management program (CFMP) reserves. The
territory is also developing a new program to establish
no-take MPAs. Although no MPAs have been
established under this program, two sites are proposed
to be established by September 2010.


Rose Atoll

Rose Atoll
National WVWdlfe Refuge

*srar,~~ m



Special Management Areas:

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use,
Natural and Cultural Heritage MPAs

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

Section 24.0503 of the American Samoa Coastal
Management Act of 1990 designated Pago Pago Bay,
and the "pala" or wetland areas of Nu'uuli and Leone as
special management areas i1 .* because of "their
unique and valuable characteristics and to the imminent
threat from development pressures" (ASCA 24.05).
This section also instructed the director of development
planning to delineate boundaries and establish rules that
impose the highest practical standards for the
preservation, restoration, and management of the SMAs'
ecological, commercial, recreational, and esthetic values.
Future SMAs may be designated by the governor,
following a nomination process and pursuant to the
Administrative Procedures Act.


Alofau CFMP
Auto & Amaua CFMP



Fagaluao CFMP

Polo. CFMP

Leone Pale SMA



The SMAs are primarily managed by the American
Samoa Coastal Management Program (ASCMP) within
the Department of Commerce, but other agencies also
contribute to management. ASEPA oversees stream
management, piggery management, solid waste
management, and a water quality program in
cooperation with ASCMP. The human health aspects
of -'i_. i waste management and solid waste
management are the responsibility of the Department of
Health. The American Samoa Community College
(ASCC) Land Grant oversees mangrove replanting and
shoreline stabilization. Additionally, the Department of
Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR) has the power
and duty to manage, protect, preserve, and perpetuate
the marine and wildlife resources in the territory (ASCA
24.0304). Finally, local village councils enforce village
wetland agreements, monitor their village projects for
compliance, and support protection of wetlands by
imposing village fines on violations and reporting
violations to ASCMP.

coastal zone includes the entirety of all five islands and
the two coral atolls out to the three-mile territorial sea
limit. Therefore, the main protections afforded to
SMAs are development regulations through a permit
system. This permit system, as identified in the ASCMP
administrative rules, integrates the permitting
requirements of each of the territorial agencies
concerned with environmental management, and
includes special requirements for permits around SMAs.

While the SMAs include a marine component, there are
no regulations within the marine area that go beyond
general territorial regulations. The regulations that apply
to the Pago Pago Harbor SMA are general territorial
fisheries and harbor regulations. As previously
mentioned, the sale of fish from the inner Pago Pago
Harbor is prohibited because they are not safe to eat
(ASEPA 1991). In the Leone Pala and Nu'uuli Pala
SMAs, territorial fisheries and wetland regulations apply.
The wetlands within these sites have been delineated

Table 1.1: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Three
Special Management Areas (SMAs)

Special Management Areas

(SMAs) Uq 4 U 9 Cn
Leone Pala x x x x x x x
ci i cn E G H I
Special Management Areas c | s 0 Gd | Gd
(SMAs) U _U S cn cn (
Leone Pala x x x x x x x
Nu'uuli Pala x x x x x x x x x
Pago Pago Harbor x x x x x x x x x

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

SMAs are specific areas that "possess unique and
irreplaceable habitat, products or materials, offer
beneficial functions or affect either the cultural values or
quality of life significant to the general population of the
territory and fa'aSamoa" (Samoan way of life) (ASAC
26.0221). These areas include both terrestrial and
marine components. The main purpose of the SMAs is
to protect unique marine ecosystems by regulating
upland activities that could degrade these systems. The
SMAs were selected using biological and ecological
parameters (mapped accordingly to maximum extent) of
water, soil, and plant coverage (based on U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers wetland delineations).

The American Samoa Administrative Code (ASAC) lays
out permit procedures and regulations for any
development that occurs within the coastal zone and
specifically around SMAs. In American Samoa, the

through an agreement with the adjacent communities.
Within these SMAs, any activities that alter wetlands are
regulated, including filling and dumping, dredging,
killing or damaging any flora or fauna, and the erection
of any structures that affect the tidal flow (ASAC
26.0222 F. 1. a. & b).

Management Activities:

The SMAs currently do not have written management
plans with site-specific rules, regulations, and/or
management tools and implementation strategies.

Education and Outreach:
Island-wide public awareness and outreach activities are
an on-going part of ASCMP. Over the years, numerous
efforts have focused specifically on communities located
within the SMAs. One effort has been working with
these communities to develop village wetland


agreements, which are based on wetland delineations
and traditional village uses. The finalized wetland
boundaries are hard-line boundaries in which no
development is allowed. Wetland and SMA boundary
signs have been proposed and will be installed in the
designated SMA villages in the next year. Recently,
ASCMP (with the permission of the Department of
Parks and Recreation) installed a mangrove-viewing
platform in Lion's Park with educational messages about
mangroves in English and Samoan.

Enforcement and monitoring activities within the SMAs
are similar to island-wide enforcement and monitoring
activities. ASCMP enforcement staff is in the field
several days a week conducting site visits and
monitoring active construction sites. These activities
provide an opportunity to survey the island, including
the SMAs, for non-permitted activities. Additionally,
enforcement staff regularly receives calls from the public
regarding non-permitted or suspicious activities. Lastly,
ASCMP now has a designated assistant attorney general
to work specifically on ASCMP and Department of
Commerce cases.

Development projects within the SMAs are subject to a
permitting process implemented by ASCMP, and carried
out by the Project Notification and Review System
(PNRS) Board, which consists of representatives from
various agencies. These agencies include: ASCMP,
ASEPA, American Samoa Historic Preservation Office,
American Samoa Power Authority, Department of
Health, DMWR, Department of Parks and Recreation,
and Department of Public Works. The PNRS provides
a system of environmental review, along with economic
and technical considerations, that is intended to ensure
that environmental concerns are given appropriate
consideration in the land use decision-making process.
Current staff positions that directly work within the
SMA includes: ASCMP wetland specialist, a village
conservation officer, and a community liaison officer.

Stakeholder Involvement and Public

While the public was not involved in the designation of
the SMAs, all permit reviews of projects around SMAs
must include a public hearing to obtain stakeholder
input about development around the SMA.
Additionally, both Nu'uuli Village and Leone Village
were involved in delineating their village wetland
boundaries and each supports protection efforts. These
villages also monitor the wetland areas and report non-
permitted activities to ASCMP. Lastly, the public will
be involved in the proposed SMAs for the Malaeimi
Valley and Tafuna Lowland Rainforest areas.

Territorial Marine Park

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use,
Natural Heritage MPA

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

Ofu Vaoto Marine Park was established on the south
coast of Ofu Island in 1994 through American Samoa
Territorial Law (PL 23-13; ASCA 18.0214). The
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has
management authority for the park, but DMWR
maintains primary authority to manage the fisheries
within the park.

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

The park was established "to protect its unique coral
reef wildlife habitat while enabling the public to enjoy
the natural beauty of the site" (ASCA 18.0214). This
unique habitat includes a high diversity of corals, in
particular blue coral, fish, and hawksbill turtle nesting

Regulations for the park prohibit fishing or shellfish
harvesting (ASCA 18.0214). However, there is an

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

a a3 E E I
v, Za

Marine Park U U g c S W
Ofu Vaoto I I I I
OftiVaoto x x x x x x


exception that allows Ofu Island residents to continue
subsistence fishing and shellfish harvesting in the park
in accordance with territorial fishing regulations. No
other regulations have been established for the park.
However, the ASCMP administrative rules provide
additional protections for the park through a land use
permit review system for areas adjacent to park and the
adjacent National Park of American Samoa. Under this
system, applications are reviewed "to ensure minimum
adverse impact to marine and coastal resources,
including water-quality, habitat, fish and wildlife, and
recreational opportunities" (ASAC 26.0220 F. 7.).

Management Activities:

There is no management plan for the park and DMWR
is not actively implementing any management programs.

Because the park is adjacent to the National Park of
American Samoa and shares ecological functions with it,
the park benefits from management programs that are
being implemented by the National Park Service. Some
of these programs include documentation of subsistence
fishing harvests, and coral reef research being conducted
in conjunction with the University of Hawaii. A current
management concern for the park is a proposed
extension for the adjacent airport runway. This
extension would destroy the reef flat and could have
significant impacts on the coral reefs in the park.

Stakeholder Involvement and Public

The public was not involved in the establishment of the
park because it was selected as compensation of habitat
loss caused by dredging Faleasao Harbor (as required by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Due to the remote
location and lack of accessibility by most American
Samoans, the park essentially remains an unknown

Community-based Fisheries
Management Program

National Classification: No-Take, Sustainable
Production and Natural Heritage MPAs

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

Based on an initiative of community-based fisheries
management reserves in the neighboring country of
Samoa, the American Samoan government has
implemented a similar effort to incorporate and utilize
the distinctive Samoan culture into resource protection.

Within the U.S., American Samoa is unique in that
villages have maintained virtually all marine and land
tenure. As such, the community-based fisheries
management program (CFMP), which is administered
through DMWR, works with individual village
communities to identify resource trends and problems,
and to develop management plans that are locally
appropriate and accepted.

W V~i

The CFMP was
designed to assist
villages in
managing and
conserving their
inshore fishery
resources. There

was a
collaborative Fig. 1.3: Ofu-Olesega, Manu'a Islands
effort to develop (Tennant 2006)
and co-manage
these sites through a series of meetings in which the
village was responsible for developing a management
plan for the protected area with advice and technical
assistance from DMWR. The management plan details
the purpose, duration, and rules and regulations for the
site. An agreement is signed between the village council
and DMWR to legalize the site. Plans are then reviewed
by a legal advisory review team to incorporate the village
rules and regulations into the DMWR statutes, to
provide more effective protections, and to allow villages
to issue citations.

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

CFMP reserves are established and managed principally
to support the continued sustainable extraction of
renewable living resources (e.g., fish, shellfish) within or
outside of the reserves by protecting important habitat
and .p ''i i_ .'' i;', or nursery grounds; or, providing
harvest refugia for by-catch species. The reserves also
prohibit the extraction or destruction of natural or
cultural resources within the reserve boundaries, and
restrict access and/or other activities that may adversely
impact resources, processes, and qualities, or the
ecological or cultural services they provide. There is no
formal network among the reserves, but as the number
of villages included in the program increases, there are
some discussions of creating a social network for village
leaders to share information and request assistance.

Each of the reserves prohibits resource extraction.
However, in select instances, there may be an exception
of subsistence fishing for cultural practices. The village
members can still utilize the resources for recreational
and educational purposes. At times, certain areas of the
reef will be opened for use by elders in the village with


Table 1.3: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the 10 Community-based Fisheries
Management Program (CFMP) Reserves

W,7~ E U^^
c. a ci c '

Community-based Fisheries
Management Program (CFMP) c b A E G
Reserves U U 9 c cn
Alofau x x x x x x
Amaua & Auto x x x x
Aoa x x x x x x
Aua x x x x
Fagamalo x x x x x
Masausi x x x x
Matu'u & Faganeanea x x x x
Poloa x x x x
Sa'ilele x x x x x
Vatia x x x x x x

permission from the village council, and as outlined in
the individual reserve's management plan. There is also
a three-year expiration date on the closure of the site.
At this time, the village reviews the management plan
and its effects and decides if it would like to continue to
have the same regulations, make changes to the
regulations, or discontinue the program. Some villages
select to open a reserve temporarily for fishing before
closing it for an extended period. DMWR is moving
towards discussions of more long-term or permanent
closures for community reserves.

Management Activities:

Implementation of the reserve management plans is
carried out by the village with assistance from DMWR.
DMWR staff meets with each village approximately
every month to discuss management efforts and address
concerns. Management efforts for the reserves include
research, monitoring, enforcement, and public

Research efforts implemented by DMWR include
inshore creel surveys to determine fishing efforts and a
"key reef species project" to examine targeted species of
the reefs. Previously, some villages were conducting
restoration activities by stocking the reef area with giant
clams from the DMWR hatchery. However, these
efforts are no longer being implemented.

The DMWR CFMP team has recently developed
monitoring protocol to carry out monthly monitoring of
each participating village reserve. DMWR extension
staff and trained community volunteers from the
Management and Enforcement Committee are
responsible for conducting the monitoring activities,
such as basic fish biomass and diversity surveys. The
Fagamalo, Vatia, Aoa, and Amaua & Auto CFMP
reserves are also included in the Territorial Monitoring
Plan, which surveys corals and fish species.

Groups of untitled men, in conjunction with the village
matai (chief), are primarily responsible for carrying out
enforcement efforts. Violators may be brought in front
of the village council to determine the punishment.
When higher-level enforcement is needed, the village
calls on the Enforcement Division of DMWR for
assistance because it has the authority to issue citations.
An attorney is currently reviewing community
regulations that allow the village matai to enforce
reserve regulations to determine how to incorporate
them into territorial law.

Stakeholder Involvement and Public

The nature of this program is to encourage communities
to actively manage their local resources in collaboration


with DMWR through a series of meetings
and training. Therefore, the program itself
is based on public involvement and would
not succeed without major public support.

The first meeting between the village
members and DMWR takes place after initial
contact by the cultural officer, high talking
chief, or director of DMWR. This meeting
allows DMWR to explain the extension
process of the program, its benefits, and the Fig. 1.5:
necessary undertakings by DMWR and the resource
village. The village, through the village stewards
Lean 20(
council, then decides whether or not to
accept the program.

Group meetings with the villages are conducted with the
village chiefs, women's group, and untitled men to
identify the problems, the causes, and their effects, as
well as solutions to the problems. A fisheries
management advisory committee (FMAC) is selected
from the chiefs and untitled men's group. With
DMWR's assistance, this committee puts together the
information gathered from the group meetings and a
baseline questionnaire form to begin the development
of a fisheries management plan (FMP). FMAC
continues to meet with the program staff to develop an
FMP for the village.

Several public awareness efforts take place at the village
level and the territorial level. Village-level awareness
efforts occur mostly during village meetings, which
allow for an exchange of information between DMWR
staff and villagers. DMWR staff helps villagers
understand the reef fishery ecosystems, and provide
management advice through formal and informal

Currently DMWR is
conducting monthly
community outreach
activities at the
different church
youth groups within
the participating
villages. At these
events, DMWR staff Fig. 1.4: CFMP outreach event
and other (Mata'u 2006)
environmental agencies educate youth groups on
environmental issues that contribute to the destruction
of coral reefs, and how they can contribute to saving
these unique natural resources. Additionally, DMWR
extension staff conducts monthly community reserve
visits to informally keep in touch with the village
communities about on-going issues and challenges
related to the reserve and the program.

hip fo

To help local villagers
monitor and enforce the
reserves, DMWR has
provided training
workshops in monitoring,
boating safety, and
equipment for the
community. Information
sheets on fisheries, corals,
seaweeds, mangroves,
raining workshop on dynamite fishing, and
gement and environment bleaching have been
r village mayors (Sauafea- distributed in conjunction
with press releases and
radio announcements. To ensure stakeholder
participation, the use of participatory tools for
information rhn i 1 t_.ini decision-making,
monitoring, and evaluation was included in Participatory
Learning and Action (PLA) village workshops hosted in
partnership with local NOAA Fisheries staff. PLA is a
community action program that engages all sectors of
the community, especially women and youth. It is based
on the philosophy that when people are involved in the
information E irlh, iir dc ~.. piln, and implementation
phases, they are empowered with responsibility and
accountability for their resource use actions.

Federal MPAs

Managing federal MPAs in the context of American
Samoa's land tenure system has required the formation
of a unique partnership between the federal
government, territorial government, and villages.
American Samoa is a semi-autonomous territory that
operates under its own constitution based on the
traditional Samoan governance structure. Matais
(chiefs) have control over the land and assign holdings
to family members on a lifetime basis. These land
holdings include the coastal waters that encompass the
nearshore coral reefs. The existing law on land tenure
prohibits the transfer of land ownership, except
freehold land, to any person who is less than one-half
Samoan. In matters pertaining to the use and protection
of land, the traditional system of land tenure must be
adhered to and is an integral component of the way the
resources are managed. Therefore, the federal MPA
programs operating in the territory have adapted their
procedures and structure to work within the land tenure
and management system.

In addition to the cooperative agreements that allow for
co-management of the federal MPAs, the National Park
of American Samoa and the Fagatele Bay National
Marine Sanctuary play pivotal roles in the governor's
Coral Reef Advisory Group (CRAG). The National


Park of American Samoa is a voting member of CRAG,
and Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary has
provided guidance and support throughout CRAG's
operation. Both the park and the sanctuary have
assisted in the development of capacity building
opportunities, marine policy, and research as it relates to
MPAs in the territory. Because of American Samoa's
unique management framework and partnerships, this
chapter includes summary information for the federal
MPAs in the territory. These MPAs will be described in
more detail in a future report, which will include federal
MPAs and geospatial
analysis of MPA coverage
within coral reef ecosystems.

Fagatele Bay National
Marine Sanctuary

The Fagatele Bay National
Marine Sanctuary
encompasses 163 acres (0.25
square miles) of fringing Fig. 1.6: Fagatele Bay Natic
coral reef ecosystem nestled Sanctuary (Tennet 2006)
within a flooded extinct
volcanic crater on the southwest coast of the island of
Tutuila. It contains many of the species native to this
part of the South Pacific Ocean, including at least 200
coral species, 270 fish species, turtles, whales, sharks,
and the giant clam.

The sanctuary was designated in 1986 in response to a
proposal from the American Samoa government to
NOAA's National Marine Sanctuary Program. While
NOAA has primary responsibility for the sanctuary, it
co-administers the sanctuary with ASCMP, and the
sanctuary staff consists of federal, territorial, and local
village resident employees. The sanctuary's official
purpose is "to protect and preserve an example of a
pristine tropical marine habitat and coral reef terrace
ecosystem of exceptional productivity, to expand public
awareness and understanding of tropical marine
ecosystems; to expand scientific knowledge of marine
ecosystems; to improve resource management
techniques, and to regulate uses within the Sanctuary to
ensure the health and well-being of the ecosystem and
its associated flora and fauna" (Federal Register 1986).

Currently, the sanctuary regulations prohibit taking
invertebrates and sea turtles, and any historical artifacts
found in the bay. The only fishing allowed in the
sanctuary is line fishing in the outer part of the bay.
Local conservation officers and the NOAA Office of
Law Enforcement are responsible for enforcing the
regulations in the sanctuary. Local landowners provide
an additional layer of surveillance by overseeing the
visitors that access the sanctuary via land. The sanctuary

)nal M

continues to develop its relationship with landowners
with the hope that they will extend protections to the
coral reef area that was traditionally part of their titled

In addition to partnerships with landowners, the
sanctuary uses other management tools to protect the
resources, including research, monitoring, education,
regulation, and enforcement. Research and monitoring
efforts include collaborations with DMWR, ASEPA,
NOAA's Coral Reef Ecosystem Division, and numerous
researchers from around the world. The
sanctuary's educational and outreach
efforts inform the public about the
unique resources found in the sanctuary,
promote environmental stewardship, and
encourage marine science and research.
In 2007, the sanctuary will be
undergoing a management plan review
that will engage the public to revise, if
needed, the purpose, regulations,
arine boundaries, and relevance of the

The National Park of American Samoa

The National Park of American Samoa is located on
three islands in the territory (Tutuila, Ofu and Ta'u), and
includes portions of land in the following villages:
Fagasa, Vatia, Afono, Pago Pago, Ofu, Faleasao, and
Fitiuta (NPS 2006). The park contains approximately
8,000 acres of paleotropic rainforests and 2,500 acres of
coastal waters, including coral reefs that extend from the
shoreline to 0.25 miles offshore.

The National Park of American Samoa was established
through Public Law 100-571 in 1988 after the National
Park Service and the American Samoan government
completed a comprehensive feasibility study. Earlier
attempts to establish the park failed because there was
not a feasible way for the federal government to acquire
traditionally owned village lands. After decades of
discussion, the High Court of American Samoa and the
U.S. Congress developed a compromise that allows a
lease of the parklands that permits traditional
(subsistence) uses of the land and marine resources by
Samoans (NPS 2006). The park was officially
established in 1993 when a 50-year lease was signed.
The purpose of the park is "to preserve and protect the
tropical forest and archeological and cultural resources
of American Samoa, and of associated reefs, to maintain
the habitat of flying foxes (fruit bats), to preserve the
ecological balance of the Samoan tropical forest, and,
consistent with the preservation of these resources, to
provide for the enjoyment of the unique resources of
the Samoan tropical forest by visitors from around the


world" (NPS 2006). Only subsistence uses of park
lands and marine resources by local villagers is
permitted. However, there is limited surveillance and
enforcement of this regulation.

The park has a five-year Resource Management Plan
that includes management activities from 1995 to 2000.
Although the plan has not been updated, the park
continues to implement several management programs.
Considerable surveys and research occurs in the park,
often in cooperation with other organizations such as
the University of Hawaii, which is examining global
warming impacts to corals. The park has also produced
a variety of education and outreach tools, including a
detailed website and the Natural History Guide to
American Samoa in both English and Samoan. To
continue to involve the villages and the public, the park
has liaisons in all seven villages with parklands, and it
holds annual independent advisory group meetings that
are open to the public.

Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge

The Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (RANWR),
located 14 degrees south of the equator and 2,500 miles
south of Hawaii, is the smallest atoll in the world, with
15 acres in total size and 39,236 acres of submerged
land. The square-shaped reef protects two small,
emergent islands. The atoll is uninhabited by people,
but is home to 12 species of migratory seabirds,
numerous fish species, and a population of rare giant
clams. It also provides nesting ground for threatened
green sea turtles (USFWS n.d.).

RANWR was established on July 5, 1973 via a
cooperative agreement between the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the government of American
Samoa, and both are responsible for cooperatively
managing the area (USFWS n.d.).


In 2005, DMWR received funds from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Sport Fish Restoration Grant Program
(Sport Fed Aid) to continue the development of a no-
take MPA program. This program will address former
Governor Sunia's goal of protecting 20 percent of the
territory's coral reefs as no-take areas.

A no-take program manual is currently being developed,
which will describe the guiding principles for selecting
areas to become no-take MPAs. The two primary
concepts considered during site selection are diversity
and reproductive potential. Social, economic,
enforcement, pragmatic, regional criteria, MPA size, and

the period of closure are also integral parts of the no-
take site selection process. The process for no-take
MPA site selection is detailed in the no-take program
manual and Federal Aid in Sport grant (Brookins, et al.
2005). The no-take program manual also describes the
management plans, which are required for every no-take

Over the next five years 211" '7-2011), the no-take MPA
program intends to build the staffs technical skills to
design socio-economic and governance studies of
MPAs, conduct interviews, analyze data, write reports,
and make management decisions based on this data.
The capacity to conduct regular effectiveness
evaluations of MPAs will also be developed through this
program. Annual public meetings will be held
throughout the duration of the no-take MPA program
in the islands of Tutuila, Ofu & Olosega, and Ta'u.
Two permanent no-take MPAs with site-level
management plans are proposed to be established by
September 2010. Additionally, the CFMP intends to
create three no-take areas within its participating villages
by the end of 2011.


MPA Management Capacity:
Managers identified a lack of human capacity as one the
biggest challenges in managing MPAs. Due to the
remote nature of the island, its small population, and its
need for higher educational facilities, there is a lack of
qualified staff to develop and implement management
plans. A few highly experienced local managers
implement MPA programs with the assistance of a
number of transient workers, and frequent staff
turnover results in reduced program continuity and a lag
time before projects become fully active again. There is
a serious need to train additional local staff and
community college students in order to build and
maintain human capacity in the management agencies.

Additionally, the limited number of experienced staff
present during the establishment of some of the MPAs
has impacted the effectiveness of several sites. While all
of the sites were established with the good intention of
protecting natural resources, many do not have clear
goals and objectives developed through an extensive
public participation process. Inadequate public
participation has led to a lack of clear understanding by
the public about the purpose of MPAs. Additionally,
the effectiveness of the sites is difficult to determine, as
management plans are not comprehensive or non-


ASCC continues to expand its Marine Science Program,
providing improvements in the relevantly trained local
work force. Students, however, must still leave the
territory in order to obtain a bachelor's degree. The
community-based sites are also improving capacity
through outreach programs and community
involvement in site development.

A lack of human capacity also affects enforcement,
which MPA managers identified as another significant
management challenge. Insufficient enforcement within
and around MPAs is likely to reduce the effectiveness of
the regulations, and can weaken support for these
programs. Even community-based programs that are
implemented and enforced by local villagers have cited
enforcement as the greatest challenge. In these
instances, community members are unable to get
offshore to cite illegal activity by outsiders. The lack of
both equipment (e.g., boats, binoculars) and training
inhibits proper enforcement.

Another enforcement challenge is the long legal process
that is required to prosecute violators, which negates the
regulations. DMWR is working to incorporate village
rules into the ASAC to improve their enforceability, but
delineating the enforcement authority of the villagers
remains a challenge. Within the community-based
MPAs, villagers serve mainly as surveillance, and they
are expected to initiate legal enforcement processes
upon witnessing a violation. It has not been clear
among villages, however, who should assume
enforcement authority.

Management Challenges in American Samoa's MPA








Capacity Public

Monitoring Enforcement

The limited livable land area of the islands, combined
with an ever-increasing population size, present
additional challenges for managers. Some villages are
asking for compensation for their inability to build on
their village wetlands, as well as for other conservation
efforts such as monitoring and enforcement.


The American Samoa Coral Reef Advisory Group
(CRAG) is currently in the process of generating an
MPA network strategy to better integrate the existing
and planned MPAs throughout the territory. This
strategy will include local, territorial, and federal MPA
sites. CRAG is a collaboration of five different entities
in the territory, all of which have some link to the coral
reef environment: DMWR; the Department of
Commerce, ASEPA, ASCC, and the National Park of
American Samoa (CRAG 2006).

In 1999, CRAG organized a workshop to create a five-
year plan for coral reef management in American
Samoa. During that workshop, CRAG identified the
need for an MPA network. CRAG was identified as the
lead on this issue, but the MPA network was not funded
at that time (Craig, et al. 1999).

In 2000, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF)
adopted the Coral Reef National Action Plan that set
the goal of establishing 20 percent of all U.S. coral reefs
in no-take MPAs (CRTF 2 '"l Following this
recommendation, former Governor Tauese Sunia
directed CRAG to develop a plan (MPA
Plan) for coral reef protection to reach the


Fig. 1.7: Percent of MPAs (out of 14 total MPAs) that identified each issue as
a challenge to effective MPA management. Under "other" challenges, three
of the sites noted that management activities are difficult due to the lack of a
comprehensive management plan.

goal of protecting 20 percent of the
territory's coral reefs as no-take MPAs
(Sunia 2 11""1). In 2 11C, CRAG sponsored
an MPA workshop with the objective of
producing an integrated plan for the
identification of potential marine areas that
would become part of the territory's
network of MPAs. The workshop
proceedings focused primarily on
expanding the existing CFMP, which relies
on the volunteer participation of villages.

CRAG identified the need for an MPA
coordinator to finalize and implement the
MPA Plan, and to work closely with other
local, regional, and federal partners to
assure that current and future MPA efforts
in American Samoa are coordinated and
utilize best management practices. In
January 2111,4, CRAG hired an MPA


coordinator with funds from its NOAA State and
Territory Coral Reef Management grants (FY2004,
2005, and 2006). The MPA coordinator, with assistance
from the MPA working group, revised the workshop
proceedings from the 2002 MPA workshop and
produced several drafts of the MPA network strategy.
CRAG is using the final year of funds to complete the
MPA network strategy to further the coordination and
integration of the existing territorial and federal MPA

Because the National Park Service (National Park of
American Samoa) and the National Marine Sanctuaries
Program (Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary)
manage sites within the territory, their participation in
the territorial MPA network is vital. These federal
programs work collaboratively with CRAG and provide
MPA support through partnerships and information
sharing. These MPAs
will be described in more
detail in a future report,
which will include federal
MPAs and geospatial
analysis of MPA
coverage within coral
reef ecosystems.

NEXT STEPS/ Fig. 1.8: Matu'u CFMP (Oram 2006)

The following recommendations are based on-site visits
and discussions with MPA management staff, both
territorial and federal, within the territory:

MPA Outreach:
The various territorial and federal MPA programs
should work together to develop a toolkit that can be
used for outreach with communities. The toolkit could
be used as a means to work with communities in
determining threats to resources and management
actions. It could also serve as an institutional
certification program for local staff that would help
them in community outreach and participation. The
toolkit should holistically and comprehensively address
watershed management issues and utilize the existing
efforts and expertise. It should include information on:
* fisheries biology and management,
* coastal ecology and the connection between land
and sea (done in coordination with local ASCMP
and ASEPA offices that have the expertise),
* various management options, including what
actions are needed and their potential impacts, that
the community can choose between; these options
can include permanent no-take areas, seasonal
closures, species take restrictions (particularly food

fish species), best management practices for
reducing sediment and nutrient loading (e.g.,
vegetating cleared areas or stream banks), etc., and
* community-based monitoring and assessment of
managed areas (what, who, why, where, and how).
Development of the toolkit will take time and additional
staff training to increase their familiarity with the
information prior to presenting it to villagers. Staff
training should target educators, enforcement officers,
and other MPA management staff who work with the
public. Additional training for MPA staff should be
identified in the budget planning and include topics such
as watershed management, basic MPA concepts,
monitoring techniques, and MPA effectiveness. Finally,
the effectiveness of the toolkit should be a measured so
that changes can be made to improve its overall success.

