Assessments of condition of Marine Protected Areas

Biogeographic Assessments

Geographical coverage

Geographical scale of the assessment Regional,National,Set of sites,Single site
Country or countries covered United States
Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name

With the ongoing implementation of marine spatial planning efforts and evolution of MPAs in the US, a suite of biogeographic assessments are underway around the US coast line to locate and evaluate the efficacy of MPAs and to support marine spatial planing efforts.

Conceptual framework, methodology and scope

Assessment objectives

Assessments of the condition of coastal waters and estuaries at multiple scales, from large marine ecosystems to targeted protected areas. Studies use multiple ecological indicators and probabilistic sampling design to provide statistically sound and spatially valid estimates of condition and stressor impacts based on consistent biological, chemical and physical measurements. Findings are incorporated into vital Protected Area reports and related management plans. Collects data on human health, human activities, nutrient health, contaminants, extent and distribution of MPAs, biodiversity, and species risk data.

Mandate for the assessment

The assessment support the US National Marine Sanctuaries Act and several executive orders including the US National Ocean Plan and US Coral Reef Conservation Act.

Conceptual framework and/or methodology used for the assessment

Other (please specify)

Biogeographic Assessments

URL or copy of conceptual framework developed or adapted

http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/about/centers/ccma


MEM_MSR.pdf


Monaco_PM.pdf

System(s) assessed

  • Marine
  • Coastal
  • Island

Species groups assessed

Multiple species with emphasis of fish assemblages

Ecosystem services/functions assessed

Provisioning

Regulating

Supporting Services/Functions

  • Habitat maintenance

Cultural Services

Scope of assessment includes

Drivers of change in systems and services

Yes

Impacts of change in services on human well-being

Yes

Options for responding/interventions to the trends observed

Yes

Explicit consideration of the role of biodiversity in the systems and services covered by the assessment

Yes

Timing of the assessment

Year assessment started

2002

Year assessment finished

Ongoing

If ongoing, year assessment is anticipated to finish

2020

Periodicity of assessment

One off

Assessment outputs

Report(s)

Communication materials (e.g. brochure, presentations, posters, audio-visual media)

http://www.ccma.nos.noaa.gov/ecosystems/sanctuaries/nwhi/

Journal publications

Training materials

Other documents/outputs

Tools and processes

Tools and approaches used in the assessment

  • Modelling
  • Trade-off analysis
  • Geospatial analysis
  • Scenarios

http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/products/biogeography/cinms/

Process used for stakeholder engagement in the assessment process and which component

Conduct initial planning with stakeholders in determining the assessment objectives and also use of US National Marine Sanctuary Program Advisory Councils.

Key stakeholder groups engaged

The number of people directly involved in the assessment process

10-100

Incorporation of scientific and other types of knowledge

  • Scientific information only
  • Resource experts (e.g. foresters etc)
  • Traditional/local knowledge

Supporting documentation for specific approaches, methodology or criteria developed and/or used to integrate knowledge systems into the assessment

Assessment reports peer reviewed

Yes

Data

Accessibility of data used in assessment

http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/about/biogeography/biogeo_prod.aspx

Policy impact

Impacts the assessment has had on policy and/or decision making, as evidenced through policy references and actions

Independent or other review on policy impact of the assessment

No

Lessons learnt for future assessments from these reviews

Capacity building

Capacity building needs identified during the assessment

Actions taken by the assessment to build capacity

Network and sharing experiences, Access to funding, Sharing of data/repatriation of data

How have gaps in capacity been communicated to the different stakeholders

Knowledge generation

Gaps in knowledge identified from the assessment

How gaps in knowledge have been communicated to the different stakeholders

Through meetings and reports.

Additional relevant information