MPA Effectiveness:
A monitoring program (with biological and social
measures) for MPA management efforts should
be developed and implemented to determine the
effectiveness of the MPAs. Such monitoring
would provide a means to evaluate the progress
of reaching MPA goals and to identify gaps to
improve MPA management. This information
should be used to update and improve existing, or
to develop new, management plans by further
defining clear, measurable objectives.
Additionally, the CFMP's existing community-
based monitoring should be enhanced so that
community members can better document the effects of
their actions on fisheries populations. Such
documentation has been shown to improve the
acceptance of long-term closures because community
members see first-hand the fisheries data before and
after the temporary opening of a site.

Existing MPAs (community, territorial, and federal)
should be incorporated into the on-going efforts to
develop MPA networks. These sites should be reviewed
or evaluated to determine their effectiveness in reaching
the goals of protecting American Samoa's resources and
way of life.

Agency Collaboration:
While DMWR is primarily responsible for managing
American Samoa's living marine resources, its programs
should be integrated with other MPA efforts and agency
programs that impact marine resources. Agency staff
collaborate on a variety of outreach activities, but these
efforts should be expanded through a greater
understanding of the relationship between upland
threats and management actions. The next steps should
include the development of a framework through which
villages and agencies can develop integrated
management plans to improve the effectiveness of


MPAs. This framework would establish a
comprehensive approach to managing land and marine
resources, provide a targeted and efficient use of limited
funds, and improve the likelihood of successful
management efforts.

Additionally, territorial and federal MPA programs
should collaborate on reaching the goals and objectives
of the MPA network strategy currently under
development by CRAG. One such effort would be an
assessment of the current effectiveness of the territorial
and federal MPAs in supporting territorial goals.
Although all of the MPA programs, both territorial and
federal, lack sufficient human capacity and enforcement
capabilities, collaboration and the sharing of
information and resources could help to fill some of the
gaps. The MPA network strategy will provide a
framework for this cooperation.

Integrated Coastal Management Approach:
While American Samoa faces limited human and
financial resources, it is important to effectively utilize
the existing resources to their fullest capacity to achieve
resource management goals. To enhance existing MPA
effectiveness, an integrated coastal management
approach should be applied. Such an approach would
require that natural resource agencies work together to
identify site specific threats and opportunities to address
those threats within each agency's mandate and
expertise. This approach could also help prioritize
projects for funding and provide a focused effort where
collaboration is feasible and appropriate. Any of these
collaborative efforts should have clear and measurable
objectives. As mentioned above, the MPA network
strategy is expected to provide a framework for this
integrated approach to MPA management and

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

Site Name U P P P .P -
Site Name 0P pi c/ pi Spi
Natural Uniform
Ofu Vaoto Marine Parkrita ult Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No
Heritage Multiple-Use
Natural Uniform
Leone Pala SMA heritage Multipl e Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No
Heritage Multiple-Use
Natural Uniform
Nu'uuli Pala SMA eritae Multipl e Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No
Heritage Multiple-Use
Natural Uniform
Pago Pago Harbor SMA heritage Multipl e Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No
Hentage Multiple-Use

Alofau CFMP reserve auction No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes

Amaua & Auto CFMP reserve auction No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes

Aoa CFMP reserve Production No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes
Aua CFMP reserve auction No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes
Fagamalo CFMP reserve P auction No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes

Masausi CFMP reserve Production No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes
Matu'u & Faganeanea CFMP Sustainable
resev Puctin No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes
reserve Production

Poloa CFMP reserve P auction No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes
Matu'u Faganeanea CFMP Sustainable

Sa'ilele CFMP reserve Pduction No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes
reserve Production

Vatia CFMP reserve auction No Access Conditional Year-round Ecosystem Yes
Production I




Aoa, a village on Tutuila, adopted DMWR's Community-based Fisheries Management Program (CFMP) in
December 2005. Aoa community members have become more optimistic about the MPA because of daily
sightings of rays swimming inshore, which has also made fishermen wish that they could fish inside the MPA. Aoa
fishermen have also witnessed the long-absent bluefin, trevally, unicornfish, and schools of mullets swimming
inshore. CFMP staff continue to work with fishermen to encourage their commitment to the agreed upon time
period of at least two years for the fishing closure.

Two months into the program, community members were excited about participating in the monitoring efforts
coordinated by the CFMP staff. After the monitoring survey, the community members were eager to spread the
word about what was seen. The community members' perception is that there are more fish, and the fish have
increased greatly in size now, as compared to before the MPA was established. The community does not realize
that these fish have always been in their village bay. The MPA may be providing a safe place for these fish to hide,
thus giving the community the perception that the waters of Aoa have come alive. This perception has led to
increased commitment and participation from the community members of Aoa, and their anticipation builds as the
fish and resources replenish and multiply before their eyes.

The CFMP aims to assist communities to conserve and preserve their marine resources for the people of American
Samoa today, and for years to come. To support this effort, a Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) workshop
was held in June 2006 for the Aoa community. Participants from the neighbor CFMP village of Sa'ilele also
participated in the workshop. During the two-day workshop, community members learned tools and techniques
for: 1) identifying problems, causes and solutions, 2) ranking and prioritizing problems or threats, 3) conducting
stakeholder analysis, and 4) developing a community action plan (CAP). Visionary maps were utilized to explore
and develop a community conservation vision for their reef for the next 10-20 years. The CAP also included a list
of activities that the community can implement and facilitate to improve their coral reef resources. The next phase
of this project will be to develop and conduct projects that support the goals of the CAP. As a result of these
efforts, it is hoped that villages or communities will form a cooperative that can broaden their ability to pursue
grants and funds to support their management efforts (Sauafea-Leau 2006a).

CITATIONS American Samoa Administrative Code (ASAC)
26.0222 F. 1. a & b. Tide 26 Environmental Safety and
16 U.S.C 1431-United States Code. Title 16: Land Management, Chapter 02 Coastal Management,
Conservation, Chapter 32: Marine Sanctuaries, Section:
1431: Findings, purposes, and policies; establishment of Section 26.0222 F. 1. a & b Wetlands regulated
system. United States Government. activities. Available online at http://www.asbar.org.

American Samoa Administrative Code (ASAC) American Samoa Code Annotated (ASCA) 18.0214.
26.0220 F. 7. Tide 26 Environmental Safety and Land Tide 18 Parks and Recreations, Chapter 02 Department
Management, Chapter 02 Coastal Management, Section of Parks and Recreation, Section 18.0214 Establishment
26.0220 F. 7. Standards and criteria for review, of Ofu Vaoto Marine Park. Available online at
Available online at http:/ /www.asbar.org. http:/ /www.asbar.org.

American Samoa Administrative Code (ASAC) American Samoa Code Annotated (ASCA) 24.0304.
26.0221. Tide 26 Environmental Safety and Land Tide 24 Natural Resources and Environment Ecosystem
Management, Chapter 02 Coastal Management, Section Protection and Development, Chapter 03 Department
26.0221 Special Management Areas. Available online at of Marine and Wildlife Resources, Section 24.0304
http://www.asbar.org. Powers and duties. Available online at
http:/ /www.asbar.org.



. Samoa Code Annotated (ASCA) 24.05. Dah
Natural Resources & Environment Ecosystem Imp
nr & Development. Chapter 05 Coastal 191"
Lent Program. Available online at
ww.asbar.org. Fed(

SSamoa Environmental Protection Agency Filig
. December 6, 1991. Public Health Directive: Am(
iated Fish in Harbor. Con
2005. Beach Advisory: Supporting efforts to aco
)ur shores. Samoa News, 2005. Nati
L. H., and J. H. Bailey. 1970. The effect of
21 If 1-
pulation upon a coral reef system. Hawaii Inst. Ha
Tech. Rep. 25. Honolulu, Hawaii.

, K., R. Oram, M. Sabateur, S. Vaitautolu, and Mat
r. 2005. Fisheries Projects for American
project F-2-R-29, Fiscal Year 2006. Federal Aid

). Paul. May 5, 2006. Fig. 1.1. National Park Nat
:an Samoa. ht

J., A., Catell, and G. Krasnick. 1971.
Ikton kinetics in subtropical estuary- Go
ation. Lamnol. Oceanogr. 16:599-607.

Emmanuel. 2003. The Shorei'ne Fishery of In: (
Samoa: Analysis of -jr data (April 02 March 03) 114.
zentation of a New Samplng Protocol. DMWR
I Report Series, No 102. The Department of
id Wildlife Resources, Pago Pago, American Riol

f Advisory Group (CRAG). 2006. About
Ittp://doc.asg.as/crag/. Sab
N. Daschbach, S. Wiegman, F. Curren, and J. Com
999. Workshop Report and Development of year Am(
oral Reef \I in American Samoa (2000- Res(
he American Samoa Coral ReefAdvisory Group. U.S.
o, American Samoa.
and P. Anderson. 2006. Fig. 1.2. American Con
Dvernment Department of Commerce. Data
by the American Samoa Department of
id Wildlife Resources.

L., and A. E. Lamberts. 1977. Environmental
i a Samoan Coral Reef: A Resurvey of Mayor's
sect. Pacifc Science 31(3).

register. April 29, 1986. 51 Fed. Reg. 15878.

itoelau. 2006. Personal Communication.
Samoa Government Department of
:e Statistics Division.

association with MRAG Americas, Inc.,
institutionn of Water and Atmospheric
NZ, and the University of Newcastle, UK.
nomic Valuation of Coral Reefs and Adjacent
z American Samoa. Final Report for the
Samoa Department of Commerce.

champion. February 24, 2006. Fig. 1.4.
Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife

Park Service (NPS). August 29, 2006.
Park of American Samoa. nps.gov. NPS.

sa. July 11, 2006. Fig. 1.8. American Samoa

C. 1997. Diseases of Coral-Reef Organisms.
keland (ed.), Life and Death of Coral Reefs. p.
7 York, NY: Chapman & Hall and
nal Thomson Publishing.

tncesca. 2006. Personal Communication.
Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife
Sand CRAG.

/larlowe and Saolotoga Tofaeono. 2006.
iriation in Biomass, Abundance, and Species
n of "Ke ReefSpecies" in American Samoa.
Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife
s. Funded by Sportfish Restoration Grant,
and Wildlife Service.

,eau, Fatima. 2006a. Personal
ication. NOAA Fisheries.
2006b. Fig. 1.5. NOAA Fisheries.


Saucerman, S. 1995. Assessing the Management Needs of a
Coral Reef Fishery in Declne. Presented at the Joint
FFA/SPC Workshop on the Management of South
Pacific Inshore Fisheries (Noumea, New Caledonia, 26
June 7 July 1995).

Smith, S. V., K. E. Chave, and D. T. O. Kam. 1973.
Atlas of Kaneohe Bay: A reef ecosystem under stress. UNIHI-
SEAGRANT-TR-72-01. University of Hawaii Sea
Grant Program.

Sunia, T. 2000. Letter from Governor Tauese Sunia to
Lelei Peau (Chairperson of the American Samoa
Governor's Coral Reef Advisory Group) regarding coral
reef protection. August 2, 2000. American Samoa

Tennet, M. September 8, 2006. Figs. 1.3 and 1.6.
American Samoa Government.

United States Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF). 2000.
The NationalAction Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs. March 2,
2000. Washington, D.C. Available online at
http: / /coralreef.gov.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). n.d. Pacific
Islands Rose Atoll NWR. USFWS.
http: //www.fws.gov/pacificislands/wnwr/

Whaylen, L., and D. Fenner. 2005. Report of2005
American Samoa Coral Reef Monitoring Program (ASCRMP).
Prepared for the Department of Marine and Wildlife
Resources and Coral Reef Advisory Group.

Chapter 2: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Coral Reef MPA Summary

Greg Moretti, CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife

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


The Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI) is part of the 290
kilometer (km) long Mariana Islands
Archipelago that encompasses the 14
islands of the CNMI, numerous offshore
banks, and the U.S. Territory of Guam.
The southernmost islands of the CNMI,
Rota, Tinian, and Saipan, are volcanic in
origin and nearly all covered with uplifted
limestone derived from coral reef. These
islands have the oldest and most developed Fig. 2.1: T
Area, at th
reefs in the CNMI (predominantly located Lagoon, at
along the western/leeward sides), and are
where the majority of the CNMI's residents live.

Saipan, the capitol of the CNMI and the largest of the
Northern Mariana Islands, is where all but one of the
CNMI's MPAs can be found. Saipan has a land area of
122 km2 and is approximately 20 km long and 9 km
wide. The island has the most diverse types of coral
reefs and associated habitats in the CNMI. A fringing
and barrier reef system protects the majority of the
beaches along the western and coastal plains. The
western side of the island is the most populated and
coral reefs along these areas have been negatively
affected by human activities, primarily land-based
sources of pollution, extractive uses, and recreational

Although the first MPAs in the CNMI were established
in 1981, the first no-take area was not established until
1994. Efforts to develop a network or system of more
restrictive MPAs in the CNMI first arose in 1985, when
the Coastal Resources Management Office (CRMO)
commissioned a study to investigate potential sites for
marine parks. The goal of the study was to identify
representative examples of the naturally, culturally, and
recreationally important resources on Saipan, Tinian,
and Rota, and to suggest the protection of these sites
through a marine parks program. The objectives of this
proposed program were conserving natural, cultural, and
historical resources, research, promoting visitor use and
safety, and providing outreach and educational
opportunities. While the exact process for site selection
is not clear, the study provides some insight into the

ne ivia
e north
s seen

criteria that were used,
"Considerable effort
was given to choosing
locations that were
accessible, close to
shore, on public lands,
easily developed, and
in a relatively safe
location in regards to
wave action, currents
and water depth. High
priority for the
fiagaha Marine Conservation underwater parks was
hem-most portion of the Saipan finding a location
from above (Kessler n.d.) where there was a well
developed reef with
good live coral coverage, [and] abundant fish and other
marine life" (Pacific Basin Environmental Consultants
1985). Although no sites were established as a direct
result of this study, and the marine parks program at
CRMO never came to fruition, the study and the
recommended sites likely influenced the future direction
of MPA efforts in the CNMI. In fact, the study
proposed the designation of three sites, one each on
Saipan, Tinian, and Rota. The areas recommended for
protection on Saipan and Rota eventually became
MPAs. The Tinian site was proposed at least once, but
it was never established.

The first no-take MPA in the CNMI was established on
October 13, 1994 with the passing of Rota Local Law 9-
2. The remaining no-take sites, three areas on Saipan,
were established by law between 2000 and 2001.
Multiple attempts were made in 1998, 2001, 2002, and
2004 to establish additional MPAs in Tinian and around
the terrestrially protected Northern Islands, but the
respective pieces of legislation failed to pass. Beginning
in 1981, four multiple-use, single-species/family
sanctuaries were established by Division of Fish and
Wildlife (DFW) regulations to prohibit the harvest of
sea cucumber species or the topshell Trochus niloticus.
Two of those sanctuaries were later overlapped by no-
take MPAs.

Management of the CNMI's MPAs has traditionally
been an intra-agency effort spread over various sections
within DFW, namely the Fisheries Research Section, the
Enforcement Section, and the Planning Section.


Recently, however, there has been a move towards
creating a single MPA program within DFW, not unlike
the one proposed in the 1985 Marine Parks
Management Plan. To date, there has been little active
management of the MPAs, primarily due to the lack of
dedicated funding for such a program. There have been
a number of federally funded efforts to improve MPA
management, including the 2005 development of a
management plan for the Mafiagaha Marine
Conservation Area (MMCA) (State Wildlife Grant
funds), the hiring of three marine enforcement officers
(NOAA Coral Reef Initiative funds), and two years of
funding for an MPA coordinator (NOAA Coral Reef
Conservation Program funds). State Wildlife Grant
funding is also supporting a contractor who is currently
developing management plans for the Bird Island and
Forbidden Island Sanctuaries.

Management authority for all of the MPA sites in the
CNMI lies in DFW. Public Law 12-12, passed in 2000,
gives DFW exclusive authority to manage marine
conservation areas and calls for the establishment of a
Marine Conservation Section within DFW. Although
this section does not formally exist, management
activities such as -'1 !iiIn _-, enforcement, and monitoring
are spread across existing DFW sections. Management
responsibilities related to MPAs are i..-i_ ', especially
for highly used sites such as the MMCA, reinforcing the
need for a formal MPA program within DFW and an
overall MPA program coordinator.

I Enforcement of the
MPAs is the
responsibility of DFW's
Enforcement Section.
The 12 armed
conservation officers are
tasked with enforcing the
laws and regulations that
fall under DFW's
Fig 2.2: DFW Conservation jurisdiction. The officers
Fig. 2.2: DFW Conservation are responsible for
Officers (Moretti n.d.) are responsible for
protecting the natural
and wildlife resources of the islands, including the
marine environment, and fish, game, and endangered
and threatened species. The enforcement officers have
recently been cross-deputized as federal enforcement
officers by the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement in
order to enforce provisions of federal laws such as the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Three of DFW's enforcement
officers are tasked exclusively with enforcing the
regulations for the marine environment, with a focus on
the MPAs. These officers currently receive federal
funding to cover salaries, benefits, ti linin-- and
equipment, but the local government (DFW) is expected
to assume responsibility for funding these enforcement
officers when federal funding is no longer available.

There are various monitoring efforts led by different
government agencies that collect data in the CNMI's
MPAs. Monitoring of the MPAs is primarily done by
DFW's Fisheries Research Section. The Fisheries
Research Section established a Marine Sanctuaries
Program (MSP) in 1998, and has been surveying MPAs
since 1999. The primary goal of the surveys is to
monitor annual trends in reef fish abundance and
diversity. Secondary goals include monitoring changes
in benthic habitat composition, macroinvertebrate
abundance, and habitat heterogeneity. The MSP does
fish counts, counts invertebrates of commercial interest,
maintains a fish species checklist, and conducts a basic
benthic habitat
(coral, sand, rubble,
etc.) at each of its
monitoring sites.

In addition to DFW's I.
MSP, the Division of
Environmental Fig. 2.3: Members of the
Quality (DEQ) and interagency MMT beginning a
CRMO have a well- research dive (Moretti n.d.)
established Marine
Monitoring Team (MMT) that regularly monitors a
number of parameters at sites throughout the CNMI.
The MMT documents how reef communities change
over time in response to natural fluctuations, large
disturbances (typhoons), and pollution. Monitoring
activities are focused on characterization of nearshore
marine habitats and documentation of their spatial
distribution. The 1996-97 Laulau Bay Non-point
Source Pollution Watershed Protection Program marked
the initiation of the Marine Monitoring Program.
Although this program was not specifically designed to
monitor changes in MPAs, many of the monitoring sites
happen to be located in MPAs and can provide insight
into those sites as they change over time. In fact, the
MMT monitors at least one site in each of the MPAs.
The discussion under each MPA type provides more
information about the types of MSP and/or MMT
monitoring sites that are present in the MPAs.

There are two main components to the monitoring
program, water quality surveys and biological surveys.
The water quality surveys monitor salinity, temperature,
nutrients, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, pH, Enterococci,
and fecal coliform. Water quality is tested by DEQ staff
on an eight-week rotational basis at sites that represent
swimming, '... in_,, or fishing areas used by the public,
and weekly at sites on the western Saipan beaches.
Continuous temperature recorders have been placed at
Laulau Bay and Sasanhaya Bay in order to measure
seasonal fluctuations in temperature. Additionally, four
sediment traps have been placed in Laulau Bay, where
terrigenous sediment input is of concern.


The MMT biological surveys measure benthic coverage,
coral communities, macroinvertebrate abundance, fish
abundance, coral recruitment, and biological diversity.
For benthic coverage, 0.5 meter x 50 meter (m) video
belt transects are used to estimate benthic cover. Coral
communities are measured via the point quadrat method
to assess coral population structure and relative
abundance. All macroinvertebrates encountered within
two meters of each side of the transect line are identified
and counted. Fish surveys are completed along each of
the 50 m transect lines and counts are made of all fish,
to the family (or functional group) level, within 5 m of
each side of the transect line. To measure coral
recruitment, all corals less than 5 centimeters in 0.5 m x
10 m belt transects are identified to the genus level and
counted. Biological diversity is measured at each site via
a checklist list of all fish, corals, and other invertebrates
and algae that have been identified.

Population dynamics are assessed at a few sites using
four permanently placed one m2 quadrats that allow for
estimates of coral recruitment, death, growth, and
survival rates. Permanent quadrats have been
established at the Laulau Bay Sea Cucumber Sanctuary
in Saipan, the Sasanhaya Bay Fish Reserve in Rota, and a
few other non-MPA sites. In addition, the MMT
conducts regular reef flat monitoring at Laulau Bay,
Forbidden Island, Tank Beach, Bird Island, and
Sasanhaya Bay (all within MPAs).

CNMI's MPA efforts have included the establishment
of eight MPAs that contain coral reef resources and
habitats. These sites are categorized into four types:
marine conservation areas, marine sanctuaries, fish
reserves, and focal resource sanctuaries.


Marine Conservation Areas

National Classification: No-Take, Natural Heritage
and Cultural Heritage MPA

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

The Mafiagaha Marine Conservation Area (MMCA) was
established on August 8, 2000 with the passing of Public
Law 12-12, the Mafiagaha Marine Conservation Act.
The initial bill to protect Mafiagaha Island and its
surrounding waters first surfaced in 1999, but it did not
become law until late the following year. The law states
that the Department of Lands and Natural Resources
(DLNR) "shall have the exclusive authority to manage
marine conservation areas" (CNMI Public Law 12-12
5). It is unclear whether or not this authority applies to
similar MPAs that have ties other than "marine
conservation area," but DFW has interpreted it to apply
to other types of MPAs, regardless of name. Public Law
2-51 gives DFW the authority and responsibility for the
protection of fish, game, and endangered and threatened
species. Public Law 12-12 further outlines DFW's
specific management responsibilities and gives DFW
authority to prohibit activities that would negatively
affect the conservation area.

On August 7, 2006, the CNMI attorney general issued
the Attorney General Legal Opinion No. 06-11, stating
that the Department of Public Lands has "the exclusive
authority to manage and dispose of public lands in the
Commonwealth, which necessarily includes Mafiagaha
Island" (Office of the Attorney General 2006). At the
time of writing, the extent of DFW's authority over the
island is unclear. However, DFW clearly maintains
authority over the marine portion of the conservation

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

The MMCA includes 1.952 square miles (mi2) of marine
and terrestrial habitat (1.933 mi2 marine). The
legislation denotes the boundaries of the conservation
area as four Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)-
based coordinates, representing the four corners of the
box that is the conservation area. The boundaries were
designated with consideration of existing markers and
navigational areas (the shipping channel), historical
World War II shipwrecks (eight submerged historic

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

Gd~( Gd c
I I E 6
rn r c^i l l li ci ^

-' S Gd i aG

Managaha x x x x x x x


properties lie within the conservation area boundaries),
and the inclusion of at least some of the reef habitat
lying outside of the lagoon.

The MMCA was established to protect the historical,
cultural, and natural resources found within its
boundaries. According to Public Law 12-12, the
purpose of the MMCA is "to protect and preserve, by
strict regulatory enforcement, the land and water
resources, flora, fauna, and marine life that are found in
the conservation area for the enjoyment of future
generations of commonwealth residents and visitors"

Mafiagaha Marine Conservation Ar
\ Fullv Phitiierted \,,-Lake \ira
E~oea, ro' Wlire Shpreck Loser Bse

CNMI's Marine Protected Areas
S Proecting our reefs and fish so they
can be enjoyed today and tomorrow.

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

(Public Law 12-12 '4(b)). The area is designated as a
recreational and educational area that aims to provide
"safe habitats for fish and other marine life to exist and
propagate for the continued use and enjoyment for the
people of the commonwealth and its visitors" (Public
Law 12-12 2). This dual purpose, natural resource
protection and protection for recreation, poses
significant management challenges associated with the
impacts of visitor use.

Public Law 12-12 prohibits the harvesting or catching of
fish or other marine life or natural resources, except as
approved by regulation for scientific research, cultural
and traditional practices, or educational studies. No
motorized or non-motorized watercraft, whether
floating or submersible, or other means of aquatic
transport are permitted within the conservation area.
Again, the regulations allow for exceptions for
enforcement, scientific, recreational and educational
purposes, or for the transport of persons to and from
the isle of Mafiagaha. No swimming, diving, .i,. .i J!: ;r

or other human activity is permitted within the
conservation area, except as provided by regulation.
DFW has the authority to further prohibit by citation,
order, rule or regulation, any activity that in any way
would cause a significantly negative or long-lasting
impact on the conservation area. Public Law 12-12 sets
the fines for violations of this act between $500 and
$10,000, and it enables seizure of items pursuant to
enforcement of the act. Violators of the act or any rule,
regulation, or order related to the act are subject to an
administrative proceeding as provided under the
Administrative Procedure Act (1 CMC 9101 et seq.).

Public Law 12-12 gave DFW a period of 180
ea days to promulgate regulations for the
conservation area. Emergency regulations
were passed in September 2001 that simply
added the MMCA to the existing DFW
regulations on marine reserves (DFW Non-
Commercial Fishing and Hunting
Regulations, Part 5, 'l 2)). The regulations
were adopted on an emergency basis in order
to address inconsistencies between the
regulations' prohibition on commercial
activities within marine reserves and the
Agreement for Special Recreational
Concession between the CNMI and Tasi
Tours and Transportation, Inc. that allowed
them to operate a commercial concession on
Mafiagaha Island. Under the emergency
Regulations, commercial activities on
Mafiagaha Island are exempt from the
regulatory prohibition on commercial
activities in marine reserves. The regulations
prohibit the take of any marine animal or
plant, using food to attract fish, anchoring
vessels, removing or damaging artifacts, natural objects,
or structures, removing substrate, and littering and
dumping. Although the law and existing regulations
prohibit a number of activities, the only rules that are
currently enforced are the no-take provisions. Rules on
swimming, in..., ;i'. vessel use, feeding fish, etc. are
not enforced. More comprehensive regulations were
drafted in the summer of 2006 in order to aid and clarify
enforcement efforts. This draft set of comprehensive
regulations is expected to go through a public review
process by the end of 2006 as a part of the adoption

The small 0.019 mi2 (five hectares) island, which is part
of the MMCA, has an additional level of protection
under the Commonwealth Constitution. The
constitution mandates that "the island of Mafiagaha
shall be maintained as an uninhabited place and used
only for cultural and recreational purposes"
(Commonwealth Constitution Article XIV, Section 2).


Management Activities: implementation of the management plan. Since there is
currently no budget for the MPA, implementation of
A management plan for the MMCA was completed in management activities has been primarily restricted to
April 2005, and it is the first (and to date, the only) activities that the MPA systems specialist can
management plan to be written for an MPA in the accomplish without funding. It is becoming evident
CNMI. Development of the plan was overseen by the that, as DFW assumes true responsibility for the
DFW natural resources planner. It should be noted, management of the MMCA and other MPA sites, an
however, that a management plan for the Mafiagaha MPA program manager, and eventually site managers,
Island Marine Park was written for CRMO by a will be needed.
consultant in 1985, before any such park existed. The
plan was essentially a proposal for the designation of a Research and Monitoring:
marine park surrounding Mafiagaha Island. This 1985 DFW's MSP regularly carries out several monitoring
plan was never implemented. activities in the MMCA. The MSP does fish counts,
counts invertebrates of commercial interest, maintains a
The following are the management goals articulated in fish species checklist, and conducts a basic benthic
the 2005 Management Plan for the Mafiagaha Marine habitat characterization (coral, sand, rubble, etc.) at each
Conservation Area: of its monitoring sites within the conservation area.
* Goal 1: Develop and promulgate regulations, permit Biological monitoring is also conducted by the
fees, and visitor use guidelines interagency MMT at three monitoring sites within the
SGoal 2: Dedicate staff and material resources to MMCA. DEQ samples water at 11 sites equally spaced
Goal 2: Dedicate staff and material resources to
around Mafiagaha Island on a weekly basis. See the
implement the Maniagaha management plan and to
enforce associatedregulations. "Background" section for details on the Marine
enforce associated regulations.
Monitoring Program.
* Goal 3: Survey and monitor natural, cultural, and Monitoring Program.
historical resources, and visitor uses to assess their orcement
status through time.
SEnforcement activities fall under the jurisdiction of the
* Goal 4: Inform and educate visitors about the head of the Enforcement Section. The MMCA is
conservation area resources, potential impacts of patrolled periodically by the DFW conservation officers,
their uses, and the regulations and guidelines for the primarily via boat patrol since the conservation area is
conservation area. difficult to view from land. The MMCA's location in
* Goal 5: Annually the Saipan Lagoon makes it relatively easy to patrol by
evaluate the effectiveness boat, both during the day and at night.
of the conservation area
management and Stakeholder Involvement and Public
regulations. Participation:

The management plan A single public hearing on the MMCA was held on

goal, as wellastsoer t ame
details measurable, time- December 7, 1999, eight months prior to the
bound objectives for each establishment of the site. In general, the public was
goal, as well as short and supportive of the idea of establishing an MPA around
long-term strategic es r Fig 2.5 Visitor use impacts Mafiagaha Island. According to a December 9, 1999
A 15-year budget of $1.64 are one of the primary news article in the Saipan Tribune that documented the
million is estimated for the management concerns for hearing, "Legislation restricting activities on Mafiagaha
fu i natin of the the MMCA (Moretti n.d.) Island and surrounding waters drew wide support at a
full implementation of the public hearing held Tuesday night as residents and
management plan, considering existing DFW budgets. government agencies underscored the need to protect
As part of the budget, the management plan outlines a fish species and marine resources found in the area"
schedule, r f!i-, materials, and equipment needed, and (Saladores 1999). There is no information available on
specific tasks that will be accomplished, individual comments received, or opinions expressed,
during the hearing.
CNMI's MPA systems specialist working for DFW during the hearing
coordinates many of the management activities for the Currently, there is little to no public involvement in
MMCA, with the exception of the Fisheries Sanctuary management decisions and activities related to the
Monitoring Program. Recent management activities MMCA. However, DFW has expressed a desire to
have involved drafting regulations and legislation, increase involvement of local communities. It is
installation of signage, outreach efforts, and efforts to expected that at least one (required) public hearing on
secure permanent sources of funding for the


the proposed regulations for the MMCA will be held
during 2006 in order to give the public an opportunity
to comment on the proposed regulations.

Marine Sanctuaries

The two sanctuaries benefit from significantly sized
adjacent terrestrial conservation areas that were
established through separate processes. The Bird
Island Sanctuary is a 0.568 mi2 protected area which
consists of 0.563 mi2 of marine habitat and a small,
0.003 mi2 (1.3 hectare) island. The Forbidden Island
Sanctuary is a 0.979 mi2 protected area which consists
of 0.967 mi2 of marine habitat and a small, 0.012 mi2 (3
hectare) island.

National Classification: No-Take, Natural Heritage

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

The two sanctuaries were legally established on April 20,
2001 through CNMI Public Law 12-46. At both
locations, Public Law 12-46 protects waters from the
low tide line to 1000 feet seaward. At the Bird Island
site, it also includes protection for land that is 500 feet
up the face of the cliff line, provided that it does not
conflict with private property. As mentioned
previously, Public Law 12-12 gives exclusive
management authority of marine conservation areas to
DFW. Public Law 12-46 reiterates this authority and
places management and monitoring responsibilities
under DFW. However, Public Law 12-46 also clearly
states that DFW shall work with Public Lands, CRMO,
and the Marianas Visitors Authority to collaborate on
management activities. Under Public Law 12-46, DFW
has the authority to charge a "nominal entry fee for the
purposes of maintenance of these sanctuaries and for
enforcement, research and improvement of these
sanctuaries" (Public Law 12-46 4).

CNMI's Marine Protected Areas
AM Protecting our reefs and fish so they
k& vf ~can be enjoyed today and tomorrow.
Fig. 2.6: Forbidden Island Sanctuary (Moretti n.d.)

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

The legislative purpose of the sanctuaries is the
conservation of wildlife and marine life, and they were
designated to serve as "natural laboratories for
continued propagation of wildlife and marine species,
which gradually and naturally can re-populate
depopulated areas of [the] lagoon and island" (Public
Law 12-46 1).

The enabling legislation prohibits the "destruction,
harassment and/or removal of plants, wildlife including
birds, turtles, fish and marine species of any kind,
fishing in any form, operation of jet skis, walking on
exposed sections of the reef, harvesting or removal of
fish, shellfish or marine life in any form" within the
confines of the sanctuaries (Public Law 12-46 5). A
fine of $500 and/or a prison sentence of not more than
one year shall be imposed on any individual who
engages in any of the prohibited activities within the

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


Bird Island x x x x x x x
Forbidden Island a
o 2 o '^ ci S

Marine Sanctuaries 0 ci ./ 0i Gd M Gd U
Bird Island x x x x x x x
Forbidden Island x x x x x x x

Forbidden Island Sanctuair
"\ nut --. .. .- nk \iv
s~u~s- *W*QMln-wusvatb T..k ~ .L,


CNMI's Marine Protected Areas
Prorecring our reefs and fish so they
can be enjoyed today and tomorrow.

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

Management Activities:

Although no formal management plans currently exist
for these two sanctuaries, a contract was awarded in
mid-2006 to a private consultant to develop plans for
the sites. DFW's Natural Resource Planning Section is
leading this effort in conjunction with the development
of plans for the adjacent terrestrial protected areas.

Research and Monitoring:
DFW's MSP regularly carries out monitoring activities
in the Bird Island and Forbidden Island Marine
Sanctuaries. The MSP does fish counts, counts
invertebrates of commercial interest, maintains a fish
species checklist, and conducts a basic benthic habitat
characterization (coral, sand, rubble, etc.) at each of its
monitoring sites within the sanctuaries. Biological and
reef flat monitoring are also conducted by the
interagency MMT at three monitoring sites within the
sanctuaries (Bird Island, Forbidden Island, and Tank
Beach). DEQ samples water at three sites (Bird Island,
Forbidden Island, and Tank Beach) on an eight-week
rotational basis. See the "Introduction" section for
details on the Marine Monitoring Program.

Enforcement activities fall under the jurisdiction of the
head of the Enforcement Section. The sanctuaries are
patrolled periodically by DFW conservation officers,
primarily via land patrol. The sanctuaries' location on
the east side of Saipan means that boat patrols are often
difficult, though not impossible. Much of the Bird
Island and Forbidden Island Sanctuaries is visible from
a variety of vantage points on land, although these
vantage points are not always easily accessible.
Nighttime patrolling of these sanctuaries is logistically

Bird Islaid Sanct iiali
\ Fll'n. PielrcI .i t.take \n. t

Stakeholder Involvement and Public

There is no record of any stakeholder involvement or
public participation in the establishment of these two

Although there have not been opportunities for direct
public involvement in developing the management
plans, DFW intends to receive public input during the
development and promulgation of regulations for these

Fish Reserves

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

National Classification: No-Take, Natural Heritage
and Cultural Heritage MPA

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

The Sasanhaya Bay Fish Reserve (SBFR) was established
on October 13, 1994 with the passing of Rota Local
Law 9-2. Six years later, the Rota local law was
reinforced with the passing of the DFW Non-
Commercial Fishing and Hunting Regulations (Part 5,
'!I,,, which became effective on August 18, 2000.
Enforcement and management of this law is the
responsibility of the secretary of DLNR, in consultation
with the director of DFW and Rota's resident director
of DLNR. DFW regulations are enforced by DFW
conservation officers pursuant to the provisions in
Public Law 2-51, the legislation that originally
established DFW. Additionally, Public Law 12-12,
passed in 2000, states that DLNR "shall have the
exclusive authority to manage marine conservation
areas" (Public Law 12-12 5).

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

According to Rota Local Law 9-2, the SBFR was
established to "preserve the natural beauty, pristine
marine environment and the historical wreckage in the
Sasanhaya Bay of Rota" (Rota Local Law 9-2 1). The
protected area was found to be a valuable tourist
attraction and it was determined that its preservation
would be a boost to the tourist industry. In addition to
prohibiting any activities that are exploitive or
destructive to marine life, the reserve specifically
prohibits killing or !.- ;, i., or attempting to remove,
any marine animal, including but not limited to any
fishes, coral (live or dead), lobster, shellfish, clams,
octopus, and shells. Any activities that are exploitive or


destructive to the World War II shipwrecks are also
strictly prohibited.

Management Activities:

There is no management plan for the SBFR. No
individual at the DLNR office on Rota is tasked with
management of the SBFR.

In 1996, via requests from the CNMI governor and the
mayor of Rota, the director of the CNMI Emergency
Management Office asked the U.S. Navy to detonate the
live depth charges on a World War II sub chaser wreck
at the popular coral gardens dive site in the SBFR. It
was felt by some that the charges posed a hazard to
recreational divers and fishermen, although there were
protests by some members of the general community
and the dive community. The force of the detonation
caused significant damage to the SBFR, the oldest of the
CNMI's MPAs. The blast killed numerous fish,
decimated coral, and killed an endangered hawksbill
turtle. In addition, considerable secondary damage was
caused by the blast's extensive sediment plume, which
blanketed a large area in and around the coral gardens
site. Two typhoons subsequently caused further
damage, and expanded the impacted area to
approximately 29,000 m2. Estimates based on a value of
S2.S.'/m2 resulted in a total estimated economic impact
of $82 million.

Research and Monitoring:
DFW's MSP regularly carries out monitoring activities
in the SBFR. The MSP does fish counts, counts
invertebrates of commercial interest, maintains a fish
species checklist, and conducts a basic benthic habitat
characterization (coral, sand, rubble, etc.) within the
SBFR. Biological and reef flat monitoring are also
conducted by the interagency MMT at a monitoring site
within the reserve. DEQ regularly monitors beach
water quality in the reserve. See the "Introduction"
section for details on the Marine Monitoring Program.

Education and Outreach:
The 2006-2008 NOAA coral reef management fellow is

CNMIs Marine Protected Areas
S Protecting our reefs and fish so they
can be enjoyed today and tomorrow.
CARI S3Z 949 to report vioatio.mL
Fig. 2.8: Sasanhaya Bay Fish Reserve, Rota (Moretti n.d.)

working out of the DEQ office on Rota and has begun
some small projects aimed at increasing public
awareness of the SBFR and the benefits it provides.
There are also plans to get Rota High School biology
students involved with reserve activities.

Enforcement activities fall under the jurisdiction of
Rota's DLNR. The SBFR is monitored by the Rota
DFW conservation officers, primarily via land patrol.
There are six conservation officers on Rota tasked with
the enforcement of all terrestrial and marine fish and
wildlife laws and regulations, including the SSBFR.
These officers report to the resident director of DLNR
on Rota, who reports to the mayor of Rota. The
enforcement officers have one boat available for patrol,
but there is purportedly a perpetual shortage of fuel
available for the vessel. The reserve's location in the
relatively calm waters of the Sasanhaya Bay means that
the reserve is highly accessible, either by land or by boat.
Much, if not all, of the reserve is visible from a variety
of vantage points on land. The reserve also contains a
popular dive site so there are often a number of boats in
the area that can report violations. Dive operators
stated that they used to report violations to DFW, but
they no longer bother to report them because of a lack
of response.

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

S E o

Fish Reservec U n Cn P 4 U ci aC H W

Sasanhaya Bay x x x x x

Sasanliaya Bay Fish Reserve, Rota


Stakeholder Involvement and Public

There is no record of any stakeholder involvement or
public participation in the establishment of this site.

In 2006, DLNR undertook a number of community
involvement projects aimed at increasing public
awareness of the MPA and increasing public
involvement in management activities. These activities
included holding a fishermen's forum, conducting social
science survey research, developing and distributing
outreach materials, community monitoring of reef flats,
and leading a week-long eco-camp with an MPA

Focal Resource Sanctuaries

The four focal resource sanctuaries provide protections
for either the topshell Techtus (Techtus) niloticus (known
locally as "trochus") or sea cucumbers (including
families holothuridae, synaptidae, and stichopodidae). Two of
the four sanctuaries, Bird Island Sea Cucumber
Sanctuary and Tank Beach Trochus Sanctuary, are
overlapped entirely by no-take MPAs (Bird Island
Sanctuary and the Forbidden Island Sanctuary). The
Laulau Bay and Bird Island Sea Cucumber Sanctuaries
include 0.759 mi2 and 0.309 mi2 marine of marine
habitat, respectively. The Bird Island Sea Cucumber
Sanctuary also includes a small terrestrial habitat so its
total area is 0.314 mi2. The 0.429 mi2 Lighthouse Reef
and 0.066 mi2 Tank Beach Trochus Sanctuaries include
only marine habitat.

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use,
Sustainable Production MPAs

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

The Laulau Bay Sea Cucumber Sanctuary and Bird
Island Sea Cucumber Sanctuary were established by the
DFW Non-Commercial Fishing and Hunting
Regulations, Part 5, 60.2 on August 18, 2000. The
sanctuaries encompass the waters from the mean high
tide line to the 40-foot depth contour. DFW is the
responsible agency, with the authority to promulgate
and enforce fish and wildlife regulations as allowed
under Public Law 2-51.

The Lighthouse Reef Trochus Sanctuary and Tank
Beach Trochus Sanctuary were established by the DFW
Non-Commercial Fishing and Hunting Regulations, Part
5, 550.2 in 1981. The Lighthouse Reef Trochus
Sanctuary extends from the inshore edge of the reef to
the 40-foot depth contour. The Tank Beach Trochus
Sanctuary extends from the mean high tide line to the
40-foot depth contour. DFW is the responsible agency,
with the authority to promulgate and enforce fish and
wildlife regulations as allowed under Public Law 2-51.

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

Collection of sea cucumber and trochus is currently
prohibited by law due to a sea cucumber moratorium,
and the lack of an open harvest season for trochus.
However, the reserves were established in anticipation
of possible open seasons in the future.

Sea Cucumber Sanctuaries:
In 1995, a fishery for sea cucumbers was started on the
island of Rota that targeted Actinopyga mauritiana, with
incidental captures of the black teatfish, Holothuia
whitmaei. In 1996, after depleting much of the resource
on Rota, the fishery moved to Saipan (Trianni 2002c).
As a condition on the original fishing permits,
harvesting was not allowed in Laulau Bay or around

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

Ud c)

Focal Resource Sanctuaries U V U U m 9 W

Lighthouse Reef Trochus
Bird Island Sea Cucumber x x x x x
Laulan Bay Sea Cucumber x x x x x
Lighthouse Reef Trochus x x x x
Tank Beach Trochus x x x x x
*These sites are entirely overlapped by Bird Island and Forbidden Island Sanctuaries.


CNMI's Marine Protected Areas
Protecting our reefs and fish so they
can be enjoyed today and tomorrow.
Fig. 2.9: Lau Lau Bay Sea Cucumber Sanctuary (Moretti n.d.)

Bird Island. At that time, these sites were not yet
formally established as MPAs. After the fishery was
closed in 1997 due to declining catch, DFW conducted
a post-harvest study on Saipan and found that 80-100
percent of the population had been harvested there
(Trianni 2' 12 i DFW also conducted a pre-harvest
study on Tinian because the fishery had expressed
intentions to move to that island next. The results of
these studies demonstrated a near total depletion of sea
cucumber at the harvested islands. In response, a
CNMI-wide moratorium on the harvest of sea
cucumber (and seaweed and sea grass) was put into
effect with the passing of Public Law 11-63 on February
18, 1999. The moratorium is effective for a period of at
least ten years and is set to expire in early 2009.

The goals of the sea cucumber sanctuaries are to
minimize the impacts of the (currently inactive) sea
cucumber fishery, and to ensure a sustainable harvest of
sea cucumber if and when the fishery is reopened.
These goals are not explicitly stated in the regulations
that created the reserves.

Lau Lau Bay
Sea Cutcliiher Sanctuary
I .........f--

Trochus Sanctuaries:
The topshell "trochus",
Tectus (Tectus) niloticus
(synonymous with Trochus
niloticus), was introduced
to the Mariana Islands in
March 1938, when 2,974
individuals were planted
in Saipan. According to
historical records, peak
harvest was in 1956.
From 1947-1976, trochus
harvest was restricted to a
14-day period between
May and July. From 1976
to 1981, harvest was

CNMI's Marine Protected Areas
0 Protecting our reefs and fish so they
can be enjoyed today and tomorrow.
all 664-m30 to tepot v oht.
Fig. 2.10: Lighthouse Reef Trochus Sanctuary (Moretti n.d.)


Enforcement activities fall
under the jurisdiction of the
head of the Enforcement
Section. Because there is a
moratorium on the harvest of
trochus and sea cucumber, the
sanctuaries do not have any
additional level of protection
over other CNMI waters.
Therefore, the sanctuaries are
not specifically patrolled.
Conservation officers have
periodically cited individuals
for illegal collection of trochus.

unrestricted. In 1981, Public Law 2-51 established
DFW, and the first set of DFW regulations was
adopted. The regulations included the two trochus
sanctuaries, making them the first formally established
MPAs in the CNMI. The DFW regulations also
imposed size restrictions and a CNMI-wide moratorium
on the harvest of Trochus niloticus, and gave the DLNR
secretary the authority to declare open seasons at any
time after consultation with the director of DFW. Since
1981, an open season has been declared only once, in
1996, for a period of three months (Trianni 2I 121 ).
The declaration of an open season does not affect the
restrictions on harvest in the trochus sanctuaries.

The goals of the trochus sanctuaries are to "ensure
continuous high levels of productivity of trochus"
(DFW Non-Commercial Fishing and Hunting
Regulations, Part 5, .1 2 It is prohibited to take
trochus from the trochus sanctuaries at any time, even
during open seasons.

Management Activities:

There are little to no management activities related to
the sea cucumber or trochus sanctuaries, except for the
continued enforcement of the CNMI-wide prohibition
on the harvest of these resources.

Research and Monitoring:
The interagency MMT conducts biological monitoring,
water quality monitoring, and reef flat monitoring
(including counts of macroinvertebrates) at two
monitoring sites within the Laulau Bay Sea Cucumber
Sanctuary. The MMT also regularly surveys two sites at
Bird Island and Tank Beach (for more details, see the
"Research and Monitoring" section for Bird Island
Sanctuary and Forbidden Island Sanctuary). The
CRMO/DEQ Lagoon Monitoring Project also collects
benthic habitat data at the Lighthouse Reef Trochus

Lighthouse Reef
Trochtus Sanctuary


Stakeholder Involvement and Public

There is no record of any stakeholder involvement or
public participation in the establishment of these sites.
However, the 1981 adoption of the DFW regulations
and the 2000 adoption of the amendments to the DFW
regulations required a 30-day public notice and public
comment period. No public comments were received
related to these sanctuaries.


MPAs in the CNMI face many of the
same challenges to effectiveness that other
MPA sites around the world face,
including funding issues, lack of capacity,
lack of community support, and 100%
enforcement issues. The current
economic crisis that the CNMI is facing 80%
contributes to these challenges, making it
difficult to garner the necessary political 60%
and financial support for an effective
MPA program. DFW, along with other 40%
resource management agencies, has made
some significant strides in recent years by 20%
developing management plans and
monitoring programs. However, these 0%
efforts have existed outside of a dedicated R
management framework for MPAs.
Without funding and staff dedicated to an Fig. 2.11: P
MPA program, much of what needs to get as a challen
done will be difficult to accomplish. Tank Beacl
There is currently only one person overlapped
working exclusively on MPA issues, and Examples c
that person is on a temporary (two-year), compf ance
of human c
federally funded contract.

The management plan for the MMCA provides a
detailed budget (including human resources) for the site,
which DFW has been using as a starting point to lobby
for funds for an MPA program. Legislation has been
written, and is expected to be introduced during 2006,
that will provide a budget in the range of ", I
annually for an MPA program within DFW. This
money is to come from charging tourists fees to enter
the MMCA. Increased funding would address many of
the existing gaps by funding an MPA program
coordinator, 24-hour enforcement officers/rangers on
Mafiagaha Island, and a community outreach and
education coordinator. This funding would also
support any projects that these staff would implement,
including i-. i-it, coordinating, and improving on

existing monitoring efforts. Other operating costs, such
as equipment and fuel, would also be covered by this

The CNMI's capacity to implement and manage an
MPA program of this scale is somewhat limited. As is
the case in other U.S. territories, it is often difficult to
find local residents who are qualified and willing to work
in the positions that need to be filled. Though the
situation has been '.,pi..' in_, the effectiveness of
current MPA efforts has been negatively affected by a
lack of cooperation between natural resource
management agencies with similar and overlapping
authorities. In addition, socio-political arrangements
that are prevalent in many small-island societies create
challenges to effective leadership and enforcement.

Management Challenges in CNMI's MPAs


Capacity Public

Monitoring Enforcement

percent of MPAs (out of 6 total responses) that identified each issue
ge to effective MPA management. Bird Island Sea Cucumber and
STrochus Sanctuaries were not included because they are entirely
by other MPAs (Bird Island and Forbidden Island Sanctuaries).
f "other" challenges include demarcation of boundaries,
,need for on-site staff, interagency cooperation, and identification
carrying capacity.

Although local communities have expressed some levels
of support for the concept of protected areas, the
CNMI has not sufficiently engaged with communities to
build support for an MPA program. In a place where
capacity is limited, engaging the community can be a
great source of support, volunteerism, and motivation
for MPA efforts. In general, one of largest problems
facing the CNMI is the public's lack of understanding
and awareness of issues surrounding MPAs. It will be
difficult to generate support for MPAs without a basic
level of awareness of the need for MPAs and the
benefits they provide.

An effective enforcement regime is another one of the
CNMI's biggest challenges. Current enforcement
efforts lack the political support, motivation, and


organization needed to be truly effective. It should be
noted, however, that the capacity for effective
enforcement exists.


The CNMI has
already taken some of
the first steps
towards creating a Fig. 2.12: School of fish and coral reef
network of MPAs. (Moretti n.d.)
The creation of an
MPA program plan (to be completed by early 2007), the
creation of site management plans (three of four no-take
MPAs will have plans by 2007), and efforts towards
securing a permanent source of funding for MPAs are
critical to the development of an effective network of
sites. The consensus among agency officials is that it is
best to work to improve the effectiveness of existing
sites before attempting to designate new sites. If the
CNMI lacks the capacity to effectively manage its
existing sites, there is no point in adding new sites to an
ineffective system.

While noting the point above, there have been efforts to
add a few sites to the current list of MPAs in the CNMI.
Of the three significantly inhabited islands of the
CNMI, Tinian is the only one without an MPA. Tinian
has made at least two attempts in recent years to
establish an MPA in Barcinas Bay, but the attempts have
failed due to a lack of political support. The CNMI
Fisheries Act, which has been introduced multiple times
(most recently in 2003), had language in it that would
have protected waters around four of the terrestrially
protected Northern Islands. Three of the islands were
the island chain's northernmost, while one was more
centrally located. The act failed because of controversy
surrounding the ownership of submerged lands, which
has since been resolved. Interest in re-introducing the
Fisheries Act and an act to protect Tinian's Barcinas Bay
has resurfaced recently.

If Barcinas Bay and the marine waters around the four
Northern Islands were protected, they could contribute
to a system of MPAs. Including these potential MPAs
with current and proposed protections in Saipan, Tinian,
and Rota, and Guam's system of MPAs, would
constitute a geographically representative system of
MPAs in the Mariana Islands. The creation of such a
system, combined with biological representativeness, is a
goal the CNMI MPA program may choose to strive
towards in the future.


As the CNMI works towards establishing an MPA
program, there are two main priorities for the next
year. First, a source of funding for the program needs
to be secured. Secondly, DFW needs to complete the
MPA program plan in order to strategically guide the
program through the next three to five years. Support
of MPAs has been building up over the last few years,
and it is important that this momentum be built upon.

In future years, two related areas that will need
attention are enforcement and engagement of the
local communities. There is hope that money brought
into the Enforcement Section through a recent
Memorandum of Understanding with the NOAA Office
of Law Enforcement, as well as separate funding and
management by the MPA program, will aid in the
development of an effective enforcement and outreach
regime. Current enforcement efforts are plagued by a
complicated and colorful past that, by some accounts,
included somewhat selective enforcement of certain
rules and regulations. This history, combined with a
very heavy handed, top-down approach, has led to a loss
of trust and confidence in enforcement officers by the
local community. Enforcement officers, along with
other government representatives and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), are going to be
important players in re-engaging local communities.
Working with the extremely diverse communities
present in the CNMI to build support for the islands'
MPAs will be the key to
increasing compliance and
having effective enforcement
in the future. Educating the
public will likely require a
full-time education and
outreach coordinator. This
person will be tasked with
the development and
implementation a large-scale
public outreach campaign,
with a goal of bringing the
issue of MPAs to the

public's attention.

Fig. 2.13: Fisherman
(Moretti n.d.)

One final recommendation is to engage and train high
school students through a natural resource management
vocational education program. Many of the students
who leave the CNMI to attend college do not return;
many of those who stay end up working entire careers at
government agencies. The government employs a large
percentage of CNMI locals, and there is competition for
these lucrative government jobs. Establishing a

vocational edu
is one way to sl
where it is very


Site Name U 4
Natural &
Maniagaha Marine Conservation Ctural
Area Cultural
Bird Island Sanctuary Hrita
Forbidden Island Sanctuary Hrita
Natural &
Sasanhaya Bay Fish Reserve Cultural

i .h l i .I ... I '.l i .. 1... n l ",,1 .'., r in l ,! ..

I nl r,. Ir r t.. .l .... r .. i

S i.. r i, *,

SThese sites are entirely overlapped by Bird Islan


The no-take Mafiagaha Marine Conservation
because it is a very popular tourist attraction
the cultural history of the CNMI's Carolinia
enforcement of Public Law 12-12 required
2':", the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation
come^..^ c.,a ,-A\^^. on^ ,,^^ 1,, ...^ .1,... 1^,^



ents with the skills and background they need to v
natural resource managers, the CNMI can c
Skilled labor force that is currently so hard to fil

fiction System for CNMI's Eight MPAs

No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem

No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem dev(

No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem dev(

No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem
I G I .

a,.,h ',,_-I a. a,_ ,,. ,.,aa

I n m ..2 .I... !

,.,. m! a "I ,i. -.,nd.
0 G 00 0 0

h.I m r .=.- p. '....,! ..

Forbidden Island Sanctuaries.
No(Take Permanent commonly recognized MPA in thEcosystem

s in the protected Saipan Lagoon, and it is an important
Noitants. Although it was establisheround in AuEcosyst 2000, e

NoTake Permanenforcement staff and equipment. Starting in Sep

a m provided funds for en for cement staff and equipme
cy marine conservation I officers. the MPA

SiIi .iIi. *t LI. .. 11l

,s in the protected Sapan Lagoon, and it is an important
abitants. Although it was established In August 2000, el
lonal enforcement staff and equipment. Starting in Sep
am provided funds for enforcement staff and equipment
Icy marine conservation officers to enforce the MPA 1

initiate, inciuaing aas in local magazines, puDlcation or Drocnures, school presentations, ana nsnermen s
to discuss fishery issues, such as MPAs.

In contrast, the no-take Sasanhaya Bay Fish Reserve (SBFR) in Rota was established in 1994, and ac
enforcement staff were never made available for the enforcement of the site. Outreach efforts were also
Unpublished research from DFW's Fisheries Research Section suggests a vast difference in fishery recov
between the two MPAs. Researchers began seeing positive trends in the size of certain fish species in the
while such trends have not been observed in the SBFR. Although it is difficult to account for all of the
that may have caused this disparity, it is commonly held that the difference in enforcement presence, enfo
actions, and education efforts account for much of the difference between the recovery rates at the two site



1 CMC 9101 et seq. Administrative Procedure Act.

CNMI Public Law 2-51. Fish, Game, and Endangered
Species Act of 1981.

CNMI Public Law 11-63. An act to establish a
moratorium on the harvesting of seaweed, sea grass, and
sea cucumber in the Commonwealth waters; and for
other purposes.

CNMI Public Law 12-12. Mafiagaha Marine
Conservation Act of 2000.

CNMI Public Law 12-46. An act to designate Bird
Island and Forbidden Island as sanctuaries for the
conservation of wildlife and marine life; and for other

Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) Non-Commercial
Fishing and Hunting Regulations, Part 5, 120. Marine

Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) Non-Commercial
Fishing and Hunting Regulations, Part 5, 560.2.

Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) Non-Commercial
Fishing and Hunting Regulations, Part 5, 550.2.

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

Moretti, Greg. n.d. Figs. 2.2 2.13. CNMI Division of
Fish and Wildlife.

Office of the Attorney General. August 7, 2006.
Attorney General Opinion No. 06-11.

Pacific Basin Environmental Consultants, Inc. March
1985. CNMI Marine Parks Management Plan. Prepared
for the Coastal Resources Management Office, Saipan.

Rota Local Law 9-2. An act to create a fish reserve in
Sasanhaya in Rota which shall extend from Pufia Point
to the Coral Gardens, and for other purposes.

Saladores, Benhur C. 1999. Limited marine activities on
Mafiagaha draw support. Saipan Tribune, December 9,
1999. Available online at www.saipantribune.com.

The Commonwealth Constitution, Article XIV, Section

Trianni, Michael S. 2002a. Evaluation of the resource
following the sea cucumber fishery of Saipan, Northern
Mariana Islands. In: M. K. Kasim Moosa, S.
Soemodihardjo, A. Nontji, A. Soegiarto, K.
Romimohtarto, Sukarno and Suharsono (eds.),
Proceedings of the Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium,
Bai, Indonesia, October 23-27 2000. Ministry of
Environment, the Indonesian Institute of Sciences and
the International Society for Reef Studies.
-- .2002b. Summary of data collected from a
declared trochus season on Saipan, Northern Mariana
Islands. SPC Trochus Information Bulletin 9: 2-5.
.2002c. Summary of data collected from the
sea cucumber fishery on Rota, Northern Mariana
Islands. SPC Beche-de-mer Information Bulletin 16: 5-11.

Carleigh Trappe, NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Karen Bareford, Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Office of Coastal & Aquatic Managed Areas

Contributors: Stephanie Bailenson, Chantal Collier, and Laura Herren


Florida is the only state in the continental United States
with shallow coral reef formations near its coastline.
The Florida reef tract stretches from the Dry Tortugas,
west of Key West, to the Saint Lucie Inlet in Martin
County, an extension of approximately 530 kilometers
(km). Rohmann, et al. (in press) estimate that
30,801km2 of Florida's nearshore shallow waters may
support coral reef resources. The development of these
reefs is attributed to Florida's broad, shallow continental
shelf and the Gulf Stream, which carries flora, fauna and
warm waters to the area. Florida's primary coral habitats

Florida's Coral Reef Habitat
I-,I. -

Gulf of Me,.-c


H -

l Biscayne NalIonal Park
I Flo. aa K"eys Iaonoal Marin San.ua.ry
I 1 SounA is Flnda COiI RPf Inlnbrl v Region
0 10 20 40 60 80

Cmrad November 2006
To**ffii. MI 1& 41-i in ui
?.-i: on'. : .....m 5O j
TaMhmssee FL 32389-3000

Fig. 3.1: Map of Florida reef tract, including the Southeast Florida Coral Reef
Initiative (SEFCRI) area and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
(FDEP CAMA 2006)

include patch reefs, bank reefs, and hardbottom
communities the latter being the most extensive
(Andrews, et al. 2005). Mangroves, wetlands, algal beds,
and seagrass beds are also important components of the
reef ecosystem. More than 460 species of fish have been
observed in this region by expert-level Reef
Environmental Education Foundation fish identification
volunteers (via more than 8,000 surveys) since 1993
(REEF 2001). Although there have been a few studies
reporting the existence of corals along Florida's west
coast, research and data collection are incomplete.

The coral reefs off Florida's coast provide over $1.9
billion in annual income and 71,300 jobs to the residents
of Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach,
and Monroe Counties (ohns, et al.
2001). These coral reefs and associated

ecosystems provide vital biological,
socioeconomic, and recreational
resources to the residents of Florida and
the United States.

Like many coral reefs throughout the
world, Florida's reefs are threatened
directly and indirectly by human
activities. Large coastal infrastructure
projects can contribute to shoreline
erosion and can damage coral habitat by
increasing turbidity. Beach nourishment
projects can cause severe impacts to
reefs. Sediments can smother corals, and
the reduced water clarity from these
projects can deprive corals of the light
they require for photosynthesis. Dredge
and fill projects, and construction of
seawalls and docks, can negatively impact
seagrasses, mangroves, and other benthic
communities that are important to the
entire coral reef ecosystem, and can
impact corals directly and indirectly.
Runoff from residential, industrial, and
agricultural areas may contain
contaminants and debris, which are
carried through storm drains to Florida's
waterways. Sewage discharges from
waste treatment facilities, boats, and
developed land areas may contribute to
coral diseases and death. Even treated
sewage may contain high nutrient levels

that may trigger algal blooms that can smother reefs, development of SEFCRI, there was no coordinated
and may also contain bacteria and viruses that threaten public education or management effort for reefs located
the health of the marine environment and humans. north of the Florida Keys (FDEP CRCP 2004). The
Physical contact from fins, hands, or equipment of formation of SEFCRI acknowledged the importance of
boaters, divers, snorkelers, and fishermen can damage coral reefs throughout the full extent of Florida's reef
delicate corals. Abandoned, improperly discarded, or tract (530 km), with the entire tract falling within the
lost fishing gear like line, nets, and traps can cause SEFCRI region or the FKNMS.
physical damage to reef systems. Ships and other vessels
that run aground or drop anchor on reefs can dislodge, Several monitoring efforts are in place to help address
overturn and crush corals. some of the threats to Florida's reefs. Water quality,
seagrass, and coral reef monitoring are required under
Acknowledging the significance of Florida's coral reef the FKNMS enabling legislation and were initiated in
system, and the threats it faces, federal and state 1995-96 (U.S. DOC 1996). The Southeast
agencies initiated efforts to protect the reefs. The state's Environmental Research Center Water Quality
first effort was the establishment of John Pennekamp Monitoring Network consists of more than 200 stations
Coral Reef State Park in 1963 the first underwater park within the FKNMS and on the shelf, and 100 stations
in the United States. The federal government within Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, and the southwest
recognized the need for additional protection and shelf. Monitoring data from this program has revealed
established the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary significant changes in water quality in the Florida Keys
and Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary, in 1975 and (Andrews, et al. 2005).
1981, respectively. To comprehensively manage all the
reefs and associated reef resources of the Florida Keys, The status of corals and benthic biota in the Florida
the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) Keys is tracked through FWC's Coral Reef Evaluation
was established in 1990. NOAA cooperatively manages and Monitoring Project (CREMP). CREMP was
the sanctuary with the Florida Department of initiated in 1996 and is a collaborative effort between
Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the Florida Fish the sanctuary, FWC, and the University of Georgia,
and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Other Institute of Ecology. CREMP surveys from 1996-2003
federally designated and managed areas within the reef indicate that there has been a decline in stony coral
system include national parks, national wildlife refuges, species richness throughout the Florida Keys, and a
federal fishery habitat conservation zones, and federal decline in the number of species at 70 percent of the
fishery management zones. monitoring stations. Monitoring
data also reveal concerns about coral
The state of Florida has ., disease trends, with increases in the
implemented many additional aes number of stations where disease has
programs and management occurred, the number of types of
designations to protect its coral diseases, and the number of coral
reefs and other coastal and species infected. Also of note, is the
marine resources. These decline in coral cover from 1996-
designations include fisheries 1999, likely due to bleaching
areas, manatee safety havens episodes and hurricanes; from 1999-
and speed zones, critical Fig 32: Reef in SEFCRI area (Giliam nd.) 2003, there was no significant change
wildlife areas, outstanding (Andrews, et al. 2005). North of the
Florida waters, surface water improvement and Florida Keys, coral health, status, and trends are
management areas, wildlife management areas, state monitored by a partnership program established
parks, and aquatic preserves. More recently, with through SEFCRI to extend the CREMP to Miami-
guidance from the United States Coral Reef Task Force, Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin Counties. This
FDEP and FWC coordinated the formation of a team program, known as the Southeast Florida Coral Reef
of interagency marine resource professionals, scientists, Evaluation and Monitoring Project (SECREMP),
non-governmental organizations, and other interested commenced in 2003. SECREMP is a collaborative effort
stakeholders to address management needs of the between FDEP, FWC, and the National Coral Reef
northern extension of the Florida reef tract. The Institute at Nova Southeastern University.
Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SEFCRI) Team
first gathered to develop a local action strategy (LAS) in Most fisheries data from the Florida Keys has focused
May 2003, targeting the reefs from Miami-Dade County, on commercial landings, but the NOAA Southeast
through Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin Counties. Fisheries Science Center has used the reef fish visual
This region was chosen because its reefs are close to an census (RVC) method to assess fish communities and
intensely-developed coastal region, where, prior to the habitat associations. Based on the information

collected, Ault, Bohnsack, and Meester (1998)
determined that 65 percent of the 35 assessed exploited
reef fish stocks (including groupers, snappers, and
grunts) in the Florida Keys were below the federal
standards for sustainability at that time. A positive
change has been documented for goliath grouper, with
evidence that the stock is rebuilding after closure of the
goliath grouper fishery in Florida and Atlantic waters in
1990 and in the Gulf in 1992 (Porch, Eklund, and Scott
2003). After the implementation of the Tortugas
Ecological Reserve in the FKNMS, increases in
abundance and sizes of groupers and snappers were
recorded in the Tortugas region (Ault, et al. 2006).
Similar studies have shown the same trends with lobster
and other popular fish species. Numerous other
monitoring programs are underway in the Florida Keys,
including monitoring of spiny lobsters and queen conch
by FWC.

The designation of MPAs is an important tool for
protecting and managing Florida's reef system. MPAs
can provide a range of protections for a variety of
resources, as reflected in the assortment of types of
MPAs in Florida. This chapter will highlight the eight
types of state MPAs that are found within Florida's reef
tract: fisheries areas, manatee safety havens and speed
zones, critical wildlife areas, outstanding Florida waters,
surface water improvement and management areas,
wildlife management areas, state parks, and aquatic
preserves. Eighty-two MPAs and numerous manatee
speed zones have been established within these eight

Table 3.1: Priority Coral Reef Resources a

Fisheries AreasU 9 ) m
Biscayne Bay-Card
Sound Spiny Lobster x
Sanctuary *
Biscayne National Park,
Sponge Harvest x
Prohibited Area +
Biscayne National Park,
Tropical Ornamental
Marine Species Harvest
Prohibited Area +
Information about resources in Biscayne Bay can be found i
Preserve (Tables 3.5 and 3.8).
+ Information about resources in Biscayne National Park will
geospatial analysis of MPA coverage within coral reef ecosyst(

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

Florida Statute 370.025 declares that it is the policy of
the state to manage and preserve its renewable marine
fishery resources, and its paramount conservation and
management concern is the continuing health and
abundance of the marine fisheries resources of the state.
FWC established three fisheries areas within Biscayne
Bay to protect specific fisheries resources. In the
Biscayne Bay-Card Sound Spiny Lobster Sanctuary, it is
unlawful to molest, take, or trap any spiny lobster (68B-
11, F.A.C.). The other two areas protect marine
resources in Biscayne National Park. In the park, it is
illegal to harvest, possess, or land sponges (68B-28.004
(1)(a), F.A.C.), and to harvest tropical ornamental
marine life and plant species, unless granted a collecting

habitats Found in the Three Fisheries Areas

O w U W


the Biscayne Bay SWIM Ar

esented in a future report, w

ea and Biscayne Bay Aquatic

hich will include federal MPAs and

permit from the park superintendent (68B-42.0036).
Recreational and commercial fishing are allowed in these
areas unless otherwise specified in the Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.). These areas do not
restrict any other activities.

Management Activities:

Because of the nature of these areas as regulatory
designations, they do not have management plans.
However, the areas are managed through enforcement
activities to address the primary management concern,
which is poaching.

Stakeholder Involvement and Public

Public involvement in the designation of these areas is
obtained through a public comment period when the
rules are first proposed. Any changes to the rules would
also require a public comment period.

Manatee Safety Havens and Speed

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use and
No Access, Natural Heritage MPAs

Hundreds of manatee safety havens and speed zones
have been established in 18 counties along Florida's
eastern and gulf coasts to protect the endangered
Florida manatee. All types of zones are found within
the coral reef system, including two motorboats
prohibited zones, seven no entry zones, and numerous
idle, slow, and maximum speed zones. These zones are
located in the coastal bays, estuaries, canals, and rivers
that serve as migration routes, resting areas, breeding
areas, and feeding areas for Florida manatees. An
important habitat in many of these zones is seagrass
beds as seagrass is the manatees' primary food source.

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

Manatee Safety
Havens and Speed
Zones U S P 0 4 O U
Biscayne Canal No
Entry Zone x
Black Creek Canal No
Entry Zone x x
Coral Gables Canal No
Entry Zone x
Fisher Island
Motorboats Prohibited x x

FPL Riviera Beach
Power Plant Motorboats x x
Prohibited Zone
Lauderdale Power Plant
No Entry Zone
Little River No Entry
Port Everglades Power
x x
Plant No Entry Zone
Virginia Key No Entry
Motorboats Prohibited* x x

Prohibianatee Speed Zones x x
Manatee Speed Zones" x X

The Alanatee Speed Zones include an assorted nt of hile Speed Zones, Slow Speed Zones, and Maximum Speed Zones.
number of these zones within the Florida reef tract has not yet been determined.

lhe total

Enabling Legislation and Responsible I

The Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act designated
of Florida as a refuge and sanctuary for th
manatee. Under the act, it is unlawful for ar
"to annoy, molest, harass, or disturb or at
molest, harass, or disturb any manatee; injure o
attempt to injure or harm any manatee; c,
collect or attempt to capture or collect any
pursue, hunt, wound, or kill or attempt to pur
wound, or kill any manatee; or possess, li
constructively, any manatee or any part of any
(Florida Statute 370.12(2)(d)).

FWC's Bureau of Protected Species Manag
responsible for establishing manatee safety ha
speed zones, and enforcing the regulations
areas. Local governments can also establish
speed zones through the adoption of a local c
but the zones must be approved by FWC be
can take effect.

Goals, Objectives, '
Policies, and

Manatee safety
havens and speed .
zones are established
to protect Florida
manatees and their
habitats from harm
caused by
motorboats. There Fig. 3.3: Power plant di!
are a variety of zones Manatee Program nd.)
and associated regulations depending on the
protection needed. Within the zones, there
year-round regulations, seasonal regulation
combination of seasonal regulations. Slow spe
idle speed zones, and maximum speed zone
what speeds boats may travel at within the :
motorboats prohibited zones, "all vessels equi
any mechanical means of propulsion are F
from entering the marked area unless the ir
means of propulsion is not in use and, if possi
so, is tilted or raised out of the water" (68C-:
F.A.C). No entry zones further restrict act
prohibiting "all vessels and all persons, either
or swimming, diving, wading, or fishing (excep
adjacent bank or bridge when using poles or lit
are not equipped with a fishing line retrieval m<
e.g., a cane pole)" from entering (68C-2.

Exceptions to these rules may be made, by pi
certain activities (68C-22.003, F.A.C.). Pe:

cy: available for the following activities: commerce
and professional guiding; owners or resil
;tate waterfront property in limited entry areas;
rida motor manufacturing testing; boat races; and,
rson education, construction, maintenance, or repair
t to
n or Management MANATEE Z
Sor Activities: sL m l
itee; SL P
unt, Although there are no
, or management plans for M
tee" manatee safety havens --
or speed zones, these Fig. 3.4: Regulatory s
zones are incorporated (FWC Manatee Prog
it is into county manatee 1999-2005)
and protection plans and FWC's Manatee
these protection efforts. FWC utilizes several pro
atee manage these zones, including permitting, e
nce, enforcement, research, and public use manager
they discussed above, FWC may issue permits fc
activities in manatee speed zones and safety
Signs serve as both enforce
r education tools. Educational
marinas and boat ramps
information about Florida manat
.. f to do and not to do, and how
when you are traveling at slov
speed. Regulatory signs post the
S speed and associated rule an<
numbers (FWC Manatee Progra
.- 2005). Speed zones are often the
manatee enforcement activities, p;
newly established zones and zc
e canal (FWC high vessel traffic (FWC Fish an(
Research Institute n.d.). FWC
1 of numerous research activities,
r be population assessments and behavioral ecolog
r a which may lead to the revision or establish
nes, speed zones. Human-dimension research eff
trict focused on using research results to achi(
In effective manatee protection, such as i
with voluntary compliance with speed zones to r(
citedd burden on enforcement personnel (FWC
lical Wildlife Research Institute n.d.).
) do
2(3), Stakeholder Involvement and Public
; by Participation:
n an Public involvement in the designation of these
which obtained through a public comment period ,
ism, zones are first proposed. Any changes to t
J1), would also require a public comment period.

The public may indirectly contribute to genera]
, for protection and management efforts by contri
are the Save the Manatee Trust Fund through the

of a manatee license plate, decal donation, or direct
donation. This fund supports environmental education,
research, and protection and recovery efforts. Although
it is not applicable to the coral reef system, FWC
cooperates with Tampa BayWatch to offer volunteer
opportunities through the Tampa Bay Manatee Watch

Critical Wildlife Areas

National Classification: No
Access, Natural Heritage MPAs
Fig. 3.5: Roseate terns
Critical wildlife areas are found (Hood 2006)
throughout the state, with 17 in
coastal or marine waters. They encompass waters and
lands that provide important habitat for birds, such as
mangroves, wetlands, mudflats, and coral rubble. The
two critical wildlife areas within the coral reef system,
Bill Sadowski Critical Wildlife Area and Pelican Shoal
Critical Wildlife Area, contain important foraging and
nesting habitat for numerous bird species.

The Bill Sadowski Critical Wildlife Area is in Miami-
Dade County, near Miami and Biscayne Bay. It was
established to protect shorebirds, herons, and egrets that
forage within the site, and regulations apply year-round.
The Pelican Shoal Critical Wildlife Area is located in the
Straits of Florida, in southern Monroe County, about
five miles south-southeast of Boca Chica
Key. Regulations apply seasonally (from
April 1 September 1) to the area to
protect nesting roseate terns and bridled
terns. The area supports the only native
substrate-breeding colony of threatened
roseate terns in Florida, and it's the site
of North America's first (and only)
ry Tortugas bridled tern breeding colony.

Management Activities:

While there are no management plans for these areas,
FWC is responsible for implementing several
management activities. Because these areas prohibit
public access, the activities are focused on monitoring
and enforcement. Biologists monitor the sites to

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

Gd Gd cn ('
ci j- -C
a t:E l E

B S S ^ l lS ^ g
ci I 1i 'CG

Critical Wildlife Areas 1c)S| l i l ^ ll
(CWAs) U 9) ^ Pq 0 4 U 9 W
U, -E "s
Gd Gd G

Bill Sadowski x
Pelican Shoal x x

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

FWC has the authority to establish critical wildlife areas
with prior concurrence from the property owner (68A-
19.005 (1), F.A.C). FWC is responsible for managing
and enforcing the rules in these areas.

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

Critical wildlife areas are established to protect critical
habitats for birds that are in danger of extinction and
subject to human disturbance. During the designated
period, public access is prohibited within critical wildlife
areas. No person can take or disturb any wildlife, or
enter or operate a vehicle or vessel within the areas
(68A-19.005 (2), F.A.C). To further prevent
disturbance, no person can knowingly allow a dog under
their care to enter the areas.

determine the types of species and number of nests
present, and whether the sites are used for nesting,
resting, and/or feeding habitat (FWC n.d.(a)). The
primary enforcement activity is the posting of signs to
inform the public about the regulations and the
importance of the areas. FWC law enforcement
personnel coordinate protection efforts with local
governments, other agencies, and organizations, and
encourage the public to report violations (FWC n.d.(a)).

Stakeholder Involvement and Public

There are no specific opportunities for public
involvement in the designation or management of these
areas. The public can contribute to the management of
critical wildlife areas by reporting violations to FWC.

Outstanding Florida Waters

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use,
Natural Heritage MPAs

One hundred and eighty-four outstanding Florida
waters (OFWs) have been designated in estuarine or
marine waters, 36 of which are in the coral reef system.

Most OFWs overlap with existing state and federal
MPAs, such as state parks, aquatic preserves, national
wildlife refuges, and national parks. The OFW
designation provides another level of protection to the
waters within these MPAs. However, some OFWs are
established independently of any existing MPAs. By
protecting water quality, OFWs provide benefits to
numerous species and habitats, including seagrass beds,
mangroves, wetlands, coral reefs, and mudflats.

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

5- -

EE z
a -: eO

Gd P 2 Gd ci Gda c S
Outstanding Florida
Waters (OFWs) U O n C U
Bahia Honda State Park x x x x x x x x x x x x
Bill Baggs Cape Florida
State Park X
Biscayne Bay Aquatic
Biscayne National
Biscane National n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Park +
Coupon Bight Aquatic
Coupon Bight x x
Crocodile Lake National
W fe ue + o a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Wildlife Refuge +
Curry Hammock x x x x x x x x x
Dry Tortugas National
y T s N n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Park +
East Everglades x
Everglades National
Everglades National n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Park +
Florida Keys *, + n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Fort Zachary Taylor
State Historic Site
Great White Heron
National Wildlife n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Refuge +
Hobe Sound National
Hobe Sod N l n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Wildlife Refuge +
Hugh Taylor Birch State
Recreation Area
Jensen Beach to Jupiter
Inlet Aquatic Preserve
John D. McArthur
Beach State Park X X
John Pennekamp Coral
Reef State Park

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

Outstanding Florid M

John U. Lloyd Beach

State Park
t US ci Gd

ey Largo Hammock

Key Largo National

,' r n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Marine Sanctuary +
Key West National
ilde Wes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Wildlife Refuge +
Lignumn itae Key

Aquatic Preserve
Lignumvitae Key
Botanical State Park
Long Key State
Recreation Area
Looe Key National
e, N l n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Marine Sanctuary +

Loxahatchee River-Lake
Worth Creek Aquatic x x x x x x x x x x
Martin County Tracts x
National Key Deer
National Wildlife n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
ife Refuge +

North Beach x x x
North Fork, St. Lucie
Aquatic Preserve x x x x x x x x x x
North Key Largo
Oleta River State Park x x x x x x x x
San Pedro State
Underwater x x x x x
Archeological PreerLve
Seabranch x x x x x x x x x
St. Lucie Inlet Preserve
Martin CountyPark x x x x x x x x x x x
Westlake x x x
Windl ey Key Fossil Reef
X XHammockX X X

Geological State Park
Most OFWs entirely overlap existing state and federal MPAs, and thus contain the same resources.
* The Florida Keys OFW overlaps with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
+ Information about resources in the national wildlife refuges, national parks, and national marine sanctuaries will be presented
in a future report, which will include federal MPAs and geospatial analysis of MPA coverage within coral reef ecosystems.

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

Under Florida Statute 403.061, FDEP has authority to
control and prohibit pollution of air and water, and to
establish rules that provide for a special category of
water bodies referred to as outstanding Florida waters,
which are worthy of special protection because of their
natural attributes, and to adopt rules that may include
stricter permitting and enforcement provisions within
these waters.

Anyone can propose waters for OFW designation, but
the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission
must approve the designation. FDEP's Water Quality
Standards and Special Projects Program is responsible
for enforcing the regulations.

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

OFWs are established to prevent the reduction of
existing water quality in areas worthy of special
protection because of their natural attributes. Within
OFWs, degradation of water quality, except as allowed
in subsections 62-4.242 (2) and (3), F.A.C., is prohibited
(62-302.700 (1), F.A.C.). Some of the exceptions
include permitted activities that are grandfathered in,
maintenance of existing facilities, activities to allow or
enhance public usage, and construction activities that
temporarily lower water quality. In practice, the rule
means that FDEP cannot issue permits for direct
pollutant discharges to OFWs that would lower ambient
(existing) water quality, or indirect discharges that would
significantly degrade nearby OFWs (FDEP Water
Quality Standards and Special Projects Program 2006a).
Additionally, permits for new dredging and filling must
be clearly in the public interest. If an activity results in
direct discharge of stormwater to OFWs, it is required
to retain or treat a larger amount of stormwater than if
the discharge was to non-OFW waters (FDEP Water
Quality Standards and Special Projects Program 2006a).
However, there are exemptions for agriculture and
silviculture activities.

Management Activities:

No management plans exist for these areas. However,
OFWs often overlap existing MPAs, which have
management plans in place to address other resources
and activities in the areas. Because the major
management concerns in OFWs are point and non-
point source pollution and dredge and fill activities,
management activities focus on permitting and
enforcement. For activities in OFWs that require a
FDEP permit, the Water Quality Standards and Special
Projects Program ensures that OFW criteria are used in
the permitting decision (FDEP Water Quality Standards

and Special Projects Program 2006a). Permits are
reviewed periodically to ensure that the conditions are
met; if there is a violation, enforcement action is taken.

Stakeholder Involvement and Public

Although the public does not participate in the
management of OFWs, it can nominate waters to be
designated as OFWs. The public is also involved in the
designation of these areas through at least one fact-
finding workshop in the affected area and a public
comment period. A final public hearing is held in the
affected area during which the Florida Environmental
Regulation Commission, a seven-member citizens' body,
votes on each proposal (FDEP Water Quality Standards
and Special Projects Program 2006a). Any changes to
the rules would also require a public comment period.

Surface Water Improvement and
Management Areas

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use,
Natural Heritage MPA

Thirty-three surface water improvement and
management (SWIM) areas have been established
throughout the state. Fifteen areas contain coastal or
marine waters, but the Biscayne Bay SWIM Area is the
only one within the coral reef system. In order to better
protect and manage the bay, the SWIM area includes

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

Table 3.5: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Biscayne Bay Surface Water
Improvement and Management (SWIM) Area

I i

Surface Water a G U c G
Improvement and 0 G .
Management (SWIM) i G 0
Area U C 0 U cn c H
Biscayne Bay x x x x x x x x x x x x x

significant inland areas. Coastal and marine habitats
within the Biscayne Bay SWIM Area include mangroves,
wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, and coral reefs.
These habitats support commercial fish species, and
numerous other ecologically important species, such as
sea turtles, marine mammals, and endangered birds.

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

The 1987 Surface Water Improvement and Management
Act (Florida Statute 373.451 373.4595) requires each
water management district to develop plans and
programs for the improvement and management of
surface waters within their districts. Each water
management district, in cooperation with FDEP and
other government entities, must prepare and maintain a
list that priorities water bodies of regional or statewide
significance within each water management district
(Florida Statute 373.453). Once FDEP approves the
priority lists, the water management districts, in
cooperation with FDEP and other government entities,
may develop surface water improvement and
management plans (SWIM plans) for water bodies based
on the priority lists.

FDEP's Watershed Management Program and the
appropriate water management district are responsible
for managing SWIM areas and enforcing the rules. For
the Biscayne Bay SWIM Area, the South Florida Water
Management District is the responsible district.

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

SWIM areas, including the Biscayne Bay SWIM Area,
were established to restore surface waters that have been
degraded, or are in danger of becoming degraded, and
to enhance the environmental and scenic values of these

For each SWIM area, the responsible district must
develop a SWIM plan that includes a description of
strategies for restoring or protecting the water body

sufficient to meet Class III standards or better, and a
description of the measures needed to manage and
maintain the water body once it has been restored to
prevent future degradation (62-43.035 (1), F.A.C.). To
meet Class III standards, the waters must support
recreation, and the propagation and maintenance of a
healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife
(FDEP Water Quality Standards and Special Projects
Program 2006b). SWIM plans should have programs to
address point and non-point source pollution,
destruction of natural systems, correction and
prevention of surface water problems, and research that
may improve the management of surface waters and
associated natural systems.

The intent of the Biscayne Bay SWIM Plan is to prevent
further decline in the quality of surface water resources
in Biscayne Bay through reducing or eliminating
pollution; cleaning up, .'1 itin,, or removing the
pollutants from the system; and, restoring,-]. i'-; -,
and protecting the bay ecosystem, including the
watershed components that are critical to the health of
the bayI '- 11i) 1995).

Management Activities:

The first Biscayne Bay SWIM Plan was written in 1988,
and updated in 1995. The three management goals
identified in the 1995 Biscayne Bay SWIM Plan include
maintaining and improving water quality; improving the
quantity, distribution, and timing of freshwater flows
and circulation characteristics of Biscayne Bay; and,
protecting environmental resources of Biscayne Bay and
adjacent areas .!' I ) 1995). These goals are further
refined in 16 objectives. The plan also contains a list of
proposed projects to address the needs and objectives,
which incorporate a range of management techniques.
Some of the management programs used to meet these
goals and objectives include enforcement, research,
monitoring, restoration, education, permitting, and
water quality and habitat management.

A significant amount of research has been done to
better understand the relationship between hydrology,
water quality, and the environment. One project,
Minimum Flows and Level Requirements for Biscayne
Bay, was conducted to determine past water flows into
the bay and to establish minimum flow requirements.
Two projects have focused on the hydrology of the C-
111 basin: one assessed the marsh hydroperiod and the
needs of fish; the other quantified the relationship
between hydrological conditions and vegetation patterns
!". '- 11) 1995).

As expected, numerous water quality monitoring efforts
are underway in the SWIM area, including general
surface water quality monitoring for pollutants. Other
monitoring activities have focused on sediments and
biological parameters. For example, one monitoring
project has involved sampling tissue from bivalves and
other marine organisms to determine levels of
contaminant compounds and metals (. 11! ) 1995).

Hydrological and
habitat restoration
activities have been
closely linked, such
as the reintroduction
of the fresh water
that was cut off by
the L-31E levee.
The freshwater flow
was reintroduced to

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

the mangrove
wetlands to facilitate the restoration of these habitats.
Other restoration activities include a cooperative
wetlands restoration project at the Bulk Carrier Site, and
the development of the South Dade Watershed
Restoration Plan (SFWMD 1995).

Education and Outreach:
A variety of education and outreach materials and
methods have been utilized within the SWIM area.

There have been several projects focused on the
importance protecting and restoring wetlands, including
a mentoring program by high school students for lower
grade levels. The Don Diego Campaign targeted
Hispanic children, and established Don Diego, an actual
historical figure, as an icon that protects the bay. Lastly,
a speaker's bureau was formed to educate the business
community about water resources and how they can
have a positive impact on water quality and the bay
environment 1 '" 1!) 1995).

One of the most effective enforcement programs has
been compliance on the Miami River. The program
focuses on responding to water quality violations, point
source pollution, and illegal dumping. In Biscayne Bay,
increased signage marking the shallow areas of the bay
has helped to reduce damage to seagrass beds and
hardbottom communities K. !" 11i) 1995).

Stakeholder Involvement and Public

There were no specific opportunities for public
involvement in the designation of this area. During the
development and update of the SWIM plan, the water
management district is required hold at least one public
hearing and public workshop in the vicinity of the water
body. Representatives from the public may also serve
on committees that are appointed as necessary to assist
in developing protection and restoration strategies.

Wildlife Management and Wildlife and
Environmental Areas

National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use,
Natural Heritage MPA

The wildlife management area (W1VA) system covers
more than five million acres in Florida. Lands and
waters in the system are established as wildlife

Table 3.6: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Florida Keys
Wildlife and Environmental Area (WEA)

i iti
|, E I s

Wildlife and g o M i ~
Environmental Area x G
(WEA) U P q O 0U c W
Florida Keys x x x x x x x

& Z-Wi, .

management areas (WMAs) or
wildlife and environmental
areas (WEAs), and include
mitigation parks. Of the 131
areas, seven contain coastal or
marine components, but only
one is within the reef system.
The Florida Keys Wildlife and
Environmental Area is an
archipelago of small sites
stretching 80 miles from Key
Largo almost to Key West.
The WEA is predominantly
tropical hammock, which
provides feeding and resting
areas for migratory birds. The
WEA also has extensive coastal

Gulf of Mexico

Fig. 3.8: Florida Keys WEA, which consists of several
parcels stretching over 80 miles (FWC n.d.(b))

salt marshes, mangrove
swamps, and open water habitats that are used by the
migratory birds.

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

FWC, "with the approval of the Governor, may acquire,
in the name of the state, lands and waters suitable for
the protection and propagation of game, fish, non-game
birds, or fur-bearing animals, or for hunting purposes,
game farms, by purchase, lease, gift or otherwise to be
known as state game lands" (Florida Statutes 372.12).
FWC has the authority to make and enforce regulations
to protect, manage, or develop lands and waters owned
by the commission for fish or wildlife management
purposes, including the right of ingress and egress
(Florida Statutes 372.121).

Some WMAs are cooperatively managed by FWC and
another state agency. In those areas, the cooperative
agency is primarily responsible for management, but
FWC contributes to management and enforcement. In
the case of the Florida Keys WEA, FWC is the lead
agency so it is responsible for managing the area and
enforcing the laws and regulations.

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

WMAs are managed to sustain the widest possible range
of native wildlife in their natural habitats (FWC 1999-
2005). WMAs offer recreational opportunities, but they
do not have developed amenities like the state parks.
The Florida Keys WEA was acquired to protect and
restore tropical hardwood hammocks and many rare
plants and animals, including Key deer and migratory
birds (FWC 2004). The WEA also helps protect the
OFWs, the recreational and commercial fisheries, and
the reefs surrounding the area. Further, it provides
more natural areas for residents and visitors to enjoy.

Regulations regarding
the management of
WMAs and WEAs are in
68A-17.004, F.A.C. The
disturbance or removal
of any plants, rocks,
minerals, animal life, or
manmade, cultural, or
other natural materials is
prohibited. Building and
hunting are allowed with
restrictions or permits.
The general regulations
allow fishing, but the
regulations for specific
WEAs may restrict some
fishing activities. Other

activities may be further
restricted within individual areas, depending on their
purpose. For example, the Florida Keys WEA lands
were acquired as single use properties, with a focus on
ecosystem preservation and management (FWC 2004).
However, as the WEA developed the site-specific
management strategies, it considered multi-use
management. In preparation for multi-use management,
the activities deemed inconsistent with the goals of the
Florida Keys WEA include hunting, horseback riding,
off-road vehicle use, developed camping, cattle grazing,
apiaries, linear facilities, and citriculture and other
commercial agriculture (FWC 2004). Boating, fishing,
and wildlife watching are approved uses that are
consistent with the goals of the WEA.

Management Activities:

Conceptual management plans are prepared for all
WMAs and WEAs. The Florida Keys WEA was
established in 1997, and its first conceptual management
plan was completed in 1998. The most recent plan, the
Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area
Conceptual Management Plan 2004-2014, was approved
in February 2004 (FWC 2004).

FWC uses several programs to manage WMAs and
WEAs. For the Florida Keys WEA, the programs
include education, monitoring, enforcement, research,
restoration, habitat management, and public use
management. The Florida Keys WEA also has an
advisory group that contributed to the development of
the management plan, and volunteers who assist with
restoration and education projects. Recreational
facilities and trails have not been developed on the
WEA. However, as discussed above, the WEA is
considering allowing some activities, in certain areas,
that are consistent with the protection of the natural

Research: met (FWC 2004). The process to implement this
FWC has developed Memorandums of Understanding management approach is currently underway.
with the National Audubon Society, The Nature
Conservancy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other Stakeholder Involvement and Public
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to encourage Participation:
research on the WEA. One project, contracted through
the Audubon of Florida's Tavernier Science Center, is There were no specific opportunities for public
an inventory and study of the habitat use of neotropical involvement in the designation of this area.
migrant songbirds (FWC 21 1 141 The results will guide
habitat management and bird monitoring efforts. However, there are several opportunities for public
participation in the management of the Florida Keys
Education and Outreach: WEA, including volunteering and commenting on the
To date, the primary educational activity has been the management plan. Volunteer programs offer both
development of brochures with maps explaining occasional and regular service opportunities. To assist
locations and resources. Other efforts include updating with management, the WEA provides training to
the Nature-based Recreation Program website, and volunteers on plant identification and invasive species
completion of an information kiosk. The WEA has also removal. Volunteers are also encouraged to educate the
been investigating the feasibility of an environmental public about invasive species.
education and interpretive center on Dove Creek (FWC
2004). When updating the conceptual management plan, a
management advisory group is convened to participate
Enforcement: in a consensus meeting. FWC invites spokespersons for
Because the Florida Keys WEA consists of several the various stakeholder groups to serve as members of
parcels stretched over 80 miles, enforcement can be the management advisory group (FWC 21, 11 This
challenging. The WEA has investigated several group provides their input about how the area should be
strategies for improving enforcement, such as protected and managed by generating a list of ideas and
establishing closed areas and community watch prioritizing them by vote. The ideas generated, and
programs. While enforcement activities deal with their priorities, are considered in the development of the
looting and dumping on the lands of the WEA, many conceptual management plan. The general public also
activities have focused on the submerged lands, has an opportunity to comment on the plan during a
including the enforcement of fishing and boating public hearing.
regulations (FWC 2004).

Habitat Management: State Parks
An objective-based
habitat management .. National Classification: Uniform
approach will be Multiple-Use, Zoned Multiple-Use, and No-
implemented on the Take, Natural Heritage and Cultural Heritage
Florida Keys WEA. MPAs
The first step in the
approach is the Florida's state park system includes 159
monitoring and parks, 80 of which contain coastal or marine
mapping of plant components. Within Florida's coral reef
community types. Fig. 3.9: Coastal salt marsh (iIautz n.d.) system, there are 19 state parks. These parks
Based on this cover a range of habitats, from coral reefs to
information, the WEA will delineate management units mangrove estuaries and tidal wetlands. Numerous
and determine management objectives for each unit. endangered species, such as sea turtles and seabirds, are
These objectives will be indicator based and will seek to also found within the parks. The diversity of resources
achieve preferred habitat conditions for specified plant offers unique opportunities for recreation and
or animal species. In the process of identifying conservation.
management objectives and developing strategies, the
WEA will also develop recreational use and restoration Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:
plans. Habitat management and restoration techniques
will then be applied to achieve the identified The authority to establish state parks rests with FDEP's
management objectives, and the applicable indicators Division of Recreation and Parks under Florida Statute
will be monitored to determine if the objectives were

S_.S Lte Iniel
- Ssayanrh
AHantic Rdge
a Jpn'anm
John Da
MacArdhur Beach

Hugh TayiO Bircn

Join U. Lloyd Beach

the Barnace

SCape FKomida

)Dagtty Johnson Key Largo
PHammnnnp Coral R

PennieanmV Cormes R

Curr VTb v riny rvcy WVI
Hamfmok XlJl n Kwy
Foil Zachary Taylor k V 'tft
SA &y--*0- Long Key Sa. Pedr
SBaia Hynda
Key West
Fig. 3.10: State parks within the Florida reef tract (FDEP Division of Recreation
and Parks n.d.(a))

258.007. The division's policy is to promote the state
park system for the use, enjoyment, and benefit of the
people of Florida and visitors; acquire properties that
are accessible to all people and that emblemize the
state's natural values; conserve these natural values for
all time; and to administer the development, use, and
maintenance of these lands to enable the people of
Florida and visitors to enjoy these values without
depleting them (Florida Statute 258.037).

In addition to establishing parks, the division has
responsibility for managing the parks and enforcing
regulations within the parks. Other state entities that
are responsible for enforcement are the Florida Park
Patrol and FWC.

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

State parks are established and managed to provide
resource-based recreation while preserving, interpreting,
and restoring natural and cultural resources. A suite of
regulations (62D-2.013 and 2.014, F.A.C.) exists to
ensure that these goals are achieved. In general terms,
the regulations prohibit the destruction, disturbance, or
removal of anything within the park area, and waters

many parks

thereof. This prohibition applies to a
range of objects, including structures
and buildings, historic artifacts, sand,
rocks, minerals, animals, and plants.
There is an exception for fishing, which
is discussed below. Park regulations
also prohibit the introduction of any
plant or animal species into the parks.

State parks allow recreational activities
such as boating, kayaking, surfing,
snorkeling, and fishing. However,
spearfishing is prohibited in the parks
(62D-2.014 (9)(d), F.A.C.). The state
parks do not regulate commercial
fishing because that authority rests with
FWC. Activities prohibited in the parks
include oil and gas and mineral
extraction, and hunting (except in
reserves as authorized by FWC) (62D-
2.014 (10), F.A.C.). Building, seabed
alteration, and research are activities
that are restricted, or require permits, in
the parks. These activities are
authorized only if they are deemed
consistent with park management

In addition to the general regulations,
some state parks further restrict
activities. Boating is allowed in the
submerged areas of the state parks, but
restrict boating activities, including

prohibiting anchoring and establishing combustible
engine exclusion zones or no wake zones. For example,
in Lignumvitae Key Botanical State Park and John
Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, combustible engine
exclusion zones were established to protect seagrass
beds and hardbottom communities. Other parks, such
as Oleta River State Park, have no wake zones to protect
manatees and reduce erosion. In San Pedro Underwater
Archaeological Preserve State Park, only kayaks and
glass bottom or dive boats are allowed, and they must
use park mooring buoys; no anchoring is allowed.
Additionally, no fishing is allowed in San Pedro
Underwater Archaeological Preserve State Park. These
restrictions exist to protect the wreck, as well as the
corals and seagrass beds.

John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park is the only park
in which fishing is specifically regulated. The Lobster
Harvest Prohibited Areas, and the Prohibition on
Harvest of Certain Species, Size Limit rules were
established by FWC because such fishing activities are
inconsistent with park management goals. The Lobster
Harvest Prohibited Areas rule identifies ten specific

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

Fort Zachary Taylor
State Historic Site

Hugh Taylor Birch State
Recreation Area
Indian Key State
S. x x x x x x x x x

jn D h X X X X X X X X X X

John U. Lloyd Beach x x x x x x x x x
Jonathan Dickinson x x x x x
Key Largo Hammock
Ligumcit ae Key

Oleta River x x x x x x x x

San Pedro Underwater
Archaeological Preserve X X
Seabranch Preserve x x x x x x x
St. Lucie Inlet Preserve x x x x x x x x x x x
The Barnacle Historic x x x x x x x

Windley Key Fossil Reef
Geological x x x x

patch reefs where it is illegal to harvest spiny I'_in I
Panuirus) or slipper '_ni i, Scylerides) lobsters or to
deploy traps, and it closes the entire park to the
harvesting of spiny (Panuirus argus) lobster during the
two-day mini season (68B-24.0065 (2), F.A.C.). The
Prohibition on Harvest of Certain Species, Size Limit
rule prohibits the harvest of 47 families/generas/species
of popular tropical ornamental reef species within the
park, and establishes an eight-inch minimum size limit
for unregulated species, with the exception of some
baitfish, jack, and mullet species (68B-5.002, F.A.C.).

Management Activities:

All of the 19 state parks in the coral reef ecosystem have
up-to-date management plans. As required by Florida
Statute, these plans are updated every five years. The
state parks employ a variety of management programs,
including education, monitoring, enforcement, research,
restoration, permitting, habitat management, and public
use management. On-site staff, advisory committees,
and volunteer programs also contribute to park
management. Water quality management programs and
visitor centers are found in some parks.

All of the parks have undertaken significant efforts to
inventory and map park resources. However, efforts to
map submerged areas and inventory marine resources
are just beginning in many of the parks. In addition to
general data collection, the parks support research to
address management concerns, including beach erosion,
algal blooms, and sponge and seagrass die-offs.
* John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park: Since records
have been kept, 229 research permits have been
issued for work in the park. Some of the projects
include research on seagrass die-off, prop scarring,
butterfly reintroduction, and ocean currents. Park
staff have conducted studies to evaluate visitor
impact on the reefs,
which involved the
establishment of
closed areas to serve
as controls. The
closed areas were
compared to visited
areas, some of which
had mooring buoys Fig. 3.11: Scuba divers in John
and others that were Pennekamp State Park (FDEP
unmarked. Species Division of Recreation and Parks
composition, 2005a)
number of fish, and
coral damage were monitored at all of the sites. The
study results will quantify the type and severity of
reef damage with varying levels of usage, and the
impacts or benefits of mooring buoys (FDEP
Division of Recreation and Parks 2004).

Monitoring programs for nesting sea turtles and
shorebirds are common in many of the parks. The
parks collect information about the number of turtles or
birds, the species, the number of nests, and the miles of
beach surveyed, which is used to determine trends. The
results are published in the resource management annual
reports and used to inform management activities, such
as the need for predator control or the regulation of
lighting and heavy equipment use on the beach. Other
monitoring efforts include the monitoring of restoration
projects, prop scars, and water quality.
* Jonathan Dickinson State Park water quality and quantity
monitoring: The park works with several federal, state,
and local agencies to monitor water quality and
quantity within the park. The primary concerns to
the river and estuary are non-point source pollution
(stormwater runoff), and the shift from agricultural
lands to urban development in the surrounding
areas. With population growth, there has been
increasing groundwater removal, which could impact
the park's wetlands. The park and the South Florida
Water Management District have established

monitoring wells to determine any affects, such as
water depression, on the wetlands (FDEP Division
of Recreation and Parks 2000).

The state parks conduct a variety of programs to restore
habitats and hydrology. Hydrological restoration
projects seek to restore the original hydrology by filling
or plugging ditches, removing obstructions to surface
water sheet flow, installing culverts under roads, and
installing water control structures to manage water
levels. Habitat restoration projects range from invasive
species removal, to beach rebuilding, to wetland and
mangrove planting.
Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park habitat restoration:
Since 1992, there has been a significant effort by
county, state, and federal agencies to restore the
park's habitats to their original diversity and
density. While much of the effort has focused on
upland coastal strand and maritime hammock
communities, there has been a significant wetland
restoration component. The restoration of
coastal dune lakes, mangroves, and tidal wetlands
has provided resting and foraging habitat for
shorebirds and wading birds, and attracted state
threatened and endangered species previously not
found in the park (FDEP Division of Recreation
and Parks 2001).
* Cuny Hammock State Park hydrological restoration: The
park is working with the South Florida Water
Management District on a project to restore the tidal
connection between two of the islands.
Construction of U.S. Highway 1 had closed the
natural gap and a
culvert under the
highway is now
being proposed to
restore the tidal
flow, which will
support the
restoration of tidal
wetlands (FDEP
Division of
Recreation and Parks Fig. 3.12: Curry Hammock
February 2005). State Park (FDEP Division of
Recreation and Parks 2005b)
Education and Outreach:
The state parks offer a variety of educational and
outreach opportunities. Some of the activities include
nature walks, estuary walks, birding tours, kayak tours,
glass bottom boat tours, and lecture series. Six of the
state parks within the coral reef system have visitor
centers, which include educational exhibits. Educational
efforts range from an ecosystem-wide perspective to a
focus on specific species (manatees, sea turtles, etc.) or
resource management issues such as boat groundings.

* John MiacArthur beach Mtate FarkC: Ihe park runs a appointed to assist in me development or new
kindergarten through sixth grade in-park educational management plans and to review draft management plan
program and summer camps that get children out updates. These groups include several government
into the water. More specific educational efforts members, but also include citizen representatives and
target manatees, the worm reef, and sea turtles. other stakeholders (such as tour outfitters and nonprofit
During the summer months, park staff conduct sea organizations). In addition to commenting on the draft
turtle watches, which include a slide presentation and plans, the advisory groups can provide suggestions
a walk along the beach to witness nesting female about issues that need to be addressed, or ways in which
loggerhead sea turtles (FDEP Division of Recreation management may be improved.
and Parks April 2005).
The public can contribute to the management of state
Enforcement: parks through an extensive network of volunteers, with
Enforcement in state parks is a cooperative effort over 7,000 annual volunteers (for the entire park system)
between the Division of Recreation and Parks and (FDEP Division of Recreation and Parks 2005c). These
several other state entities, including the Division of volunteers lead tours, remove invasive species, and
Law Enforcement, Park Patrol, and FWC. In the state maintain beaches, waterways, and trails. In many state
parks within Florida's reef ecosystem, many parks, volunteer efforts are further organized through
enforcement activities are related to boating. Parks the establishment of citizen support organizations
maintain channel markers and post regulatory signs and (CSOs). Thirteen of the nineteen (68 percent) state
buoys to protect hardbottom and seagrass communities parks within the reef system have a CSO.
from boat groundings and prop scars. The installation
of mooring buoys prevents anchor damage to these
sensitive communities. Law enforcement personnel Aquatic Preserves
patrol the parks to enforce speed zones and motor boat
prohibited areas that ...... National Classification: Uniform Multiple-Use and
protect submerged
communities and Zoned Multiple-Use, Natural Heritage MPAs
communities and
manatees, and reduce
erosn of ntertidal Over 1.8 million acres of submerged lands are protected

Canying Capaci: Fig. 3.13: Boat properly tied up coral reefs. These habitats support numerous fish, bird,
The Division of
The Division of to a mooring buoy (Collier 2006) marine mammal, and sea turtle species. The aquatic
Recreation and Parks
established visitor Carrying Capacity Guidelines, which preserves provide important protection to these habitats
established Visitor Carrying Capacity Guidelines, which and re, w a a f reratoa
and resources, while also allowing for reremational
all of the state parks use to inform management. The
use of such guidelines protects both the natural es.
environment and users' experiences by preventing
overcrowding, which can lead to the deterioration of Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:
natural resources. Some of the activities with
established carrying capacities include hiking, i .. The state designated the first aquatic preserve, Estero
swimming, surfing, fishing, and boating (FDEP Bay Aquatic Preserve, in 1966. Several other aquatic
Division of Recreation and Parks n.d.(b)). preserves, including Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve,
were established in subsequent years. In 1975, the
Stakeholder Involvement and Public aquatic preserves were codified in the Aquatic Preserve
Participation: Act. The designation of aquatic preserves has continued
Since that time. Under the Florida Aquatic Preserve
Act, state-owned submerged lands with exceptional
There are several opportunities for public participation biological, aesthetic, and scientific value are to be set
in the designation and management of state parks. Prior aquatic
St dr In aside forever as aquatic preserves or sanctuaries for the
to the designation of a state park, a public meeting is e fre aquatic preserves a c
St k i o h benefit of future generations (Florida Statute 258.36).
held to seek input on how the park should be used.
After a draft management plan is developed, a second FDEP's Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas
FDEP's Office ofr Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas
public meeting is held to obtain additional comments. (CAMA) is responsible for managing the aquati
Another opportunity for public participation is as a -- 1 -.i 1 re t _

enforcing the laws and regulations within the aquatic

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

Aquatic preserves are established to protect submerged
lands that have exceptional aesthetic, biological, and
scientific values for the enjoyment of future
generations. These areas are managed primarily for
"the maintenance of essentially natural conditions, the
propagation of fish and wildlife, and public recreation"
(18-20.0001, F.A.C.). Several more specific long-term
goals have also been established for the preserves.
These goals are to: (a) protect and enhance the
ecological integrity of the preserves; (b) restore areas to
their natural condition; (c) encourage sustainable use
and foster active stewardship by engaging local
communities in the protection of preserves; and, (d)
improve management effectiveness through a process
based on sound science, consistent evaluation, and
continual reassessment (FDEP CAMAJune 2006).

An extensive set of laws and regulations govern
activities within aquatic preserves. Although there are
some exceptions, the following activities are prohibited
within aquatic preserves: relocation or setting of
bulkhead lines waterward of the line of mean high
water, dredging or filling of submerged lands, dredging
seaward of a bulkhead line, drilling of gas or oil wells,
excavation of minerals, erection of structures, and
discharge of wastes or effluents (Florida Statute 258.42).
Docking facilities, including commercial, industrial, and
residential facilities, are allowed, but are subject to
numerous standards and criteria (18-20.004(5), F.A.C.).
Additional rules include: 1) use of state-owned lands for
the purpose of providing private or public road access

Gulf of I-

Aquatic Preserves
Coral Reef Conservation Program and
Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative Region
0 10 20 40 60 80 100

Created October, 2006
Aquatic Preserves layer maitaned by
Office of Coastal and Aquat Managed Areas
3900 Commonweath Bivd, MS 235
Tallahassee FL 32399-3000
Aquatic Preserves include all the state-ned
submerged lands within their boundanes This
map is not intended for ue or determnato
of wetlands or land ownesNp

Fig. 3.14: Aquatic preserves within the Florida reef tract (FDEP
CAMA 2006)
or water supply to islands where such access or supply
did not previously exist is prohibited, 2) utility cables,
pipes and other structures must be located in a manner
that will cause minimal disturbance to submerged land
resources and not interfere with traditional uses, and 3)
spoil disposal within the preserve is strongly
discouraged (18-20.004(1) and (3), F.A.C.). The rule

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

.S ae

| w, I E ~ I 5

Aquatic Preserves g U m

Biscayne Bay x x x x x x x x x x x
Coupon Bight x x x x x x x x x x x x
Jensen Beach to Jupiter
InletGd___ X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Lignumvitae Key x x x x x x x x x x x x
Loxahatchee River -
T1-1^ 1 CI Gd X

Lake Worth Creek x x x x x x x

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

Florida's Coral Reef Habitat

-- i : 's 1



regarding indigenous life prohibits the taking of
indigenous life forms for sale or commercial use, except
for the commercial taking of finfish, crustacean, or
mollusks (18-20.012, F.A.C.).

Some aquatic preserves (Coupon Bight, Jensen Beach to
Jupiter Inlet, and Lignumvitae Key) have management
zones to ensure that potential upland development is
compatible with the preserves' management goals.
Preserve management areas are classified based on their
resource value and the designated upland land uses,
which include agriculture, single-family, multi-family,
commercial-industrial, public recreation, and
preservation. Each management area has a set of
allowable uses that guide development. The range of
allowable uses includes residential and commercial
docks, piers, boat ramps, signs, boardwalks, mooring
buoys, highway maintenance/improvements, and utility
easements (FDEP CAMA 1992).

Although there are a significant number of restrictions
in aquatic preserves, the preserves allow recreational
activities such as '...iiin, Li. : :in, surfing, n..il:in_
and fishing. The aquatic preserves do not regulate
commercial fishing because that authority rests with
FWC. The exception is Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve,
which prohibits the use of seines or nets, except when
the fishing is for shrimp or mullet, and is otherwise
permitted by state law or rules (Florida Statute
258.397(4)(c)). In some aquatic preserves, there are
vessel restrictions to protect sensitive resources, such as
seagrass beds. Research, aquaculture, and beach re-
nourishment are allowed, but require permits or other

Management Activities:

The majority of aquatic preserves have management
plans. CAMA has recently developed a Program
Overview, which establishes an updated and proactive
framework for the development and implementation of
aquatic preserve management plans (FDEP CAMA June
2006). Working within this framework, CAMA will be
updating the individual aquatic preserve management
plans over the next few years. As identified in the
Program Overview, there are six focus areas for
management: community outreach and stewardship,
adjacent land uses and conservation, public access and
use, water resource monitoring, water quantity, and
habitat impacts (FDEP CAMA June 2006). The specific
types of management programs utilized vary across the
preserves. For the preserves within the coral reef
system, the most common programs are restoration,
volunteers, education, monitoring, and permit review.
Habitat management and water quality management are
also common management programs in the preserves.

Other programs and activities that are used by some
preserves include research, resource inventories,
enforcement, public use management, visitor centers,
:vii ii, ti, natural resource damage assessment
authority, and emergency spill operations.

Research and Monitoring:
CAMA considers monitoring of water resources to be
one of the most important tools available to protect the
preserves. The current monitoring strategy focuses on
water chemistry and physical measurements as
indicators of ecosystem health. The goal is to develop
this strategy into a comprehensive program that will
include biological monitoring and other critical
ecosystem components (FDEP CAMA June 2006).
* Coupon BightAquatic Preserve: The preserve is currently
involved in juvenile fish studies, research reviewing
the larval recruitment of spiny lobster, and studies
on the effectiveness of fishing exclusion zones
(FDEP CAMA April 2006).
* North Fork, St. Lu'ce Aquatic Preserve: In cooperation
with FWC, the preserve conducts biological
monitoring of fish and invertebrates at hydrologic
restoration sites to support preserve management
and Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
studies (FDEP CAMA April 2006).

Many aquatic
preserves in the
state are
involved in
efforts. These
efforts range
from spoil Fig. 3.15: Seagrass bed (FIKNMS n.d.)
islands, to bird
and turtle habitat, to seagrass beds. As a result of boat
groundings and propeller scars, replanting of seagrass
beds is a common restoration activity.
* North Fork St. Lucie River Aquatic Preserve: The
preserve and the county are working with local
NGOs on a combined effort to restore local spoil
island habitats. There is also a joint effort to clean-
up and restore habitats damaged by ghost fishing
* Loxahatchee River Lake Worth Aquatic Preserve: The
restoration of Kitching Creek is a partnership
between Martin County, South Florida Water
Management District, and FDEP that redirects
freshwater flows to Kitching Creek, increases flows
to the Loxahatchee River for habitat restoration,
raises groundwater levels, restores degraded
wetlands, and reduces nutrient loads (FDEP CAMA
April 2006).

Education and Outreach:
CAMA has developed a successful outreach campaign
based on the images of Florida artist Clyde Butcher.
Living Waters: Aquatic Preserves of Florida is a documentary
film that highlights the environmental and economic
significance of the preserves and encourages
stewardship. Other related materials include a book of
photographs, a traveling photograph exhibit, a photo
calendar, and a CD of natural sounds (FDEP CAMA
* Coupon Bight and ijgnumvitae Key Aquatic Preserves: The
preserves participate in the Seagrass Outreach
Partnership (SOP), which educates people about the
importance of seagrasses to the local economy and
ecology, and how to minimize boater impacts
(FDEP CAMA April 2006).
* Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve:
The preserve participates in
several community events,
including marine debris clean-
up events such as the
International Coastal Clean-up ''" --
(FDEP CAMA April 2006). -
Fig. 3.16: Beach cleai
Stakeholder Involvement
and Public Participation:

There were no specific opportunities for public
involvement in the establishment of the existing aquatic
preserves since they were established by legislative
process. However, the Florida Aquatic Preserve Act of
1975 directed that should the Governor and Cabinet,
acting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund, wish to create a new aquatic
preserve, public notice must be given and a public
hearing must be held in the county or counties in which
the preserve would be located.

Volunteer programs are a common way for the public to
be involved with preserve management. While there are
several well-established volunteer programs in some of
the aquatic preserves, the programs are not as well
defined in the six preserves within the coral reef system.
Many of these preserves partner with other
organizations, such as the Biscayne Bay Alliance, to
coordinate volunteer activities. There is also a citizen's
support organization, The Stewards for the Southeast
Florida Aquatic Preserves, Inc., which organizes
volunteers for restoration and monitoring projects. One
program that has a significant amount of volunteer
support is the Spoil Island Enhancement Program in
Indian River Lagoon, which includes the Jensen Beach
to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve and the North Fork, St
Lucie Aquatic Preserve. Volunteers have removed
exotic species for shoreline stabilization projects,

planted mangroves, removed debris, and created
campsites (Spoil Island Working Group n.d.).

In 2005, the public had an opportunity to be involved
with preserve management by attending public meetings
for the Program Overview development process.
FDEP conducted a series of nine workshops
throughout the state in order to include public input in
the process. The meetings focused on explaining the
existing aquatic preserve program, describing the
process for creating a statewide overview and for
updating the site-specific aquatic preserve management
plans, and soliciting public input on the management
challenges, threats, and solutions (FDEP CAMA March
2006). During the meetings, FDEP collected input
from the community about the range of
values they held for the aquatic preserves.
These efforts will continue over the next
five years as CAMA works to update all of
their site management plans throughout
the state.


Florida faces numerot
management of the MPAs
so many MPAs throughout
funding is often an issue.
can contribute to other m
capacity, enforcement, an
significant issue in the st
staffing. While some pa
biologists and scientific e
for more park rangers. S
struggle with a different
staffing levels to handle f
more park rangers in the
: ---- :--- :

challenges to effective
the coral reef system. Like
ie world, a lack of adequate
I lack of adequate funding
gement challenges, such as
monitoring. Capacity is a
parks, mainly in terms of
note the need for more
ertise, the primary need is
ie of the aquatic preserves
pacity issue insufficient
nit reviews. The need for
te parks highlights another

enrorce me regulations. iviore man nair or me state
parks and aquatic preserves in the coral reef system
identify enforcement as a management challenge.
Another common challenge to effective management is
monitoring, especially among the aquatic preserves.
More effective management could be achieved with
additional, or enhanced monitoring.

Overall, there is strong public support for MPAs in
Florida, with numerous citizen support organizations
for the state parks and aquatic preserves. Even so,
several aquatic preserves note public support as a
challenge as they are still working to build broader
public support. The state parks, on the other hand, are
well established and public support is not a challenge to
rc_ T T T -_ -1 A_ __ _

reef system acknowledge that they could use
more public support. Interestingly, one
park suggests that heightened public
awareness is actually a challenge because
people are more observant and critical of
park management activities without
understanding the reasons behind them.
Similarly, public awareness of MPAs can
lead to increased use of the areas, which
contributes to the challenge of balancing
use and protection.

Individual state parks and aquatic preserves U
in the coral reef system face several
challenges that are site-specific. In the state 0%
parks, some of the challenges include R
invasive species, development or
encroachment near park boundaries, issue as
issue as a
convoluted boundaries, interagency Florida I
cooperation, and derelict vessels. Individual preserves
aquatic preserves identify other challenges,
which include boat groundings and seagrass scars,
insufficient communication between researchers and the
preserve, inadequate mapping and GIS products and
capacity, and the fact that many agencies are responsible
for managing the same area.


Florida has a diversity of MPAs, with varying purposes,
protections, and management programs. This diversity
has allowed the state to establish the most appropriate
type of MPA for addressing the particular needs and
concerns in an area. However, this diversity also means
that there are a variety of entities responsible for the
designation and management of these areas. With
management responsibility split between agencies, and
between divisions and offices within agencies, it would
be difficult to establish a comprehensive, statewide
network of MPAs. Instead, efforts to establish and
manage MPAs as part of a network or system have
occurred at the division and office level. Efforts to
increase coordination across agencies or
across divisions are expected to continue
as well.

The state park system is a statewide system
of protected areas managed by FDEP's
Division of Recreation and Parks.
Planning for the establishment and
management of state parks occurs at the
system level. The system philosophy and
policies are then applied to each state park
through the individual management plans. Fig. 3.18: C
The division also identifies, evaluates, and (FKNMS n

Management Challenges in Three Types of Florida's MPAs
(Florida Keys WEA, State Parks, & Aquatic Preserves)





Funding/ Capacity Public Monitoring Enforcement Other
sourcess Support
Percent of MPAs (out of 24 total responses) that identified each
challenge to effective MPA management. Data reported for the
,eys Wildlife and Environmental Area, state parks, and aquatic
. See text for discussion of "other" challenges.

establishes priority projects for acquisition at the system
level (FDEP Division of Recreation and Parks 2006).

As was mentioned in the section on aquatic preserves,
FDEP's Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas
(CAMA), which oversees the preserves, the national
estuarine research reserves (NERRs), the Coral Reef
Conservation Program (which manages the Southeast
Florida Coral Reef Initiative), and the state's co-
management responsibilities in the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary, is embarking on a new
program and management framework. Over the next
five years, CAMA will produce three to six new
management plans for individual sites each year. The
purpose of developing the new plans as a part of one
concentrated effort is to be able to consider the values,
issues, and threats to specific areas of the state's coastal
waters while considering the statewide perspective. In
addition to this new initiative, CAMA carries out several
on-going comprehensive management efforts. CAMA
manages the aquatic preserves with a focus on the
unique resource management requirements of each unit
while ensuring that the actions are consistent with the
principles of ecosystem-
based management.
CAMA also supports
several initiatives that
will produce bioregional
maps for the Florida
coast and beyond into
other state and federal

Jay 2agc



Florida is a large state with expansive coastal areas and it
will take a collaborative effort to properly conserve its
resources for future generations. As this chapter
reveals, MPA establishment, management, and
enforcement responsibilities are shared between several
entities. Thus, many MPAs rely on partnerships to
manage the resources effectively. Some of the
government agencies that have established partnerships
or undertaken other collaborative efforts include
multiple local governments, Monroe, Miami-Dade,
Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin Counties, the Water
Management Districts, and the following state and

federal agencies: the Florida Department of
Environmental Projection; Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission; Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services; Florida Department
of Health; Florida Department of State; Florida
Department of Transportation; National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. In addition to government agencies, many
concerned citizens, groups, and NGOs have joined in
the efforts to adequately preserve and protect Florida's
coastal ecosystems, and specifically the coral reef
ecosystems. Continued collaboration among all of these
entities is needed to ensure that Florida's coastal
resources are effectively managed and protected.

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

i 0 0 0
'O a aD a >* a a

Site Name U. c4 4 }
Biscayne Bay-Card Sound Spiny Sustainable Uniform Y Focal
Permanent Year-round No
Lobster Sanctuary Production Multiple-Use resource
Biscayne National Park, Sponge Sustainable Uniform Y Focal
Permanent Year-round No
Harvest Prohibited Area Production Multiple-Use resource
Biscayne National Park, Tropical Sustainable Uniform Focal
Ornamental Marine Species Production MultipleUse Permanent Year-round No
Production Multiple-Use resource
Harvest Prohibited Area
Natural Focal
Biscayne Canal No Entry Zone atral No Access Permanent Seasonal oc No
Heritage resource
Black Creek Canal No Entry Natural No Access Permanent Yearround Focal No
No Access Permanent Year-round No
Zone Heritage resource
Coral Gables Canal No Entry Natural No Access Permanent Seasonal Focal No
No Access Permanent Seasonal No
Zone Heritage resource
Fisher Island Motorboats Natural Uniform Focal
Permanent Year-round No
Prohibited Zone Heritage Multiple-Use resource
FPL Riviera Beach Power Plant Natural Uniform Focal
Permanent Seasonal No
Motorboats Prohibited Zone Heritage Multiple-Use resource
Lauderdale Power Plant No Entry Natural No Access Permanent Yearround Focal No
No Access Permanent Year-round No
Zone Heritage resource
Natural Focal
Little River No Entry Zone atral No Access Permanent Seasonal oc No
Heritage resource
Port Everglades Power Plant No Natural No Access Permanent Yearround Focal No
No Access Permanent Year-round No
Entry Zone Heritage resource
Natural Focal
Virginia Key No Entry Zone atral No Access Permanent Year-round oc No
Heritage resource
Ma e S d Z s Natural Uniform Year-round Focal
Manatee Speed ZonesT Permanent No
Heritage Multiple-Use & Seasonal resource
Natural Focal
Bill Sadowski CWA l No Access Permanent Year-round No
Heritage resource
The Manatee Speed Zones include an assortment of Idle Speed Zones, Slow Speed Zones, and Maximum Speed Zones. The
total number of these zones within the Florida reef tract has not yet been determined.

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

Site Name U 4 _U P ,

Pelican Shoal CWA No Access Permanent Seasonal No
Heritage resource
rIn 1
Ii 0 "-

_tr .t t!-tI : ,11 ,i, .I
S'1'" J .,I II_ ,._,_ r ,. I!-,.- I. .10 d
I k 0

11 ra [ .t -I ii r I, [

',. l* kI i l,. r., I I u l t ** I'
I In .w i ,i I1-,r,.f ,.J .,. .-,
11i i. I I ii r
S!r Site llNamelp c- ,_
,..1Pelican Shoal CWA N, No Access Permanent Seasonal F l No

. It t t ,i n Ill,.;I .,Ii. ,

rI | i n l. n r I! I,,. ._ Ih, r.- in.

I I . i 1 I l. r. .. '111
r* i Ii I I l i .Iiin
I. 11..1 1 1. 11-ti-1n11.1 1i.ni1;111.
. .tr I ,l' I l.l .. tl -r ,. It- i. l ,.l I .,., '.r,. r i ",, ,

r I r t i

d ". ill inl,. o r i I. l .. r '
S .' ' I i r. ti r i r l' I

i' Ir I I l nit
I l rr .r. l I Il -i _I

I r p I|- l Ii ii or i t o I n I, -. [Id
I I. i. i I i11.1. r 11-1 .. i I I *l I r.111

.iI r I ,l I 1 h l l. I

I l I p I, f r' in "l r_ i I|. -' i "
S. r i i in., I . r,.
li.,n r.. ji._.. t,.,lri|'' -I ,_
I l 1 I.I >- I 1. 11 r i I.-

l il l -1 i ik I*In l I ir I l t u ni t.. fi m
I, iri.ii l I i~, p iil

I I. ii _i I tiln[;. I I
t i-t n il*. I ni t. *Im_,. .. '. 1,
I i i _t ,-_' 'l ,_r |'. _,_ th ,.- . i1-1.i l I .. .

I J' l. *i~~~i i..I 11.. '. 11. 11-, .1. 11_. 1 1 .. .l r.. .1"
",.Il>- r lll ll>- 1 1 . I.r, I'. -l l.,

I fn. t 1-tt .l 1. 11 ', lrr1.1i l I t i r. .
I'. tl11 ltl,_t1 r ; ,_ it-t. .,.i !.l I ,.. r,r l,..
i r i. I i i ri l 1' .
l li I I|.. r Ir l. r .. 1
I i. .l .,. ". ..lr\ in,- il' r, .il,.lliF,_ t+ 1 il.t -I"l l" l t
.I', i i ,.1 '. I -t ,u l I ., r,.nI I. '
1l,. ,_ l ., ., ', r .. l r1. 1 Ii..1 ',1 -. 11-1.i 1.11 t l t .11'1
,_ t1I .- t ,.t r -; it- i. l ,.l I .,., ..r,.. n , ,
I' ,li ni [ . rh.,r r .. i ,.I', ".r 1r, ...r li- il l* 'I .t.i.* .t l "
I"'*. l l ,. l r ll ,1 ,. ..l I r,. l +. ,,-

".,,I : '- li .| i, r..._.,,i i ,l I t i ,_
,,.I 111 i l.. ; ,_ it-t..- .i ,.l I . . r,_t ', .

l .l I i. I .. .. II l i., |,.h '- I: rI@ ., l .. m .n
'* ll "tr. iIi- ,,. l I,. 1. .I, r,.

I' n '! I' II l,_,' r -_,_ h l lr ]-.h_, l', -I .

' r l' [ ,.l l ,I r i, _'l, ,. l I t l r |- l,. -

I |' 'l' \ I r, . l, hi |,l.,.-I _

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

0t 0
t do 0 o

2 ~ 3 E3 S S 2 S B
O o 2 S o~ g 2 ^
)itp NELt l CC O- rr Oi S

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

0 0
ri 0 ro

c, d 0 Q
cn~ C) G J Y
VCtQ "\Ti~* r i rr. a t t t r i t f.^ t


The St. Lucie Inlet Preserve State Park contains a 4.7 mile stretch of reef that is managed by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP) Division of Recreation and Parks. However, the Parks
department is working cooperatively with FDEP's Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas (CAMA)
Southeast Aquatic Preserve Office and Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP), the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission's (FWC) newly created Division of Habitat and Species Conservation, the local
commercial fishing community, and an environmentally-minded nonprofit organization in what may be an
unprecedented partnership for the protection of this thriving reef community.

In 21 14, diver accounts of newly found debris within the state-protected area lead to a public meeting where
individuals voiced increased concern for reef health. This meeting prompted cleanup events where divers set out
to locate and remove debris, including recreational and commercial fishing nets, monofilament line, and anchors.
That year, they collected 120 gallons of marine debris within a few hours. This effort and its amazing results lead
to the organization of subsequent events. Support for cleanup efforts to date have included a variety of
governmental agencies (FDEP Division of Recreation and Parks, FDEP CAMA, and FWC), nonprofit
organizations (Florida Oceanographic Society and Port Solerno Commercial Fishing Dock Authority), and
concerned citizens.

In 2005, the Florida Oceanographic Society's Martin County Reef Research Dive Team received a grant through
the Mote Marine Laboratory "Protect our Reefs" License Plate Trust Fund to further support this community-
based marine debris removal project. The grant funds are being used to: 1) locate and map marine debris using
ArcGIS, 2) remove located debris, 3) use maps to identify marine debris hotspots in an effort to set up a long-term
debris monitoring program, 4) set up a debris hotline that allows people to anonymously report lost debris, and 5)
create and distribute educational brochures that outline the park boundary, list rules that should be obeyed within
the state park boundary, and provide information on how to anonymously report lost debris.

The guidance from the fishermen, who routinely fish these waters between November and April, reduces the
amount of effort necessary to locate debris from the commercial (and possibly recreational) fishing communities.
The technical expertise among Florida Oceanographic Society's Reef Research Dive Team is crucial to the proper
and safe removal of marine debris from the sensitive reef environment. State agency involvement provides the
project with support from the managing entity, professional biological expertise, and a platform for efficient
information sharing. This project is a unique partnership between the commercial fishing community, an
environmentally-minded nonprofit organization, and state agencies for the protection of the reef community and is
a model of success for all of our state agencies and partners.


Andrews, Katherine, Larry Nall, Chris Jeffrey, and
Simon Pittman. 2005. The State of Coral Reef
Ecosystems of Florida. pp. 150-200. In: J. Waddell
(ed.), The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States
and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2005. NOAA Technical
Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment's
Biogeography Team. Silver Spring, MD. 522 pp.

Ault, J.S., J.A. Bohnsack and G. Meester. 1998. A
retrospective (1979-1995) multispecies assessment of
coral reef fish stocks in the Florida Keys. Fishery Bulletin
96 (3): 395-414.

Ault, J.S., S.G. Smith, J.A. Bohnsack, J. Luo, D.E.
Harper, and D.B. McClellan. 2006. Building sustainable
fisheries in Florida's coral reef ecosystem: positive signs
in the Dry Tortugas. Bulletin of \! Science 78(3): 633-

Boyer, Joseph N. and Henry O. Bricefio. 2005.
Executive Summary, FY2005 Annual Report of the Water
Quality Monitoring Project. Southeast Environmental
Research Center. Miami, FL. Available online at:

Collier, Chantal. 2006. Fig. 3.13. SEFCRI.

Constitution of the State of Florida, Article 4, Section 9.

Crane, Marella. n.d. Fig. 3.16. SEFCRI.

Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Chapters 18, 62,
and 68.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP).
December 2I '4. Southeast Florida Coral ReefInitiative: A
LocalAction S' 29pp. Available online at:

Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) Division of Recreation and Parks. n.d.(a). Fig.
3.10. Florida Onlne Parks Guide. FDEP.
http: //www.floridastateparks.org/images /
- n.d.(b). Visitor Carrying Capacity Guidelines.
FDEP. http: //www.dep.state.fl.us /parks /planning/
- February 3, 2000. Jonathan Dickinson State
Park Management Plan. Tallahassee, FL: FDEP.
Available online at: http:/ /www.dep.state.fl.us /parks /
planning/plans .htm.
March 15, 2001. BillBaggs Cape Florida State
Park Management Plan. Tallahassee, FL: FDEP.
Available online at: http: / /www.dep.state.fl.us /parks /
planning/plans .htm.
SSeptember 1, 2i '4. John Pennekamp Coral Reef
State Park Management Plan. Tallahassee, FL: FDEP.
Available online at: http: / /www.dep.state.fl.us /parks /
planning/ plans.htm.
2005a. Fig. 3.11. John Pennekamp State
Park Photos. Florida Online Parks Guide. FDEP.
http: //www.floridastateparks.org/pennekamp /Photos-
2005b. Fig. 3.12. Curry Hammock State
Park Photos. Florida Online Parks Guide. FDEP.
.2005c. Volunteer at a Florida State Park.
Florida Online Parks Guide. FDEP.
http://www.floridastateparks.org/volunteers /
SFebruary 11, 2005. Curny Hammock State Park
Management Plan. Tallahassee, FL: FDEP. Available
online at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/
April 22, 2005. John D. MacArthur Beach State
Park Management Plan. Tallahassee, FL: FDEP.
Available online at: http: / /www.dep.state.fl.us /parks /
planning/plans .htm.
August 1, 2006. The Office of Park
Planning. FDEP. http:/ /www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/

Florida Department of Environmental (FDEP) Office
of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas (CAMA). 1992.
Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve Management Plan.
Tallahassee, FL: FDEP. Available online at:
management plans/aquatic/.
October 28, 2005. Living Waters: Aquatic
Preserves of Florida. FDEP.
March 14, 2006. Public Workshop
Information. FDEP. http:/ /www.dep.state.fl.us /
coastal/workshop schedule.htm.
April 24, 2006. Aquatic Preserves at a
Glance. FDEP. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/
coastal/downloads /glance/.
June 2006. Florida Aquatic Preserves: A Program
Overview. Tallahassee, FL: FDEP. Available online at:
http: //www.dep.state.fl.us /coastal/.
SOctober 2006. Fig. 3.14. CAMA Map.
Tallahassee, FL: FDEP CAMA.
SNovember 2006. Fig. 3.1. CAMA Map.
Tallahassee, FL: FDEP CAMA.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) Water Quality Standards and Special Projects
Program. June 30, 2006a. Outstanding Florida Waters
- Questions and Answers. FDEP.
http: / /www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp /ofwqa.htm.
-- June 30, 2006b. Surface Water Quality
Classifications. FDEP. http: / /www.dep.state.fl.us /
water/wqssp /classes.htm.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC). n.d.(a). Florida Endangered and Threatened Species
Management and Conservation Plan FY 2004-2005 Progress
Report. Tallahassee, FL: FWC. Available online at:
http://myfwc.com/ imperiledspecies/pdf/Endangered-
Threatened-Species-Mgmt-Plan-FY-21 1 4-2005.pdf.
n.d.(b). Fig. 3.8. Florida Keys Wildlife and
Environmental Area. Recreation on Florida's Wildlife
Management Lands. FWC. http://myfwc.com/
recreation/florida keys/visitorinfo.asp.
.1999-2005. What are WMAs. Recreation on
Florida's Wildlife Management Lands. FWC.
http: / /myfwc.com/recreation/ WhatAreWMAs.html.
January 2 "'4. Florida Keys Wildlife and
Environmental Area Conceptual Management Plan 2004-2014.
Tallahassee, FL: FWC. Available online at:

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC) Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. n.d.
Features. DataGlyphics, Inc.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission U.S. DOC (Department of Commerce). 1996. Strategy
(FWC) Manatee Program. 1999-2005. Manatee Signs. for Stewardship: Florida Keys NationalMarine Sanctuary Final
FWC. http: / /myfwc.com/manatee /sins /. Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Silver
Sn.d. Fig. 3.3. Manatee Photo Gallery. FWC. Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
http:/ /www.myfwc.com/manatee/photogallery/ Administration. Available online at:
manateephotos5.htm. http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/regs.

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). n.d.
Figs. 3.7, 3.15, and 3.18. FKNMS.

Florida State Statutes. Chapters 258, 370, 372, 373, and

Gilliam, Dave. n.d. Fig. 3.2. SEFCRI.

Hood, Sharyn. August 17, 2006. Fig. 3.5. News
Release: "If we build it, the will come" a seabird
success story. FWC. http://myfwc.com/whatsnew/

Johns, Grace, M., Vernon R. Leeworthy, Frederick W.
Bell, and Mark A. Bonn. 2001. Socioeconomic study of reefs
in southeast Florida: Final Report. Hollywood, FL: Hazen
and Sawyer P.C., in association with Florida State
University and National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Kautz, Randy. n.d. Fig. 3.9. FWC.
http: / /myfwc.com/recreation /florida keys/nc coastal.

Porche, C.E., A.M. Eklund and G.P. Scott. 2003. An
assessment of rebuilding times forgoiath grouper. SEDAR6-
RW-3. 25 pp.

Rohmann, SO, Hayes, JJ, Newhall, RC, Monaco, ME,
Grigg, RW. In press. The area of potential shallow-
water tropical and subtropical coral ecosystems in the
United States. CoralReefs.

Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF).
August 2001. Tropical Western Atlantic/Northwestern
Atlantic Data. REEF. http://www.reef.org/data/twa/

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD).
November 1995. Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement
and Management (SWIM) Plan. West Palm Beach, FL:
SWFMD. Available online at: https://my.sfwmd.gov/
portal/page? pageid=2294.5174095,2294 5174096& d
ad=portal& schema=PORTAL&project=1301&ou=44

Spoil Island Working Group. n.d. SpoilIsland Project.
Treasure Coast Web Design.
http: / /www.spoilislandproject.org/.

Meghan Gombos, NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Jay Gutierrez, Guam Department of Agriculture Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources
Valerie Brown, NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservations

Contributors: Evangeline Lujan

INTRODUCTION surrounding the island to regulate the take of a<
to protect coral reef habitat and the related fai
The U.S Territory of Guam is the southernmost island network was established after the results of 1E
of the Mariana Archipelago, and the largest and most fisheries data collection revealed a 70 percent
populated island in Micronesia. Guam is surrounded by in catch per unit effort values (Gutierrez 2003)
offshore banks, and fringing, patch, submerged, and words, nearshore fish stocks were greatly dep
DAWR decided it was time to take action.
barrier reefs. The coral reef and lagoon area encompass DAWR decded t was te to take acton
approximately 69 square kilometers (km2) in nearshore
waters between zero and three nautical miles (Hunter With overfishing and poor land use practice
1995). major threats to the integrity of Guam'
ecosystems, DAWR investigated sites around 1
Traditionally, fishing on coral reefs has been an that could be set aside as mane prefer
important part of local Chamorro culture, and fish were selection for the preserves in this network was
valued as an important food source. Today, Guam's a set of criteria that included habitat diversity, p
reefs also support the island's tourism industry, which of spawning stocks, species richness,
accounts for an estimated 60 percent of the enforceability, cultural practices, and local <
government's revenues (Porter, et al. 2005). While benefit (Sherwood 1989). From the nine site
dependence on the fishery has decreased, these proposed, five permanent sites were sele
resources remain economically and culturally important conservation. The process to develop the ne
today. marine preserves took more than 12 years
establishment of these protected areas has dem
Guam's reefs are threatened by several natural and improved resource health and increased public
anthropogenic impacts, including typhoons, crown of (Gutierrez 2003).
thorns starfish outbreaks, land based pollution,
recreational impacts, fishing pressure, and coral disease
and bleaching. Geology, human population, level of
coastal development, types of marine uses, circulation
patterns, and frequency of natural disturbances
contribute to the high variability of reef health around
the island. Overall, the health of Guam's reefs has
declined over the past 40 years (Porter, et al. 2005).
Efforts to address some of these threats are on-going.

For more than 12 years, Guam has been working
towards the establishment of MPAs. It has been only
recently, however, that these efforts have paid off and
management objectives are being realized with support
from the public. Guam's first attempt to create an MPA
was the establishment of a territorial seashore park in
1978. This park is still in existence today, and, although
it was legally established and a master plan was written
to support it, there has been no management action in
the park, and no agencies claim responsibility for its

Since then- the Guam Denartment of Ariculture.



Marine Preserves

National Classification: Zoned Multiple-Use and
No-Take, Sustainable Production MPAs

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

The five marine preserves were legally established in
1997 through Guam Public Law 24-21, An Act to
Establish Rules and Regulations for the Control of
Fisheries by the Department of Agriculture. This
legislation covers a broad array of modifications to
Guam's approach to fisheries management, the most
significant being a new section on marine preserves. On
April 14, 2006, Public Law 28-107 was passed to further
strengthen the protection of the marine preserves by
prohibiting non-fishing activities, such as development,
construction, drilling, and trenching.

DAWR is the agency responsible for managing and
enforcing the regulations for the marine preserves.

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

The goal of the marine preserves, as defined in Public
Law (P.L.) 28-107, is to protect, preserve, manage, and
conserve aquatic life, habitat, and marine communities
and ecosystems, and to ensure the health, welfare, and
integrity of marine resources for current and future

One way this goal is being accomplished is through the
protection of important fisheries habitat, including
- p-- i--, n'l ihi'i, and nursery grounds, and/or by

providing refugia for species that have been exploited as
by-catch. To achieve this goal, fishing and other
activities are limited within the boundaries of the marine

Given that the preserves were initially established to
recover food fish stocks, most preserve regulations
currently revolve around fisheries management.
Trolling seaward of the reef margin is allowed in all the
preserves and bottom-fishing from the 100 foot depth
seaward is allowed within the Tumon Bay Preserve.
Certain cultural fishing practices that do not threaten the
restoration goals of the preserve system are allowed
within the boundaries of the Tumon Bay, Pati Point, Piti
Bomb Holes, and Achang Bay Marine Preserves to
sustain local cultural traditions. All other fishing
activities are prohibited within the marine preserves.

DAWR is working to develop an eco-permit system
(P.L. 27-87) that will regulate recreational and other
non-fishing activities in all MPAs, but several activities
are already regulated through other means. Permits are
required from DAWR for development activities within
the preserves. The use of jet skis within the preserves is
limited to waters beyond the fore reef slope to prevent
reef damage in shallow waters, except in Tumon Bay
Marine Preserve, where they are allowed to traverse the
channel at no-wake speed (9 GCA 70.25). Other non-
extractive activities, including other recreational uses,
educational uses, and non-extractive research, are
permitted within the boundaries of the preserves. Local
mangers are interested in conducting carrying capacity
studies for some of the marine preserves that are heavily
used by the recreational diving industry. These studies
would provide managers with the necessary information
to adequately manage the intensity of recreational use
within the preserve system.

Table 4.1: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Five Marine Preserves

Piti Bomb Holes x x x x x x x x
Achang Reef Flat x x x x x x x x x x x
Pati Point x x x x x x

Sasa Bay x x x x x x x x x x x
Tumon Bay x x x x x x x
Marine Preserves _U G (d C l o G d U

Piti Bomb Holes x x x x x x x x
Achang Reef Flat x x x x x x x x x x x
Pati Point x x x x x x
Sasa Bay x x x x x x x x x x x
Tumon Bay x x x x x x x

conducted to educate the
Guam's focus has been on the development of strong public about the definition,
fisheries and coral reef laws and regulations to support purpose, and rules and
the goals of its marine preserve system. Therefore, the 'S regulations of the sites.
preserves are subject to specific regulations that have Signage posted at each of the
been incorporated into the territorial fishing regulations. marine preserves defines the
boundaries and describes the
On-going management activities have been thus far regulations for the sites.
successful in addressing the goal of the preserves to Fig. 4.3: Kika, Guam's
restore food fish populations. DAWR's current coral reef mascot As previously mentioned, the
management programs include monitoring, (Galide Group 2002) GCRICC has developed a
enforcement, public awareness, permitting, and public outreach campaign on
scientific research. Additional program support, coral reefs, which seeks to increase public support for
including a public awareness campaign is provided by MPAs as a tool to protect local marine resources. The
the Guam Coral Reef Initiative Coordinating Committee campaign includes an official mascot and several public
(GCRICC), which is made up of several agencies that events to promote reef-friendly behavior. At these
work to collaboratively promote coral reef conservation events, Guam residents can learn more about the marine
and awareness. preserve network. The campaign has also aired
television ads in several languages to include the diverse
Research and cultural backgrounds present in Guam's resident and
Monitoring: visiting populations.
Guam was
fortunate to have Enforcement:
12 years worth of DAWR enforcement officers, known as conservation
detailed baseline officers, are primarily responsible for fish and wildlife
information on enforcement, which includes the application of specific
annual fish regulations at each of the preserves. Conservation
extraction before officers conduct random site visits to observe activities
the preserves were Fig. 4.2: Fish surveys (Davis n.d.) and enforce the laws and regulations in the preserves,
put into effect. and respond to reports from the public about illegal
This data indicated a reduction in fish stocks and major activities occurring
shifts in methods of harvest, suggesting the need for within the sites.
management actions that resulted in the establishment Other enforcement ,
of the marine preserves (Pitlik 1997). A monitoring officers, such as
program was launched in 1999 to determine the effect police officers, may
of the new regulations on fish biomass and diversity. also enforce the
This information is collected through on-going fish marine preserve
transect counts and timed swim counts. These activities laws and
will be included in the comprehensive monitoring regulations. Fi .4: Preserve enforceme.d.)nt
program being developed by the Coral Reef Monitoring
Group. Research activities within preserves have been Permitting:
conducted by the University of Guam and include DAWR established a permitting program specific to the

taKenoiaer involvement ana rlUD11C Control or risneres Dy me department or Agricuinurt
participation : in January 1997.

)AWR utilized an extensive public participation
process to obtain public support for the network of CHALLENGES TO MPA
marine preserves. The establishment document was EFFECT
created in 1985, but it took six years for all of the
evolved local agencies to refine and approve the
document for public release. The original proposal The greatest challenges in effectively managing th
included nine marine preserve sites located around the marine preserves, as identified by local managers, are
land, with five permanent sites and four rotational lack of human management capacity and a lack o
tes. The four rotating preserves were intended to enforcement. One of the major problems in hirmi
serve as an educational tool to inform local fishermen additional staff is the lengthy and cumbersome territorial
nd the public about how marine preserves function and government hiring process. For this reason, a number
ie impacts of fishing. In 1993, a series of public of essential staff positions are vacant. Specificall)
earnings was held to respond to stakeholder concerns qualified staff is needed to conduct research ani
bout the proposed system. Hundreds of community monitoring programs. It has been very difficult fo
members from various districts attended the meetings. DAWR to locate individuals with adequate research
'he public response to the proposed marine reserves expertise to accomplish necessary management
ras largely negative, with the strongest objections activities.
Dming from a local fishing group. In response to this
position, DAWR made a concerted effort to The human capacity shortage also affects Guam's ability
understand and address the concerns of almost all of the to enforce regulations within and around the marin
,aders and members of the local fishing groups and preserves. While more enforcement personnel could
associations. help to address some enforcement issues, severs
enforcement challenges are not related to staffing. Th
throughh these discussions, fishers began to understand location of some sites does not facilitate enforcement
ie results of the fisheries data and the purpose of because they are located in areas that are difficult t
marine preserves. To alleviate the remaining major access by boat or within military bases. Another
concerns, several revisions were made to the original enforcement limitation is the difficulty to observe th
proposal, including the removal of fishery licensing entire coastline from shore. Enforcement is also
requirements and regulations regarding reporting fishery challenge because violations of preserve regulations ar
itch, and reduction of the number of preserves from rarely prosecuted and therefore there is little leg,
, .. ,,,1i ,,:,, o.-. i........- ... :o, T 1 incentive for resource users to comnlv with th

support was attained for the five permanent
sites. The revised proposal was presented in
a second round of public hearings and
encountered little resistance. Additionally, 100%
one community requested that a proposed
rotating preserve in Merizo be made 80%
permanent. This preserve is now the Achang
Bay Marine Preserve. 60%

The comments from the second round of 40%
public hearings were incorporated into the
proposal for the marine preserve network 20%
and submitted to the Guam Legislature for
additional edits. The legislature removed one
permanent preserve from the proposal, and
five permanent preserves were eventually
established. The entire public process took Fig. 4.5
seven years and the proposal was finally manage
adopted as Guam Public Law 24-21, An Act the nee
to Establish Rules and Regulations for the illegal

Management Challenges in Guam's MPAs

ing/ Capacity Public Monitoring Enforcement Other
irces Support

nt of MPAs (out of 5 total MPAs) that identified each issue as
challenge to MPA effectiveness. "Other" challenges included
ie development of a citation system to determine penalties for


poaching and other illegal fishing practices, ultimately
reducing management effectiveness by decreasing public
support for MPA efforts. The decrease in public
support happens when use restrictions
are applied to the area, but inadequate
enforcement of the sites allows for
poaching by a few "dishonest" fishers
while limiting public use. In response to
these concerns, the Guam Department
of Agriculture has hired a natural
resource prosecutor, and is currently
working to develop a citation system
(P.L. 26-25) and a volunteer
conservation program (P.L. 28-30).

Finally, the coral reef habitat in some of Fig. 4.6: Turnm
Guam's marine preserves is threatened
by intense levels of recreational use and land-based
sources of pollution from adjacent watersheds. To
address recreational use issues, Guam is working to
establish an eco-permit system to regulate recreational
uses other than fishing. There are also efforts to reduce
the land-based sources of pollution affecting the
preserve sites, such as using a watershed approach to
management. All of the island's watersheds have been
identified and prioritized, based on importance and data,
by the Guam Watershed Planning Committee. This
local group consists of representatives from various
natural resource and public health agencies. Although
some of the marine preserves lie adjacent to watersheds
with high sediment and pollutant levels, other
watersheds that pose a more direct threat to human
health have been given a higher priority.


Despite these challenges, Guam designed and
implemented the marine preserves as part of a formal
network with the intention of protecting 10 percent of
Guam's shoreline and 20 percent of the adjacent reef.
According to the 21 11, 2 The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of
the United States and Pacfic Freely Associated States report,
the marine preserves "represent approximately 12% of
the coastline and 28" ,, of the coral reefs" (Richmond
and Davis 2 111'2; On-going monitoring of the MPAs is
taking place to determine the effectiveness at restoring
fish populations.


Guam has achieved initial success in the establishment
of its marine preserve system. To build off these

accomplishments and further improve MPA
management effectiveness, the following actions are

Watershed Management:
The Guam Watershed
Planning Committee
should consider the
development of a two-
.. .. pronged approach to
watershed management
priority setting that takes
both human health and
c environmental threats
into consideration when
y Marine Preserve (Davis n.d.) identifying priority sites
for funding support and
management action. Funding that is intended to reduce
the environmental effects of land-based pollution
should be directed at watershed areas that pose the
greatest threat to Guam's natural resources. While it is
imperative to attend to public health issues, other
sources of funding should be sought to address them.
Currently, Tumon Bay is the only watershed that has
been identified as a priority for management funding.
However, land-based management actions that reduce
sediment could also significantly improve coral reef
ecosystems in Piti Bomb Holes and Achang Bay.
Additionally, addressing the land-based pollution issues
in these sites could improve support by local fishers
who are often the sole targets of management action
while sources of other human impacts to marine
ecosystems go unregulated. To further protect the
preserves from development threats, they should be
listed as selected sensitive areas within the Seashore
Reserve Plan.

Community Watch Program:
It is recommended that Guam build a strong
community support program for its MPAs to improve
enforcement capabilities. While community members
may not be able to legally enforce specific regulations,
they can provide needed assistance in surveillance,
monitoring, and outreach at preserves sites adjacent to
their communities. There are some excellent examples
of effective community watch programs in the Pacific
Islands region that empowered communities to take an
active role in managing local resources. Successful
community watch programs have been developed in
Palau, Pohnpei, and Hawaii. It may be feasible to do
exchange visits between these sites to learn about the
development and implementation of these programs.
At a minimum, a part-time staff person would be
required to develop and run this program, and to work
directly with communities adjacent to MPA sites.


Table 4.2: National Classification System for Guam's Five MPAs

Achang Reef Flat Marine Preserve Sustine Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No
Pa Point Marine Presee Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No

Production Multiple-se
Site Name CI )r u k V k
Sustainable Zoned

AchangPiti Bomb Holes Marine Preserve duion Multiple e Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No
Production Multiple-Use
Sustainable Zoned

Pasa Point Marine Preserve Prduction No-Take Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No
Production Multiple-Use
Sustainable Zoned
Piti Bomb Holes Mainne Preserve P Multiple Use Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No

Tumon Bay Marine Preserve Production No ke Permanent Year-round Ecosystem No
SProduction Multiple-Use


One of the main purposes of creating Guam's network of marine preserves was to restore declining fish stocks.
After only five years of enforcement, the preserves show signs of improvement. Studies have confirmed that
limiting fishing in these areas has had a considerable effect on species density and diversity. Research conducted by
DAWR showed that after only two years of enforcement, the number of fish along transects in the Piti Bomb
Holes and the Achang Reef Flat Marine Preserves increased by over 100 percent (Gutierrez 2003). In Piti Bomb
Holes, the number of species increased by 14 percent and the diversity of fish species increased by 38 percent
(Gutierrez 2003). Data collected by the University of Guam Marine Lab supports these findings, indicating that the
mean densities of four focal species, *- flavoineatus, Chlorurus sordidus, Naso turatus, and Naso uniconis,
were at least 20 percent higher (in many cases, much higher) in the preserves versus control sites. In addition to
increased density, the data documented a shift in the population structure towards larger individuals in the preserve
populations of C. sordidus and M.flavokneatus, suggesting that the preserves are indeed working as an egg bank, with
higher levels of reproductive potential than nearby control sites. Furthermore, the data indicated that the
orangespine surgeonfish (Naso lituratus) showed a net outflow of biomass from the preserves, with 26 percent of all
tagged biomass emigrating from MPAs. This data suggests that MPAs have the potential to provide herbivore
biomass to adjacent areas that may be suffering from algal overgrowth (Tupper in preparation).

As a result of healthier reefs, and an increased number and size of fish, residents and visitors have recognized the
benefits of marine preserves. The Guam Visitor's Bureau (GVB) partnered with the Guam Coastal Management
Program to promote Tumon Bay Marine Preserve as a Sea Life Park during the summer months of 2005. This
program included guided snorkel tours for tourists, the production of identification cards for common species
found in the preserve, and a full color brochure illustrating the bay. The preserve also has three kiosks that remind
visitors to safely enjoy the beauty of this unique bay. In addition to growing interest from the tourism industry, the
Guam Legislature and DAWR continue to support the preserves. Realizing that it may become necessary to limit
recreational uses within the preserves, the legislature passed Public Law 27-87, which authorized the Department of
Agriculture to regulate non-fishing activities within the five marine preserves. Through the development of an eco-
permitting program, DAWR will be able to keep recreational uses within limits that are compatible with the goal of
fisheries restoration. The regulations are currently awaiting final approval.


Davis, Gerry. n.d. Figs. 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, and 4.6. NOAA
Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation.

Government of Guam, Department of Agriculture,
Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources.

Galide Group. 2' '2 Fig. 4.3.

Guam Code Annotated (GCA). 9 GCA )70.25. Jet Ski
Operation, Tumon Bay.

Guam Code Annotated (GCA). 21 GCA 63. Guam
Territorial Seashore Protection Act of 1974.

Guam Public Law 24-21. An Act to Establish Rules and
Regulations for the Control of Fisheries by the
Department of Agriculture.

Guam Public Law 26-85. An Act to Authorize the
Department of Agriculture to Issue Citations for
Fishing and Wildlife Violations.

Guam Public Law 27-87. An Act to Create a Marine
Preserve Eco-Permitting System.

Guam Public Law 28-30. An Act to Create a Civilian
Volunteer Conservation Officer Reserve Program.

Guam Public Law 28-107. An Act to Expand the
Protection of Guam's Marine Preserves.

Gutierrez, J.T. 2003. Two-year Report on the E .of
Guam's Marine Preserves. Government of Guam,
Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and
Wildlife Resources.

Hunter, C.L. 1995. Review of coral rees around American
flag Pacizc islands and assessment of need, value, andfeasibiliy oJ
establishing a coral reef shery managementplan for the western
Pacic region. Honolulu, Hawaii : Western Pacific
Regional Fishery Management Council.

Pitlik, ToddJ. 1997. Inshore Creel Survey Annual Report.
Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources.

Porter, Val, Trina Leberer, Mike Gawel, Jay Gutierrez,
David Burdick, Victor Torres, and Evangeline Lujan.
2005. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of Guam.
pp. 442-487. In: J. Waddell (ed.), The State of CoralReef
Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated
States: 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS
NCCOS 11. NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal
Monitoring and Assessment's Biogeography Team.
Silver Spring, MD. 522 pp.

Richmond, Robert H., and Gerry W. Davis. 2I I2
Status of the Coral Reefs of Guam. pp. 189-194. In:
The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and
Pacic Freely Associated States: 2002. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean
Service/National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science,
Silver Spring, MD. 265 pp.

Sherwood, T. 1989. Establishing Permanent Marine
Conservation Areas in Guam. Project Progress Report.
pp. 110-118. In: Division ofAquatic and Wildlfe Resources
Annual Report Fiscal Year 1989. Government of Guam,
Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and
Wildlife Resources.

Tupper, M. In preparation. Piti Bomb Holes Preserve,
Achang Reef Fat Preserve, and Tumon Bay Marine
Preserve. WCPA-Marine/WWF MPA Management
Effectiveness Initiative, Draft Preliminary Report.


Chapter 5: Hawai'i Coral Reef MPA Summary

Jill Komoto, Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources
Meghan Gombos, NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Contributors: Athline Clark, Alton Miyasaka, and Matthew Ramsey


As one of the most isolated archipelagos on earth,
Hawai'i has estimated rates of endemism of 25 percent
or greater for most coral species. This unique marine
life is found no where else in the world (DLNR DAR
2005). These isolated islands consist of two regions, the
Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) and the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). The MHI, where 99 percent
of the state's 1.3 million residents reside, consists of
"high volcanic islands with non-structural reef
communities and fringing reefs abutting the shore"
((Friedlander, et al. 2005c). In contrast, the NWHI
remains mostly uninhabited atolls, islands, and banks
that span over 2,000 kilometers (km) northwest of the

Historically, coral reefs played an important role in
Hawaiian culture and were recognized as the building
blocks of the islands (Friedlander, et al. 21 I ,.I .; To this
end, native Hawaiians had intimate knowledge of their
ocean resources and employed a relatively sophisticated
system to manage resources that reduced waste and
ensured long-term use. Some of these methods
included a "kapu" system in which the chiefs would
decree an area off limits to regulate fishing during
certain times (e.g., spawning season); other methods
reserved certain species (DLNR DAR 2005).

Over time, these practices have eroded due to cultural,
political, and demographic changes that have affected
water rights, land use, and land ownership. These
changes have disrupted ecosystem functions and
sustainable management practices over just a few
generations (Friedlander 2 1 14) Today, Hawai'i's reefs
are threatened by a number of factors, including fishing
pressure, land based pollution, coastal development,
aquatic invasive species, and recreational overuse.

However, these reefs remain an important part of
Hawai'i's way of life. In addition to providing
protection from large ocean swells and providing food
for sustenance, it is estimated that the state's coral reefs
generate approximately $800 million annually in added
value to the state's economy (Friedlander, et al. 2005b).

To address some of the threats facing coral reefs and
accommodate tourism needs, the state has been

establishing and managing MPAs for 40 years. The first
MPA, the Hanauma Bay Marine Life Conservation
District, was designated in 1967 to provide a place
where people could view a variety of marine life. Many
of the initial MPAs were designated for socio-economic
reasons, including local community support, reducing
conflicts between user groups, ease of public access,
ease of establishing and marking boundaries, cultural
value, and/or scenic beauty. Some secondary goals of
the MPAs included fishery enhancement or habitat
protection. While Hawai'i's MPA types are currently
separated into several categories, each individual site has
a unique set of rules, regulations, management actions,
and reasons for establishment. Because of the
numerous types of MPAs, and the fact that many do not
have clearly articulated goals and objectives that can be
used to measure their effectiveness, Hawai'i's
Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR),
Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) is currently
working to develop a new framework of MPAs. See
i Towards a Network" section.

mauma Bay MLCD (Komoto n.d.)

Hawai'i has established 39 MPAs that contain coral reef
resources and habitats. These sites are categorized into
the following types: marine life conservation district
(MLCD), fishery management area (F .;, regional
fishery management area with fisheries replenishment
areas (FRAs), bottomfish restricted fishing area (BRFA),
natural area reserve (NAR), cultural reserve, wildlife
sanctuary, marine laboratory refuge, and marine refuge.



i'ilv -
Urn Lge CwAnaiivn UClks (UlC~i

waas Bay

O Uld ktla An
.. Uhii=u-

iHy Usgemei r FI.L) FU A FMA F IFmaise eplehmnmri Alres
WMPnm Ba I Nmu Kohal
njuim 2 PuAnko-ahonlb .a
q6m~11 rtn : KaUpulau
SFimiuu Bay KdaImidlwhlB
WalduaBayis (HlaeIm Helr K Iila.Kenuhou
Pdulawl FRed HI
-looiulu hlist m apoipqo4tiaun
WI V l -Di-ilina Hea aorie e hli ie a
Hama Kern lWwrf IkH
KaSIukiS l HItmr WllMae banusarm
MineHatHraar *orna bInd HSual Mama LlMarlcy Reflga
IKhdW ul Har o P UIO u noI Wie 5mnuly
Kala h ai I -Ibm ba araid Rer, ae
PuFiS Bay and PUtRel FbW RWwewr

Kalue Bay Nmos au rw anmsu~vy
KiemoIBay SBnomitSeM ricpaiingAreas
Hi labrtIm iullKans aplu fhnIg air
GhImm.mwniaitut Mu uu'mliadipps arpm.rMu.rse vhrigtim uhligceu~mbriulteikar

-^J EflfC.IWMg *tfi Il aba 8i(l ~tl %~

Fig 52 Map ofMPAs i Hawai'i (DLNR DAR 2005)
Fig. 5.2: Map of MPAs in Hawai'i (DLNR DAR 2005)

- I*


in i25 I --
nbi I I


Marine Life Conservation Districts

National Classification: No-Take, Zoned Multiple-
Use with No-Take Areas, Zoned Multiple-Use, and
Uniform Multiple-Use, Natural Heritage MPAs

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

The Marine Life Conservation Program was established
under Hawai'i Revised Statute (HRS) Chapter 190
(1995). Under this statute, all of the state's marine
waters comprise a marine life conservation area, which
is administered by DLNR. DLNR has the authority to
establish and modify the limits of conservation districts
in each county. Additionally, HRS Chapter 190
instructed DLNR to adopt rules that may "prohibit
activities that may disturb, degrade, or alter the marine
environment, establish open and closed seasons,
designate areas in which all or any one or more of
certain species of fish or marine life may not be taken,
prescribe and limit the methods of fishing, including the
type and mesh and other description of nets, traps, and
appliances, and otherwise regulate the fishing and taking
of marine life" (HRS 190-3). Under HRS Chapter 190-
4, DLNR has the ability to administer, and revoke,

permits for scientific, education, or other public
purposes on such terms and conditions that are
necessary to minimize any adverse effects within the
MLCDs. This chapter also instructs DLNR to adopt
rules to regulate anchoring and mooring, and it
establishes penalties for violations of this statute or rule.

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

The main criteria used to establish the MLCDs included:
* significant resources the site supported abundant
marine life, geological features that needed
protection, etc;
* the site was in a relatively pristine state; and,
* there was future potential for the area to recover or

Additional criteria that were considered included:
* ease of establishing boundaries (e.g., across the
mouth of an embayment); and,
* ease of access to the resources for ocean recreation

Because MCLDs are designated to conserve and
replenish marine resources, the taking of any marine life
(fish, eggs, shells, corals, algae, etc.) and non-living
habitat material (sand, rocks, coral skeletons, etc.) is

g O0ahL _








generally restricted, or prohibited entirely. Thus, the deface, destroy, possess, or remove any sand, coral,
regulations may foster non-consumptive uses, such as rock, or other geological feature. In addition to these
swimming, i o.!l:i.-, and diving. Fishing may be protections, each MLCD has more specific regulations,
allowed subject to certain gear restrictions, based on such as anchoring restrictions or designated allowable
input received during the public meeting process. fishing methods (e.g., fishing for finfish for home
However, DAR acknowledges that, "from a consumption is permitted from shore using thrownet or
conservation standpoint (and to avoid confusion about pole and line without reel). Some MLCDs are divided
the rules), it may be desirable to prohibit all into two subzones that allow different uses (e.g.,
consumptive use in future MLCDs" (DLNR DAR n.d.). subzone A = no-take, subzone B = hook and line and
thrownet for finfish allowed).
Boating is also regulated within the MLCDs under HRS
190-4.5 and HRS 200, which enable DLNR to establish Since the late 1970s, three MLCDs have been
rules to regulate anchoring and mooring. Many sites established (Pupukea in 1983, Old Kona Airport in
have anchoring regulations or non-motorized boating 1992, and Wai'Opae in 2003). Wai'Opae is the only
zones to protect the marine resources from anchor MLCD that prohibits commercial tourism activities.
DLNR's DAR manages all of the MLCDs. However,
When Hanauma Bay MLCD was created in 1967, many of these areas are accessed through county or state
regulations prohibited the taking of marine life, shells, beach parks, requiring cooperation with other entities.
coral, rocks, or sand. As a result of these restrictions, The Hanauma Bay Nature Preserve is a good example
fish populations increased and the bay became popular of a co-managed area. The waters are managed by the
for snorkeling and diving. Most MLCDs were state, but all access to the site is through a city and
established in the 1970s and 1980s in response to a county of Honolulu nature preserve.
noticeable impact on resources from overuse by
recreational users (such as anchor damage), or from Management Activities:
increasing consumptive uses that were threatening the
scientific, recreational, or educational value of the Currently, only the Hanauma Bay MLCD has an active
natural resources at the sites. In more than half of the management plan, which was developed by the city and
MLCDs, it is prohibited to fish for, catch, take, injure, county of Honolulu. Wai'Opae Tidepools MLCD has a
kill, possess, or remove any marine life, or to take, alter, draft management plan, but it has not yet been

Table 5.1: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the 11
Marine Life Conservation Districts (MLCDs)

a EZ O
E *c ci 2.Ga

Marine Life Conservation
Districts (MLCDs) U V E U 9 1
Hanauma Bay x x x
Honolua-Mokule'ia Bay x x x
Kealakekua Bay x x x x x x x
Lapakahi x x x x x
Manele-Hulopo'e x x x x x
Molokini Shoal x x x x x x
Old Kona Airport x x x x x x x
Pupukea-Waimea x x x x x x
Waialea Bay x x x x x
Waikiki x x x x x
Wai'Opae Tidepools x x



protected and adjacent sites on O'ahu. A report from
this work showed that abundance and distribution of
species and assemblages was strongly tied to habitat
type. To date, all of the regularly monitored MLCDs
have higher fish biomass than adjacent sites, and have
higher values for most other fish assemblages (e.g.,
diversity, size, and species richness) (Friedlander, et al.
2005b). Apex predators and other target species were
more also abundant and larger in the MLCDs than in
adjacent sites (Friedlander, et al. 2005a).

Education and Outreach:
Outreach and education programs vary by site. At a
minimum, signs are located at each MLCD to indicate
boundaries and describe regulations for the area. Some
MLCDs have more active outreach programs (e.g.,
Hanauma Bay, Wai'Opae Tidepools, Pupukea-Waimea,
1 TT 1 1 1 1 1 1' 1 1 1 "

Stakeholder Involvement and Public

The Hawai'i Legislature and the public can suggest an
area for establishment as an MLCD. DAR may also
recommend sites for establishment based on data
gathered from regular surveys of marine ecosystems
throughout the state, and where areas demonstrate
unique characteristics in need of protection. Once an
area is recommended for designation as an MLCD, it is
evaluated by DAR with regard to the following criteria:
* public accessibility,
* marine life and future potential values,
* safety from a public usage standpoint,
* compatibility with adjoining area usage, and
* minimal environmental or ecological changes from
the undisturbed natural state.
* The area should have clearly defined boundaries so
that it is easily recognizable for compliance and
* The area must also be of suitable size. In other
words, it must be large enough so that fish
populations can be restored even with on-going
fishing activity outside the MLCD, but small
enough so that fishermen are not denied the use of
unreasonably vast fishing areas.

If the recommended area meets the above criteria, DAR
conducts a thorough investigation consisting of bottom
habitat and fish surveys. Input from the public, citizen
groups, and governmental and private agencies is also

community outreach programs that utilize volunteers to force of citizens representing different user groups anc
distribute information to users, to a formal education the affected community. The community group works
center equipped with educational videos, interactive with DAR to develop recommendations to manage th(
displays, on-going events, and outreach staff. area, which are then presented at public meetings
Subsequently, regulations for the area are drawn up anc
Enforcement: another public hearing is held on the proposed
All MLCDs are enforced by DLNR's Division of regulations. Final approval is obtained from the Boarc
Conservation and Resources Enforcement (DOCARE). of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) and th(
DOCARE officers have full police powers, and enforce governor.
all state laws and rules involving state lands, state parks,
historical sites, forest reserves, aquatic life and wildlife
areas, coastal zones, conservation districts, state shores,
boating and ocean recreation activities, and small boat
harbors. Therefore, DOCARE is responsible for
enforcing both land and marine activities. This task is
tremendous, considering that Hawai'i has the fourth
largest coastline in the nation, including 23,000 acres of
inland surface waters, three million acres of state ocean
waters, and 410,000 acres of coral reef around the MHI.
There are currently 103 assigned officers to carry out
these functions. Officers are not divided into
marine/land officers, but are responsible for enforcing
all regulations. Much of their responsibilities include


Table 5.2: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the 10
Fishery Management Areas (FMAs)

River x x
Kahului Harbor x x

Kailua Bay x x x x
Keauhou Bay x x x x x x
Kiholo Bay x x x x
Kona Coast x x x x
Nawiliwili Harbor x
Puako Bay, Puako Reef x x x x x
South Kona (Miloli'i) x x x x x x x
Waikiki-Diamond Head x x x x x x
Gdl 0 cn Gd Wailuku
Fishery Managementsteas xi x x x

KIahulni Harbor x x
ailnua Bay P R x x x x x

South IKona (Miloli'i) x x x x x x x
Waikiki-Diamond Head x x x x x x

Fishery Management Areas

:'i, ,ii ,-,' ,_-.' p protecting,
propagating fish or marine life.

_' 'L.I- iIi_' and

National Classification: Zoned Multiple-Use and
Uniform Multiple-Use, Sustainable Production MPAs

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

The authority for DLNR to designate areas as FMAs
comes from HRS 188-53 and 187A-5. Under HRS 188-
53, which was passed in 1985, DLNR may establish,
maintain, manage, and operate marine fishing reserves,
refuges, and public fishing areas, and may make, adopt,
and amend rules and issue permits to manage these
areas. DLNR also has the authority to adopt, amend,
and repeal rules for the conservation and allocation of
the natural supply of aquatic life in any area under HRS

DAR is the primary agency responsible for managing
the FMAs. However, many of the FMAs have
boundaries that overlap with ocean recreation
management areas, which have rules to reduce conflicts
among ocean users. These areas are managed by the
Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DOBOR).

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

HRS 188-53 states that fishing reserves, refuges, and
public fishing areas are established for the purpose of

Fishery management areas (FMAs) are established to
address user conflicts among various fisher groups and
other user groups (e.g., recreational and commercial
fishers, boaters, tour operators, and aquarium fish
collectors). The 10 FMAs in this report were also
established to provide increased protection to one or
more resources, such as endangered species.

FMAs have zones that restrict uses by user type, or
areas that are closed to certain fishing gears (e.g., net
fishing) or activities (e.g.,'... iii, _-' to reduce conflict and
avoid depletion of resources. Each FMA has detailed,
site-specific rules that target the issues) that it was
established to address.

Management Activities:

While there are no management plans for the FMAs,
several programs are used to manage the sites.

Most FMAs are not monitored on a consistent basis,
except in the Waikiki-Diamond Head FMA and FMAs
along the West Hawai'i coastline. These sites have been,
or are, monitored by DAR on a continuous basis to
assess their effectiveness. In some sites, such as
harbors, project-related (e.g., dredging) surveys are


Education and Outreach:
Outreach and education
activities are carried out by
DLNR and many of its
partners, especially along the
West Hawai'i coastline.
Numerous presentations are
given to the public by DLNR,
University of Hawai'i (UH) Sea
Grant, and the Hawai'i Coral
Reef Initiative. UH Sea Grant-
West Hawai'i conducts
ReefTalks and ReefWatches on

rig. J.+-: 0Ioninmuniy members parncipare
in marine algae restoration project
(Community Conservation Network n.d.)

a monthly basis. Some local
community groups, such as the Save Kahului Harbor
Coalition, or community associations bring individuals
together who are interested in protecting resources in
areas with FMAs.

All FMA sites are enforced by DOCARE. See the
"MLCD" section for more information on enforcement.

Stakeholder Involvement and Public

New FMAs may be suggested by the Hawai'i
Legislature, the public, and DAR. After meeting with
the community to determine the area and parameters for
the new FMA, public meetings are held. All public
input is incorporated into the new rules, which are then
submitted to DLNR and the governor for approval.

West Hawai'i Regional Fisheries
Management Area with Fisheries
Replenishment Areas

The West Hawai'i Regional Fisheries Management Area
(WHRFMA), off the Kona coast of Hawai'i, consists of
a network of nine fisheries replenishment areas (FRAs)
that include over 30 percent of the Kona coastline. The
nine FRAs are:
* North Kohala
* Puako-Anaehoomalu
* Kaupulehu
* Kaloko-Honokohau
* Kailua-Keauhou
* Red Hill
* Napoopoo-Honaunau
* Hookena
* Miloli'i

In the early 1970s, multiple-use conflicts
between collectors and recreational dive
tour operators raised concerns over
diminishing nearshore fish stocks. DAR
suspended aquarium fish permits briefly in
July 1973, but then lifted the suspension
and required permittees to submit
monthly aquarium catches to DAR. The
documented increase in aquarium fisheries
catch, and the perceived decline in
numbers of fish by the public over several
years, escalated into a contentious debate
between the recreational dive industry and

aquarium industry. The two groups met
in July 1987 and reached an informal agreement
whereby aquarium collectors would refrain from
collecting in certain areas and the dive operators would
not initiate legislation to restrict collecting.

When the agreement expired after one year, the groups
agreed to permanently close the previously agreed upon
areas. These areas were incorporated into the Kona
Coast FMA, effective in October 1991 (Antolini 2003).
The FMA worked well at reducing the user conflict for a
while, but increased pressure from the dive tour sector
and the aquarium fishery perpetuated the conflict over
the next several years. In May 1996, the West Hawai'i
Reef Fish Working Group convened to develop a
management plan to regulate the collection of aquarium
fish. Many of the group's recommendations were
included in DAR's 1997 legislative package, but only
one recommendation passed, the establishment of
licenses for aquarium fish exporters. In 1999, after
significant public involvement, the WHRFMA and the
nine FRAs were established.

National Classification: Zoned Multiple-Use,
Sustainable Production MPAs

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

In addition to the enabling legislation for all FMAs, the
Hawai'i Legislature enacted Act 306, codified as HRS
188F, which established the WHRFMA in 1998. The
act instructed DLNR to establish the WHRFMA to
improve the management of consumptive and non-
consumptive uses of aquatic resources along the West
Hawai'i coastline.

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

HRS 188F-3 outlined the following purposes of the
1) "Ensure the sustainability of the state's
nearshore ocean resources;
2) Identify areas with resource and use conflicts;


3) Provide management plans as well as
implementing regulations for minimizing user
conflicts and resource depletion, through the
designation of sections of coastal waters in the
West Hawai'i regional fishery management
areas as fish replenishment areas and where
certain specified harvesting activities are
prohibited and other areas where anchoring and
ocean activities are restricted;
4) Establish a system of day-use mooring buoys;
5) Identify areas and resources of statewide
significance for protection;
6) Carry out scientific research and monitoring of
the nearshore resources and environment; and,
7) Provide for substantive involvement of the
community" (HRS 188F-3).

In addition, HRS 188F-4 required DLNR to develop a
WHRFMA plan that identifies and designates areas of
the WHRFMA as follows: 1) designates a minimum of
30 percent of coastal waters as FRAs, in which aquarium
fish collection is prohibited, 2) establishes a day use
mooring buoy system and high-use areas where no
anchoring is allowed, 3) establishes a portion of FRAs as
fish reserves where no fishing of reef-dwelling fish is
allowed, and 4) designates areas where the use of gill
nets as set nets is prohibited. The 30 percent
determination was deemed necessary based on MPA
and fisheries research that stated that 20 percent of
fisheries habitat needed to be placed in reserves while
the remaining 80 percent be managed using other
traditional fisheries management tools. However, since
adequate fisheries management measures were not
believed to be in place for the open areas, a higher
percentage (35.2 percent) was considered appropriate
for the Kona Coast (Walsh 1999).

The resulting regulations for the WHFMA were
established through Hawai'i Administrative Rule (HAR)
13-60.3. The rule also identifies the boundaries of the
FRAs, and penalties for violations. Within the nine
FRAs, it is prohibited to take aquatic life for aquarium
purposes, or to engage in or attempt to engage in fish

feeding (HAR 13-60.3-3). Other restrictions may apply
to specific FRAs. For example, in some areas, gill nets
are regulated or banned. It is also important to note
that the WHRFMA does not provide additional
protection to the waters between the nine FRA sites.
However, other state MPAs (e.g., MLCDs and FMAs)
are situated within the WHRFMA and provide increased
protection to the waters between some of the FRAs.

Fig. 5.5: Regulatory signs posted at an I

Management Activities:

While the WHFMA has defined purposes and
supporting regulations, it does not have a management

Research and Monitoring:
When the West Hawai'i Reef Fish Working Group
convened in 1996, DAR and UH began a joint research
project called the West Hawai'i Aquarium Project
whapP). This project is monitoring sites to evaluate
the effectiveness of FRAs as they apply to the
management of aquarium fish collecting impacts in
West Hawai'i. The surveys for the project were
developed to capture population data before and after
closures, and to compare closed sites and open access
areas along the 100 km west coastline of the island of

HRS 188F-5 mandates that DAR, in cooperation with
UH, review the effectiveness of the WHRFMA every
five years. To meet this mandate, the Hawai'i Coral
Reef Initiative Research Program (HCRI-RP) and DAR

Table 5.3: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the West Hawai'i
Regional Fishery Management Area (RFMA)

Regional Fishery Management U E H U c
Area (RFMA) U C q i U G C C HG W
West Hawai'i x x x x x


used annual NOAA coral reef grants to fund a
monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of
the FRAs in significantly improving fish stocks.

After five years, the monitoring data show significant
increases in the overall abundance of fish targeted by
collectors. These results demonstrate that MPAs can
effectively aid in the recovery of exploited fish stocks in
Hawai'i. The studies also show that there were no
significant changes in aquarium fish species outside of
the FRAs, indicating that the abundance of fish outside
of MPAs will not necessarily decline due to increased
fishing pressure in open areas. In addition to the
increase in overall abundance within the FRAs, there
has been a decrease in the fishing effort outside the
FRAs. Since the FRAs went into effect, fishermen are
able to catch more fish in less time for a higher value
(LNR DAR 2004).

Education and
An outreach liaison
for local advisory
committees (LACs)
has been hired with
grant funding to do
outreach work with
communities within
the WHRFMA. Fig. 5.6: Young community member
These committees learning about species identification
voice the concerns biological monitoring in Miloli'i FR
and management (Philibotte n.d.)
goals of the local community to the West Hawai'i
Fisheries Council (WHFC) (Herkes 2006). See the
"FMA" section for information about other efforts.

All FRA sites are enforced by DOCARE. See the
"MLCD" section for more information on enforcement.

Stakeholder Involvement and Public

There has been strong public participation since the
designation of these sites. While their establishment
was initiated by user conflicts, the underlying reason was
that the public perceived a decline in the resource and
was motivated to do something about it.

One of the purposes of the WHRFMA, as identified in
HRS 188F-3, is to provide for substantive stakeholder
involvement in decision making from local residents and
resource users. DLNR worked with UH Sea Grant to
develop a process to ensure significant community input
into the development and designation of FRAs. The
WHFC was established as the basis of this community

input process, and
members, as well
members, and resc
variety of stakehol
agency responsible
FRAs, the WHF(
develonin2 and

proposed the location and size of the nine FRAs in the
WHRFMA and developed a management plan, which
was presented at a public hearing April 1999. The
public hearing was one of the largest ever held in
Hawai'i on a natural resource issue, and there was
overwhelming public support for FRAs. The nine
FRAs were closed to aquarium fish collecting on
December 31, 1999.

The council has also recommended amendments to
Sthe rules to extend the regulations to other fishing
activities besides the aquarium fishery. Some of
these rules include setting aside certain areas for
cultural practices, establishing mooring areas,
banning gear specific fishing activities such as
SCUBA -pi f!,i in, and banning commercial
netting activities while providing for subsistence

Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Areas

According to statistics on commercial landings of
fish kept by DAR since 1948, catch rates of onaga
and ehu (highly valued fish species) have declined
steadily since the early 1950s, with an even steeper drop
in the last 10 to 15 years. Additionally, the proportion
of mature fish in the landings has decreased. In 2000,
approximately 84 percent of the commercial landings of
onaga from the MHI were cited as immature, meaning
they had not yet spawned. This data may indicate that
the large, mature fish are being depleted from the
population around the MHI. Based on this information
and the dynamic spawning potential ratio (SPR), NOAA
Fisheries scientists reported that the bottomfish fishery
was in a state of overfishing and had probably been so
since at least 1989. The SPR uses catch rates and size-
frequencies to calculate a number that compares the


Table 5.4: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the 12
Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Areas (BRFAs)

a I? E
.2 .

Bottomfish Restricted Fishing G
Areas (BRFAs) U U St 0 W
Site A x x
Site B x x
Site C x x x
Site D x x x
Site E x x x x
Site F x x
Site G x x x
Site H x x
Site J x x x
Site K x x x
Site L x x
Site M x x
NOTE: Recent amendments to the sites include areas that have shown indications of presence by adult and juvenile fish.
However, further research is needed to confirm that these sites are, in fact, spawning areas.

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

The authority for DLNR to designate areas as
bottomfish restricted fishing areas (BRFAs) was
established through HRS 187A-5 (1993), which allows
DLNR to adopt, amend, and repeal rules for the
conservation and allocation of the natural supply of
aquatic life in any area. More specifically, under HAR
13-94, effective in 1998, DLNR "will restrict fishing in
certain areas to conserve the spawning populations of
bottomfish" (HAR 13-94-8).

DAR manages all BRFAs. The sites are enforced by

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

BRFAs were established throughout the MHI based on
several factors. DLNR considered the location of good
bottomfish habitat areas and the most effective
distribution of the areas, recognizing the potential
benefits and limiting negative impacts. Consideration
was also given to suggestions from bottomfish fishers.
In an effort to develop a comprehensive management
program to protect these deep water species, 20 percent
of bottomfish spawning areas were included in BRFAs.
Lastly, to improve compliance and enforcement, the

inshore boundary for BRFAs was set at the 100 fathoms
contour (based on NOAA benthic habitat maps).

To conserve the spawning populations of bottomfish,
BRFAs prohibit fishing for the following species:
Ula'ula koa'e or onaga (red snapper); Ula'ula or ehu
(ruby snapper); Kalekale; Opakapaka; Ukikiki or gindai;
Hapu'u; and Lehi. Specifically, HAR 13-94 states that
"it is unlawful for any person to take or possess
bottomfish while in a vessel that is drifting or anchoring
within any BRFA, except in times of emergencies or as
may be otherwise authorized by law" (HAR 13-94-8(b)).
Most bottom-fishing is prohibited in BRFAs, except for
consumptive recreational and subsistence fishing, which
are allowed with restrictions or permits. It is unlawful
for any person, without a current commercial marine
license issued pursuant to HAR 13-74-20, to take or
possess more than five onaga, five ehu, or a combined
total of five of both. Fishing for species other than
bottomfish is allowed.

DAR and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) have reviewed the location of the BRFAs to
evaluate their effectiveness. NMFS recently determined
that bottom-fishing effort in the MHI needed to be
reduced by an additional 15 percent to ensure that the
stocks were not placed in an overfished state. To
address this issue, DAR worked with the University of


Hawai'i to map areas with bottomfish resources, declined steadily since the early 1950s, and have
including identifying bottomfish habitat areas where dropped even more steeply in the last 10 to 15 years.
there were indications of presence by adult and juvenile DAR is currently reviewing the BRFAs with bottomfish
fish. This information was used in conjunction with data obtained from the UH Undersea Research
commercial fish landings and fishermen interviews to Laboratory, including essential habitat and nursery areas,
determine the effectiveness of the original 19 BRFAs species distribution, and abundance. In addition to this
and to make recommendations for revising those areas. data, the review is incorporating current catch statistics,
The recent amendments reduce the number of areas impact on fishers, and enforcement aspects.
from 19 sites to 12, while increasing the total area
designated as BRFAs. Many of the 12 new sites consist Education and Outreach:
of old sites that were expanded or slightly modified. To inform the public about the bottomfish rules, DAR
However, the amendments also completely eliminate distributed 30,000 brochures with a foldout map of the
some old sites and create some entirely new areas. BRFAs and a summary of the regulations. Flyers for
bottomfish vessel registration were disseminated
The recent amendments are meant to address "the through DAR offices and fishing supply stores
requirements to achieve the mandated 15% reduction in statewide. The proposed BFRA site maps were also
fishing mortality and other considerations, such as areas mailed to all fishermen who expressed interest in the
likely to do the most good with respect to larval export, new sites. A bottomfish management webpage was
protecting probable breeding habitat and areas utilized developed, and local newspapers published numerous
by juveniles" (DLNR 2006). DLNR and NOAA's articles about the new regulations. DAR staff gave
Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center are preparing to several talks to fishing clubs, DOCARE officers, the
conduct an assessment of the proposed sites before they Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council,
are closed to determine what specific resources are and others. DAR staff also gave television and radio
within the sites and to provide a baseline for future interviews, participated in live television shows, and
evaluation of their effectiveness at meeting their presented at international workshops on the new
objectives. BRFAs.

Management Activities: Enforcement:
All BRFA sites are enforced by DOCARE. See
There are no management the "MLCD" section for more information on
plans for the BRFAs and enforcement.
management activities are
limited within the areas. Stakeholder Involvement and Public
Research and Monitoring:
The NOAA Pacific Island Fig. 5.7: Onaga and other fish species In 1995, to address the overfishing conditions,
Fisheries Science Center observed at a bait station during a DLNR established an ad hoc advisory panel of
conducts research on the life UH Undersea Research Laboratory recreational and commercial fishermen from all
history, ecology, and stock dive (Moffitt 2004) over the state, representatives from the fishing
status of bottomfish in the industry, and fishery managers, scientists, and
Pacific Islands region. Research funded by DAR has enforcement personnel from other government
enabled the UH Undersea Research Laboratory to use agencies. The purpose of this panel was to develop a
the Pisces' submersibles to visit 22 different sites since comprehensive management plan for MHI bottomfish
1998, and to record the difference between the bottom (i.e., onaga and ehu). Throughout 1995, DAR and the
characteristics of locations where bottomfish existed advisory panel developed a set of management
and did not exist. Scientists from UH and federal and proposals, which were presented to select groups of
state agencies collaborated to study the onaga (Ula'ula fishermen in statewide roundtable discussions. Using
koa'e, Etelis coruscans) and ehu (Ula'ula, E. carbunculus), the input from these discussions, DAR turned the
including identifying critical habitat, performing genetic proposals into a draft administrative rule.
analyses, developing methods to maintain live fish in
captivity, and learning about their interactions with The rule was presented at statewide public informational
introduced ta'ape. meetings with fishermen, and in formal public hearings.
In all, more than 42 meetings were held to incorporate
As previously mentioned, DAR has been keeping input and recommendations from fisherman and the
statistics on commercial landings since 1948. Reports public, many of which were utilized by the department
indicate that the catch rates of onaga and ehu have prior to the establishment of the BRFAs in 1998.



DAR has also encouraged public participation in the
current effort to revise the BRFAs to improve their
effectiveness. In early 2006, DAR held informational
meetings to share and discuss the boundaries of the
newly proposed sites. This information was used by the
agency to help modify the boundaries of the BRFA

Natural Area Reserves

Natural area reserves (NARs) aim to protect complex
ecosystems that support native plants and animals, many
of which are threatened with extinction. There is one
natural area reserve with a marine component, the Ahihi
Kina'u Natural Area Reserve, which is also the first
reserve established under the 1973 natural area reserves
system (NARS) statute. The reserve includes
submerged lands extending beyond Cape Kina'u, which
contain unique geological features and a diverse marine
community associated with lava flows. Communities
protected by the reserve include anchialine ponds,
subterranean lava tubes, and aeolian systems on the
surface of the flows that are host to many rare native
plants and animals.

National Classification: No Impact, Natural
Heritage MPA

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

The NARS was established under HRS 195, which
defines the powers and duties of DLNR, authorizes the
department to make, amend, and repeal rules,
establishes a natural areas reserves system commission, a
natural area reserve fund, and requires the development
of a comprehensive management plan for the NARS.

DLNR's Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW)
manages the natural area reserves. DLNR's Division of
Boating and Recreation (DOBOR) establishes rules for
ocean use in the area, and DAR provides management
and monitoring support for the marine portion.

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

The main purpose of the NARS is to preserve and
protect representative samples of unique Hawaiian
biological ecosystems and geological formations that are
vulnerable to loss. The reserves were also established
for the enjoyment of future generations, and to provide
a baseline against which other native ecosystems can be
measured (HRS 195).

To support these purposes, DLNR adopted regulations
for all NARs, which state that it is prohibited to remove,
injure, kill, or introduce any form of plant and animal
life, or to remove, damage, or disturb any geological or
paleontological feature or substance (HAR 13-209-4).
Additionally, HAR 13-244-32 prohibits the operation of
any motorized water vehicle on or in the waters of Ahihi
Kina'u Natural Area Reserve.

The following objectives have been established for
'Ahihi-Kina'u Natural Area Reserve (DLNR DOFAW
A. Preservation The NAR will ensure that all
user activities and management changes are
consistent with NARS rules and regulations.
B. User Levels The number of people utilizing
the NAR is reasonable and controlled to
minimize impacts to the resources and to
provide a safe and enjoyable experience.
C. Education Meaningful educational and
interpretive opportunities are provided in the
areas of conservation, history, rules and
regulations, and safety.
D. Maintenance Maintenance of infrastructure
(e.g., portable toilets, roads, and trails) is
provided in a cost-effective manner to minimize
impacts to the NAR's resources and to ensure
the health and safety of its users.
E. Safety Safety rules and regulations, signs, and
safety services are available to ensure safety for
all users.

Table 5.5: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the
Ahihi Kina'u Natural Area Reserve (NAR)

(d c

I E 5

c il i l l Gd
ci c ibf Gd I Gd ci
Natural Area Reserve (NAR) U G M U a HW
Ahihi Kina'u x x x x


Management Activities:

A draft management plan was completed in 2003, but it
has not yet been adopted by BLNR. Another plan has
been presented to the NARS Commission; it is still
undergoing revisions as of August 2006.

Research and Monitoring:
A volunteer group conducts human use surveys.
Surveys have also been done to document the presence
of invasive species, such as crown-of-thorns starfish.
DAR has been conducting coral reef surveys since 1999
to characterize the nearshore fish and invertebrate
community, and coral cover. In 1985, the Marine
Option Program at UH completed a baseline survey of
the Ahihi Bay area. The survey identified ten species of
coral, with 16.4 percent coral cover, and 66 species of
fish (University of Hawai'i Marine Option Program

Education and Outreach:
As part of the Makai Watch Program (see '..iiii_
Towards a Network" section), volunteers with a
nonprofit organization are trained to provide outreach
to visitors at a key entry station during high use times.
The outreach includes coral reef etiquette, and
information about the NAR's cultural elements and
biological resources. In addition, two DOFAW rangers
walk around
the reserve to
assist stranded
about the
reserve, and _
patrol the area
for potential -

the rules.

..... j
Fig. 5.8: Rangers at the NAR observe
er creational users and conduct outreach

Enforcement (Ramsey n.d.)
sites are enforced by DOCARE. See the "MLCD"
section for more information on enforcement.

Stakeholder Involvement and Public

A NARS site can be nominated by commission
members, DOFAW, or other scientists and individuals.
Public hearings are held to receive input on the proposal
and site regulations. In addition to hearings about the
proposed site, informational meetings are held on the
island where the site is located.

Volunteers with the Makai Watch Program continue to
staff the education table and to provide visitors with
information about the reserve. They also conduct
human use surveys to determine the high use areas,
what activities visitors are involved in, and when the
high use times are.

Cultural Reserves:

In 1976, a group of 50-60 islanders challenged the
federal government's occupation of the island of
Kaho'olawe, intending to occupy the island to halt the
bombing that had been occurring since 1941. Nine
made it to shore and the grassroots group, known as the
Protect Kaho'olawe Ohana (PKO), filed a federal civil
suit seeking to halt the Navy's bombing activities on the
island. In 1977, the court ordered the Navy to conduct
an environmental impact statement and to supply an
inventory of, and to protect, the historic sites on the
island. In 1980, a consent decree was reached in the
suit, where the Navy agreed to do the following: 1)
survey and protect historic and cultural sites on the
island, 2) clear surface ordnance from 10,000 acres, 3)
continue soil conservation and re-vegetation programs,
4) eradicate the goats from the island, 5) limit ordnance
impact training to the central third of the island, and 6)
allow monthly PKO accesses to the island.

In November 1994, after more than five decades of
control by the U.S. Navy, Kaho'olawe was conveyed
back to the state of Hawai'i. While the Navy was
responsible for the cleanup of unexploded ordnance,
there still remains an imminent peril to public health and
safety on the island and in the surrounding waters.
Kaho'olawe is of tremendous cultural and historical
significance to native Hawaiians.

National Classification: Zoned Multiple-Use,
Cultural Heritage MPA

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

Kaho'olawe Island Reserve was established under HRS
6K-4 (1993), which also created the Kaho'olawe Island
Reserve Commission (KIRC) within DLNR to manage
the reserve and adopt, amend, and repeal rules. The
reserve includes the island of Kaho'olawe and the waters
extending two miles from its shoreline. The statute also
provides that the reserve be held in trust as part of the
public land trust and that "the State shall transfer
management and control of the island and its waters to
the sovereign native Hawaiian entity upon its
recognition by the United States and the State of
Hawai'i" (HRS 6K-9).

federal funds care for the
o carry out island and oc


the reserve may have on
neighboring waters.
KIRC, with assistance
from the UH Marine
Option Program,
completed an additional
survey of the fish and
marine life of
Kaho'olawe in August
of 2006.

Fig. 5.9: Underwater surveying
with the UH Marine Option
Program (Stanton n.d.)

Education and Outreach:
KIRC maintains staff to assist in the management of the
reserve, including a volunteer and outreach coordinator.
The reserve conducts restoration field trips and beach
clean-ups on a regular basis, writes a newsletter about
reserve activities, and creates videos about the reserve
and the restoration efforts. Staff also give presentations
at various conferences and public meetings around the

PKO is a grassroots organization whose mission is "to
perpetuate Aloha 'Aina throughout our islands through
cultural, educational and spiritual activities that heal and
revitalize the cultural and natural resources on
Kaho'olawe" (PKO 2006). This group has been
conducting cultural and spiritual activities on the island
since 1980, and developed the 2004 Access Plan and
Procedure to guide access and appropriate conduct for
the island.

The reserve is enforced by DOCARE. See the
"MLCD" section for more information on enforcement.

Stakeholder Involvement and Public

KIRC conducts monthly meetings that are open to the
public. The public can also get involved with the
restoration activities conducted by PKO, which are
usually held February through November during the full

Wildlife Sanctuaries

Wildlife sanctuaries include state owned or controlled
lands, surface water areas, islands, islets, and rocks. The
sanctuaries are where native and endangered waterbirds,
as well as migratory seabirds roost, nest, or rest on their
way to other areas. Some sanctuaries contain protected
environments for native coastal vegetation, including
naupaka and ilima. There are four wildlife sanctuaries in
the state, but only the Paiko Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary
includes coastal habitat.

The Paiko Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary is located in East
O'ahu, and it includes all of the state owned land areas
adjacent to Paiko Lagoon and water areas within Paiko
Lagoon. Paiko Lagoon, formerly a coastal fishpond, is
fed by a freshwater spring and Kuliouou Stream. The
lagoon's water level varies with the tides and
occasionally exposes the saline mudflats. The silt and
mudflat habitat within the lagoon provides important
resting, nesting, and feeding sites for native shorebirds
and migratory waterbirds. The site was designated in
1974 as a bird sanctuary for the native endangered
Hawaiian stilt and other native birds.

While the lagoon (a former fishpond) acts as a de facto
MPA, it has never been managed as such because the
benthic habitat has been significantly altered due to
coastal development. The proximity of residential uses
and intrusions by humans and domesticated animals
may threaten the sanctuary.

National Classification: No-Take, Natural Heritage

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

The Paiko Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary was established
through the HRS 183D-4 (1993), which states that
DLNR may establish, maintain, manage, and operate
wildlife sanctuaries for the purpose of preserving,
protecting, conserving, and propagating wildlife. Under
HRS 183D-3, DLNR was given the authority to adopt,

Table 5.7: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Paiko Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary

SL o I I I
(" tc i, w M c ^ S" o'
8 g Si o ," W
g D I" 1 I s | ;3 s
GdW a d Gd

Wildlife Sanctuary o FQ c G tF -
Paiko Lagoon x


amend, and repeal rules concerning the preservation,
protection, regulation, extension, and utilization of, and
entry into wildlife sanctuaries.

DOFAW is responsible for the management of this site.

Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Protections:

Rules for the sanctuaries were established under HRS
13-125 for the purpose of ....i-,- i,. protecting, and
managing indigenous wildlife. More specifically, the
rules prohibit the removal, disturbance, injury, killing,
-- ..-*in. or introduction of any form of plant or
wildlife. It is also prohibited to enter or remain on any
surface water area (HRS 13-125-4). Permits may be
issued by BLNR for access related to scientific,
educational, or conservation purposes.

Management Activities:

DOFAW has overall management guidelines to address
the desired levels of human use activities on its managed
lands. The guidelines are in draft form, but they are
intended to provide administrative policy direction, and
to prioritize resource management activities, with
recognition of the importance and sustainability of
native ecosystems. With the goal of ensuring the
perpetuity of native habitats, DOFAW determined the
appropriate levels of intensity within each of the
vegetation classes for three activities (forest products,
recreation, and game management).

Research and Monitoring:
While birds are monitored extensively by
UH students and scientists, and other
agencies, the marine portion of the
sanctuary is not monitored on a regular
basis. Some surveys of alien algae have
been done by UH Botany Department
students, and DAR staff. Students from
the local high school are conducting alien
algae surveys, water quality monitoring,
and limu (native seaweed) restoration.
The Bishop Museum did a survey to
determine if non-indigenous species could Fig 5.10: Fi
have an impact on sport fishing in the Coconut Isl
stream and estuarine areas. The museum 2006)
found that areas more marine in character,
like Paiko Lagoon, had more native species (Englund, et
al. 2 ,'1 1

Education and Outreach:
Signs indicate that the area is a wildlife sanctuary, with
no access allowed. The Hawai'i Audubon Society
conducts bird surveys and trips to the sanctuary to view
the endangered birds.

and (I

The sanctuary is enforced by DOCARE. See the
"MLCD" section for more information on enforcement.

Stakeholder Involvement and Public

As mentioned above, the public may enter the area with
the Hawai'i Audubon Society to view endangered birds.
Volunteer opportunities in the sanctuary include non-
native plant (e.g., mangrove) control, trash removal,
predator control, and restoration.

Marine Laboratory Refuge

In 1936, Christian Holmes, heir to the Fleischmann
yeast fortune, purchased Moku O Lo'e (a.k.a., Coconut
Island) from the Bishop Estate and made extensive
modifications that resulted in a larger island. These
modifications included seawalls, rocks, lagoons, spits,
piers, and fishponds, which are utilized by UH today.
Significant dredging, grading, and fill created the lagoons
and most of the flatter sections of the island. In 1947,
the Edwin Pauley family purchased the island; in 1951,
they allowed the use of one of the old Army buildings as
a field station for UH's Marine Lab. After the building
burned down, the family provided funding for the
island's original laboratory.

Moku O Lo'e (Moku means "island" or
"splitting," and Lo'e means "bend in a
fish hook") is speculated to have been
used as a lookout by fishermen, who had
Temporary residences on the island. The
island is surrounded by 64 acres of coral
reef, designated by the state as the
Hawai'i Marine Laboratory Refuge. The
island itself covers around 29 acres, with
six acres enclosed in lagoons that are
used for keeping organisms in captivity
-for study by Hawai'i Institute of Marine
Biology (HIMB) faculty and students.

ds around In the early 1950s, tuna that were being
Cozlowski used in an experimental project were
captured and transferred alive to the
ponds of the Hawai'i Marine Laboratory at a substantial
cost. The captive tuna were speared out of the ponds
and stolen. Because fishers could come close to the
ponds to fish on the reefs, it was difficult to properly
patrol the area. In response, the site was established as a
marine laboratory refuge in Kane'ohe Bay to create a
protective area around the laboratory.


Table 5.8: Priority Coral Reef Resources and Habitats Found in the Moku O Lo'e Island (Coconut Island)
Marine Laboratory Refuge

Marine Laboratory Refuge U C n U m 4 1 U
Moku Lo'e Island (Coconut
Island) I IxI
Islan d )_________x __ __ __ __ ____________

National Classification:
Heritage MPAs

No Access, Natural

Research and Monitoring:
CRAMP conducts monitoring of the area. A recent
survey found that the refuge, along with other no-take
areas, had the highest values for most fish assemblage
characteristics (species richness, size, diversity). In
addition to CRAMP, the staff and students at HIMB
utilize the area for their research. Research topics
include coral disease and '.k i._., marine mammal
bioacoustics, molecular ecology, gene flow of corals,
spectral analysis via aircraft and satellite-based remote
sensing of coral reef ecosystems, and ecology of coral
reefs in relation to other geographic areas.

Education and Outreach:
HIMB staff conduct educational outreach
programs, tours, and other programs for
school groups. These programs provide
visitors with a history of the island, its current
uses and protections, and types of research
occurring on the island.

The site is enforced by DOCARE. See
"MLCD" section for more information

it island

Stakeholder Involvement and Public

The public is allowed access to the island if they have an
HIMB sponsor. Various educational programs and
workshops are offered for students and the public.

Marine Refuge

In September 2006, the governor of Hawai'i created the
largest single conservation area in the history of the state
(either marine or terrestrial) by creating the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) State Marine
Refuge. This marine refuge includes all state waters,

Enabling Legislation and Responsible Agency:

The Hawai'i Marine Laboratory Refuge was established
through HRS 188-36 (1993), which defines the refuge as
consisting of "the reefs and bay waters surrounding the
island of Moku-o-loe located in Kaneohe Bay, island of
Oahu, from the high water mark on the island extending
outward to "twenty-five feet beyond the outer edges of
the reefs""(HRS 188-36). DLNR manages the refuge
and enforces its regulations.

Goals, Objectives, "
Policies, and

Under HRS 188-36, it
is unlawful for any
unauthorized person to-
take any aquatic life
within the refuge.
Only researchers Fig. 5.11: Aenal photo of Coconu
associated with HIMB and surrounding reefs (Daniel n.d
are allowed to collect specimens from the refuge.
Outside scientists must coordinate with an HIMB
faculty member in order to conduct research at the
refuge. Other visitors must have an HIMB sponsor,
sign a waiver/release form, and access the island via
scheduled boat service. Other access is strictly limited,
although kayakers and boaters informally access the
southern point (Maile Point) for picnics and rest.
Conflicts occur when unauthorized visitors enter areas
of active research.

Management Activities:

The Coconut Island Long Range Development Plan was
developed in 2001 to address future facilities, research,
access, and other related management issues.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs