Dilworth_Thesis_Final

COUPLING INTERTIDAL COMMUNITY SURVEYS AND MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY EVALUATIONS TO ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MARINE
PROTECTED AREAS IN THE PUGET SOUND, WASHINGTON
___________________________________
A Thesis
Presented to
The Graduate Faculty
Central Washington University
___________________________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
Resource Management
___________________________________
by
Erin Elizabeth Dilworth
August 2011

ii
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Graduate Studies
We hereby approve the thesis of
Candidate for the degree of Master of Science
APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE FACULTY
______________ _________________________________________
Dr. Anthony Gabriel, Committee Chair
______________ _________________________________________
Dr. Michael Pease
______________ _________________________________________
Dr. Cinde Donoghue
______________ _________________________________________
Dean of Graduate Studies

iii
ABSTRACT
COUPLING INTERTIDAL COMMUNITY SURVEYS AND MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY EVALUATIONS TO ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MARINE
PROTECTED AREAS IN THE PUGET SOUND, WASHINGTON
by
August 2011
Intertidal community response to Marine Protected Area (MPA) designation and
related management strategies was explored. Intertidal communities displayed variable
responses to protection, and were similar between protected and non-protected sites,
suggesting MPA designation does not contribute to increased abundance of intertidal
species. Only two species (Pacific blue mussel and red velvet mite) occurred more
frequently at MPA sites than at control sites. Invertebrate diversity at low tidal heights
responded positively to MPA designation, and correlated positively with well developed
management strategies. Vegetation diversity was similar between MPAs and control
sites, and was negatively correlated with well developed management strategies. These
results suggest that MPA designation is useful for increasing abundance of intertidal
invertebrates at low tidal heights, which can be further enhanced by comprehensive
management. The lack of biological response to most management components suggests
that these communities need more managerial attention before differences can be
detected inside protected areas.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my thesis committee for guiding me through this process –
Dr. Anthony Gabriel, my graduate advisor and committee chair for help in the
development and completion of my thesis research, and Dr. Mike Pease and Dr. Cinde
Donoghue for their added support in their areas of expertise. I would also like to thank
the Resource Management graduate program for guidance and financial support along the
way. Thanks to the Faculty Development and Research Committee for providing funding
for this project. I would like to thank the Island County/WSU Beach Watchers program,
especially Mary Jo Adams, Jan Holmes and Libby Hayward, for guidance in completing
intertidal surveys and species identification. Thanks to Tommy Wachholder, Jeff Malone
and Amanda Johnston for technical assistance. Thanks to Marilyn Mason, department
secretary, for always being willing to help with paper work. Lastly, thank you to all my
friends and family who have supported me throughout my entire academic career, who
have always believed in me.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1
Demonstrated Need for MPA Evaluation...............................................2
Significance of MPA Research...............................................................4
II LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................7
Human Impacts on the Marine Environment..........................................7
Biodiversity in Marine Systems............................................................14
Introduction to Marine Protection in Washington State .......................15
Assessing MPA Effectiveness...............................................................35
III METHODS .................................................................................................40
Physical Setting and Site Selection Criteria..........................................40
Determination of Pre-Existing Environmental Conditions...................44
Intertidal Community Survey................................................................45
Quantification of Community Composition..........................................49
Management Practice and Process Evaluation......................................51
Statistical Analysis................................................................................57
IV RESULTS ...................................................................................................59
Environmental Conditions ....................................................................59
Quantification of Community Composition..........................................65
Management Practice and Process Evaluation......................................74
V DISCUSSION, MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS AND
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................102
Intertidal Community Response to Protection ....................................102
Management Recommendations .........................................................110
Conclusions.........................................................................................115
REFERENCES .........................................................................................116

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
APPENDIX.................................................................................Back Pocket
Appendix A—Species Proportions for Each Site
Appendix B—Management Evaluation Scores for Each Site
Appendix C—Data Sheets for Intertidal Surveys
Appendix D—Site GPS Coordinates (UTM)
Appendix E—Aerial Photos for Each Site

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Classification of Protection Levels Afforded to Marine Protected Areas. ...4
2 Datasets Used to Measure Environmental Conditions at Each Site ...........45
3 Schedule for Intertidal Community Surveys...............................................47
4 Indicators Used to Evaluate the Context of MPA Management.................52
5 Indicators Used to Evaluate the Planning of MPA Management ...............52
6 Indicators Used to Evaluate the Inputs of MPA Management ...................53
7 Indicators Used to Evaluate the Process of MPA Management .................54
8 Information Used to Determine Context Scores.........................................55
9 Information Used to Determine Inputs Scores............................................56
10 Information Used to Determine Process Scores .........................................57
11 Substrate Composition at Each Site............................................................60
12 Intertidal Zone Width and Slope, and Shoreline Modification
Features Present ..........................................................................................61
13 Slope Stability Composition at Each Site...................................................62
14 Landuse/Landcover Values for Each Site (%)............................................63
15 Frequency of Phylum Arthropoda ..............................................................66
16 Frequency of Phylum Mollusca..................................................................66
17 Frequency of Phylum Echinodermata.........................................................67
18 Frequency of Phylum Cnidaria ...................................................................68
19 Frequency of Phyla Platyhelminthes, Nemertea, and Annelida .................68
20 Frequency of Phylum Chordata ..................................................................69

viii
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
21 Frequency of Phyla Chlorophyta, Ochropyhta, Rhodophyta,
and Anthophyta...........................................................................................69
22 Median and Interquartile Range Values for Species Showing Significant
Differences Between Different Levels of Protection..................................72
23 Context Scores for Each WDFW Site.........................................................75
24 Planning Scores for Each WDFW Site.......................................................77
25 Inputs Scores for Each WDFW Site ...........................................................79
26 Process Scores for Each WDFW Site.........................................................81
27 Management Evaluation Scores for Possession Point State Park...............83
28 Context Scores for Each Seattle Site ..........................................................89
29 Planning Scores for Each Seattle Site.........................................................91
30 Inputs Scores for Each Seattle Site.............................................................92
31 Process Scores for Each Seattle Site...........................................................94
32 Average Management Scores for All Sites...............................................110
A1 Species Proportions Observed at Colvos Passage MPA...........................128
A2 Species Proportions Observed at Colvos Passage Control .......................129
A3 Species Proportions Observed at Des Moines Park MPA ........................131
A4 Species Proportions Observed at Des Moines Park Control.....................132
A5 Species Proportions Observed at Discovery Park MPA...........................134
A6 Species Proportions Observed at Discovery Park Control .......................135
A7 Species Proportions Observed at Emma Schmitz Memorial Park MPA..137

ix
Table Page
A8 Species Proportions Observed at Emma Schmitz Memorial
Park Control..............................................................................................138
A9 Species Proportions Observed at Octopus Hole MPA..............................140
A10 Species Proportions Observed at Octopus Hole Control..........................141
A11 Species Proportions Observed at Possession Point MPA.........................143
A12 Species Proportions Observed at Possession Point Control .....................144
A13 Species Proportions Observed at Richey Viewpoint MPA ......................146
A14 Species Proportions Observed at Richey Viewpoint Control...................147
A15 Species Proportions Observed at South 239th
Street Park MPA...............149
A16 Species Proportions Observed at South 239th
Street Park Control...........150
A17 Species Proportions Observed at Titlow Beach MPA..............................152
A18 Species Proportions Observed at Titlow Beach Control ..........................153
B1 Indicators Scores for Management Context for Colvos Passage..............155
B2 Indicators Scores for Management Planning for Colvos Passage ............155
B3 Indicator Scores for Management Inputs for Colvos Passage ..................156
B4 Indicator Scores for Management Process for Colvos Passage................156
B5 Indicators Scores for Management Context for Des Moines Beach Park 157
B6 Indicator Scores for Management Planning for Des Moines Beach Park 157
B7 Indicator Scores for Management Inputs for Des Moines Beach Park.....158
B8 Indicator Scores for Management Process for Des Moines Beach Park ..158

x
Table Page
B9 Indicators Scores for Management Context for Discovery Park ..............159
B10 Indicator Scores for Management Planning for Discovery Park ..............159
B11 Indicator Scores for Management Inputs for Discovery Park ..................160
B12 Indicator Scores for Management Process for Discovery Park ................160
B13 Indicators Scores for Management Context For Emma Schmitz
Memorial Park ..........................................................................................161
B14 Indicator Scores for Management Planning for Emma Schmitz
Memorial Park ..........................................................................................161
B15 Indicator Scores for Management Inputs for Emma Schmitz
Memorial Park ..........................................................................................162
B16 Indicator Scores for Management Process for Emma Schmitz
Memorial Park ..........................................................................................162
B17 Indicators Scores for Management Context for Octopus Hole.................163
B18 Indicator Scores for Management Planning for Octopus Hole.................163
B19 Indicator Scores for Management Inputs for Octopus Hole.....................164
B20 Indicator Scores for Management Process for Octopus Hole...................164
B21 Indicators Scores for Management Context for Possession Point
State Park ..................................................................................................165
B22 Indicator Scores for Management Planning for Possession Point
State Park ..................................................................................................165
B23 Indicator Scores for Management Inputs for Possession Point
State Park ..................................................................................................166
B24 Indicator Scores for Management Process for Possession Point
State Park ..................................................................................................166

xi
Table Page
B25 Indicators Scores for Management Context for Richey Viewpoint..........167
B26 Indicator Scores for Management Planning for Richey Viewpoint..........167
B27 Indicator Scores for Management Inputs for Richey Viewpoint..............168
B28 Indicator Scores for Management Process for Richey Viewpoint............168
B29 Indicators Scores for Management Context for South 239th
Street Park..169
B30 Indicator Scores for Management Planning for South 239th
Street Park..169
B31 Indicator Scores for Management Inputs for South 239th
Street Park......170
B32 Indicator Scores for Management Process for South 239th
Street Park....170
B33 Indicators Scores for Management Context for Titlow Beach .................171
B34 Indicator Scores for Management Planning for Titlow Beach .................171
B35 Indicator Scores for Management Inputs for Titlow Beach .....................172
B36 Indicator Scores for Management Process for Titlow Beach ...................172
B37 Indicator Scores for WDFW Agency-Wide Management Plan................173
B38 Indicator Scores for WDFW and Des Moines Parks And Recreation
Agency-Wide Management Plans. ...........................................................174
B39 Indicator Scores for WDFW Agency-Wide Management Plans..............175
B40 Indicator Scores for WPRC Agency-Wide Management Plan.................176
B41 Indicator Scores for Seattle Parks and Recreation Commission
Agency-Wide Management Plan..............................................................177

xii
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
1 Map illustrating mpas and control sites selected for evaluation.................43
2 Study area polygons used to calculate the proportions of certain
environmental conditions at each site in Arcmap10...................................44
3 Sample layout for intertidal community survey..........................................48
4 Eelgrass distribution among all sites ..........................................................64
5 Percentage similarity between MPA and control site intertidal
communities................................................................................................70
6 Invertebrate diversity at the -1’ tidal height correlation with
proportion of site planning scores evaluated as “considerable” .................96
7 Invertebrate diversity at the -1’ tidal height correlation with
proportion of site context scores evaluated as “moderate”.........................96
8 Invertebrate diversity at the 0’ tidal height correlation with
proportion of site planning scores evaluated as “moderate”.......................97
9 Invertebrate diversity at the 0’ tidal height correlation with
proportion of site planning scores evaluated as “negligible”......................97
10 Invertebrate diversity at the 0 and -1 foot tidal heights correlation
with proportion of site average management scores evaluated
as “considerable” ........................................................................................98
11 Vegetation diversity at the -1’ tidal heights correlation with
proportion of total planning score evaluated as “considerable” .................99
proportion of total planning score evaluated as “negligible”.....................99
proportion of total average management score evaluated
as “considerable” .....................................................................................100
E1 Aerial photograph of Colvos Passage MPA and control sites..................182

xiii
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
E2 Aerial photograph of Des Moines Park MPA and control sites...............183
E3 Aerial photograph of Discovery Park MPA and control sites..................184
E4 Aerial photograph of Emma Schmitz Memorial Park MPA
and control sites .......................................................................................185
E5 Aerial photograph of Octopus Hole MPA and control sites.....................186
E6 Aerial photograph of Possession Point MPA and control sites ................187
E7 Aerial photograph of Richey Viewpoint MPA and control sites .............188
E8 Aerial photograph of South 239th
Street Park MPA and control sites.....189
E9 Aerial photograph of Titlow Beach MPA and control sites....................190

1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Washington is home to 127 aquatic and terrestrial reserves known as Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs) totaling roughly 644,000 acres of state land and over 1,136
miles of shoreline (and their associated waters). The term “Marine Protected Area”
covers national, state and city parks, marine sanctuaries and wildlife refuges,
conservation areas and preserves, among others. The term has been active in the
management landscape since the early 1990s as a means of networking and coordinating
the design and implementation of such protected areas. The current system of MPAs and
their respective purposes and goals can be considered a management tool that can be used
to conserve delicate or unique marine or estuarine species, habitats, or culturally valuable
sites, boost fisheries biodiversity and abundance, and provide educational and
recreational opportunities to the general populace (Van Cleve, Bargmann, Culver & The
MPA Work Group, 2009).
The purpose of my research will be to determine if protection level and/or
management policies and practices enhance intertidal biodiversity at a sample of MPAs
in the Puget Sound, Washington. The objectives of this study are: 1) survey intertidal
species at a sample of MPAs and adjacent control sites; 2) use biodiversity indices,
measurements of similarity, and management policy/practice scores to assess MPA sites;
3) highlight management policies and practices that significantly affect different levels of
biodiversity, and 4) provide guidance to managing agencies on how to more effectively
manage MPAs to meet their conservation goals.

2
Demonstrated Need for MPA Evaluation
The widespread approval and implementation of MPAs has been hindered as their
applicability as an effective management instrument has been questioned (Van Cleve et
al., 2009). Kyte (1989) found that managing agencies often refuted their responsibility for
protecting certain intertidal species and did little to enforce existing regulations. Kyte
found this to be especially true in marine invertebrate collecting permits, where large
numbers of intertidal species were collected but were not reported, and if they were
reported, were not met with any legal repercussions. Murray and Ferguson (1998)
observed that a multitude of MPAs have been established in the Puget Sound without a
single program-wide design or coordination scheme across the 12 diverse managing
agencies in the state. The authors’ conclusions suggest that dissimilar or mismatched
objectives, site selection criteria, implementation design, funding, protection level
designation, and monitoring practices are common themes across the array of MPAs that
exist in Washington. In 2009, Van Cleve et al., under the direction of the Washington
State Legislature, came to nearly the same conclusions. Consequently, consistency and
collaborative management for MPAs has been neglected for at least 20 years. The authors
concluded that a performance evaluation of existing MPAs was necessary in determining
if these MPAs provided enough ecosystem protection and if the various levels of
protection provided by MPAs were proficient in achieving their management goals.
Grober-Dunsmore et al. (2008) has made the same determination, stating that scientists
and policy-makers alike are now considering “level of protection” an equally important
feature of an MPA, in addition to siting and design characteristics.

3
Many studies that have been done to assess the effectiveness of MPAs focus on
coral reef ecosystems, submerged meadows, kelp forests and mangroves, or have been
completed in other parts of the world (e.g., Claudet, Pelletier, Jouvenel, Bachet, &
Galzin, 2006; Montefalcone, Albertelli, Morri, Parravicini, & Bianchi, 2009; Muthiga,
2009; Parnell, Lennert-Cody, Geelen, Stanley, & Dayton, 2005; Rioja-Nieto & Sheppard,
2008; Samoilys, Martin-Smith, Giles, Cabrera, Anticamara et al., 2007; Tognelli,
Fernández, & Marquest, 2009). However, the results of these studies are not directly
applicable to the management of MPAs in Washington’s unique intertidal ecosystems.
Few studies have been published that address the concerns of the Washington State
Legislature regarding MPA effectiveness in the state. In 2000, Tuya et al. published a
study that aimed to determine if abundance and body size in specific marine species were
affected by the protection provided by MPAs in the San Juan Islands. The authors found
that MPAs had positive effects only on the abundance and size of certain species, during
certain life stages (Tuya, Soboil, & Kido, 2000). Griffiths et al. (2006) looked at the
effects of banning recreational clam digging in marine reserves on the San Juan Islands.
Again, only certain species showed a positive response to reserve status, and the negative
impacts of clam digging on intertidal invertebrates was illustrated. Due to the
circumstantial nature of these results, these studies do not speak directly to the impact of
MPAs on the entire biodiversity or community richness of Washington’s intertidal
communities.
In addition to a lack of understanding on how MPAs perform and how they are
managed and monitored, it has been noted that the wide array of terms used to describe
MPAs (e.g., aquatic reserve, sanctuary, recreation area, marine preserve, refuge) is

4
confusing to managers and stakeholders alike. These terms are also often misleading as to
what type of protection is actually afforded to each site. For their evaluation, the MPA
Work Group (The Group) struggled to find a consistently used description of protection
status for all of Washington’s MPAs. The Group ultimately agreed that for the purposes
of their evaluation, the “levels of protection” as defined by the National MPA Center
were suitable, although imperfect and somewhat inadequate. Consequently, those same
levels of protection will be used herein, and are described in Table 1.
Table 1
Classification of Protection Levels Afforded to Marine Protected Areas
Type of Protection Description
Uniform Multiple-
Use (UML)
Uniform level of protection while allowing some extractive
activities.
Zoned Multiple-Use
(ZML)
Allow some extractive activities, but only in certain zones
and at certain times of the year.
Zoned Multiple-Use
with No-Take Areas
(ZNL)
Allow some extractive activities and contain at least one no take
zone.
No Take (NTL) Allow human access and some potentially detrimental
activities, but does not allow resource extraction in any
capacity.
No Impact (NIL) Allow human access but prohibit all potentially harmful
activities.
No Access (NAL) Ban all human access, unless specially permitted for
monitoring, restoration, or research.
Note. From National MPA Center (2006).
Significance of MPA Research
The Puget Sound basin is home to over 200 species of fish, 100 species of birds,
approximately 7,000 species of marine invertebrates, 625 species of marine algae, six
species of seagrass, hundreds of species of phytoplankton, and 26 species of marine

5
mammals. This diverse mix of life is being threatened by multiple human-induced
shoreline modifications such as diking, dredging, armoring, extraction, and deforestation.
It has been estimated that 73% of the historic salt marshes in the Sound have been
destroyed, along with the modification of 33% of the Sound’s shorelines (Gelfenbaum,
Mumford, Brennan, Case, Dethier et al., 2006). As the number and diversity of species
within the Sound decreases, the number of species listed as threatened, endangered, or
“of concern” continues to rise. As of 2006, 64 species have been listed as a “species of
concern,” growing from 60 in 2002 (Brown & Gaydos, n.d.). Many of these species rely
on nearshore environments, suggesting that declines are at least in part due to changes in
nearshore ecosystems. Instances of green tides, paralytic shellfish poisoning, and domoic
acid are becoming more frequent as well, and suggest that not isolated incidents, but
ecosystem-wide disturbances are to blame for the declining health of the Sound
(Determan, 1999; Valiela, McClelland, Hauxwell, Behr, Hersh et al., 1997).
Consequently, a properly functioning system of MPAs in Washington could be one step
towards maintaining biological diversity within and protecting ecologically important
habitats of the Sound (National Research Council, 2001). Additionally, a proper
performance evaluation will serve to assess gaps in the marine and estuarine resource
conservation field (Van Cleve et al., 2009).
In addition to the protection afforded to fragile estuarine and marine resources as
noted above, evaluating the effectiveness of MPAs as a management tool will help guide
future implementation of their respective agency’s plans and objectives. This is especially
true as it is strongly anticipated that new MPAs will continue to be proposed and
established (Van Cleve et al., 2009). Also, the proper management and implementation of

6
MPAs directly follows the priorities of Puget Sound Partnership’s (PSP) Action Agenda.
The most relevant priorities for this type of MPA research from the PSP’s 2008 Action
Agenda are:
1. Protect intact ecosystem processes, structures, and functions
2. Restore ecosystem processes, systems, and functions
3. Work effectively and efficiently together on priority actions
4. Create an implementation, monitoring, and accountability management system.

7
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Human Impacts on the Marine Environment
Protection afforded by MPAs generally aims to limit or entirely exclude human
activities, namely fishing (fin and shellfish recreational and commercial harvest), and
recreation (e.g. boating, diving, shell collecting). Additionally, certain shoreline
modification practices are prohibited in some MPAs. In order to understand why these
activities have been limited or completely prohibited, it is necessary to discuss the effect
these activities have had on the marine environment.
Fishing
Unsustainable fisheries have lead to the exploitation, overexploitation, and/or
depletion of 30% of the world’s marine fish stocks (United Nations Food and
Agricultural Organization, 2008). Fishing gear like dredges and trawls negatively impact
fish habitat by reducing the complexity of the seafloor and by removing benthic
organisms that potentially serve as shelter for other organisms (Sumaila, Guénette, Alder,
& Chuenpagdee, 2000). The use of this type of fishing gear often takes non-target
species, resulting in the release of these discards into marine waters. Discards attract
scavenger fish, invertebrates, and seabirds, ultimately shifting the functioning of that
ecosystem (Garthe, Camphuysen, & Furness, 1996; Sánchez & Olaso, 2004). Other types
of waste discarded by fishing operations include litter, boat emissions, and human waste;
all of which have the potential to harm or kill many marine species. It has been estimated
that 200,000 pounds of Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) are smothered in derelict crab
pots every year in the Puget Sound, an amount worth roughly $335,000 in June of 2007.

8
Derelict fishing gear also indiscriminately kills other marine species like salmon,
invertebrates, marine mammals, and birds (Clancy, Logan, Lowe, Johannessen,
MacLennan et al., 2009).
This addition of organic matter (e.g. detritus, waste) and toxins, the use of
destructive fishing gear, and the overexploitation of marine organisms has resulted in the
following: hypoxic and anoxic events from eutrophication often leading to dangerous
algal blooms; habitat destruction from seafloor trawling and dredging (National Research
Council, 2001); abrupt changes in species composition due to changes in marine food
chains and fisheries collapses resultant of overexploitation, and the introduction of
invasive species (Botsford, Castilla & Peterson, 1997). Ultimately, these fundamental
changes in the functioning of the marine ecosystem lead to changes in “species diversity,
population abundance, size structure, sex ratios, and behavior; habitat structure; trophic
dynamics; biogeochemistry; biological interactions; and more,” (Lubchenco, Palumbi,
Gaines & Andelman, 2003, p. 3). In turn, the marine environment can no longer provide
the goods and services it once did, such as pollutant assimilation, recreation and seafood
(Lubchenco et al., 2003).
Recreational and commercial shellfish harvests are also commonly cited harmful
practices in the Puget Sound. Recreational clam harvest in the San Juan Islands has
shown to decrease overall species richness, with significantly lower abundances of
polychaete worms, an intertidal predator. Additionally, failure to refill clam digging holes
has shown to decrease preferred habitat, though does not directly contribute to
invertebrate mortality (Griffiths et al., 2006). The holes left by recreational clam diggers
on Whidbey Island have been observed filling with nutrient-rich pore and sea water,

9
resulting in increased growth of the green algae Ulva lactuca (Van Alstyne, Flanagan &
Gifford, 2011). Blooms of Ulva spp. are often associated with eutrophication (Raven &
Tayler, 2003), fragmented eelgrass meadows (Nelson & Lee, 2001), noxious odors
(Frankenstein, 2000), and toxin production that negatively affects local algal and
invertebrate communities (Van Alstyne, Nelson, Vyvyan & Cancilla, 2006).
Commercial shellfish harvest in the Puget Sound is generally accomplished by
clam seeding (i.e., planting clam spat into the substrate). Clam seeding is performed to
enhance productivity of the commercial species, thereby increasing the concentration of a
dominant, filter-feeding organism. Consequently, increased rates of organic enrichment
and biodeposition are likely, ultimately altering the composition of deposit feeders and
the infaunal community as a whole (Whitely & Bendell-Young, 2007). A commonly used
practice, predator netting, has been shown to increase target bivalve density if predators
are effectively excluded, ultimately leading to the negative impacts listed above (Wilson,
1990). These nets also often attract macroalga and other “bio-fueling” species, which
must be manually removed before build-up reduces circulation of water and food
particles to the sediment (Jamieson et al., 2001).
Consumptive and Non-Consumptive Loss of Intertidal Organisms
Consumptive and non-consumptive loss of marine invertebrates in the Puget
Sound includes losses due to non-consumptive harvest (harvest of marine invertebrates
for reasons other than consumption, e.g., collecting), non-traditional harvest (harvest of
marine invertebrates by groups who traditionally have not harvested invertebrates in the
Pacific Northwest), and trampling by human foot traffic. Most marine invertebrates in the
Sound can be considered Non-Game Marine Invertebrates (NGMI) as they are not

10
currently classified as foodfish, shellfish or as game by the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (Carney & Kvitek, 1991). Most NGMI are particularly vulnerable to all
types of harvest as they are sedentary or sessile, soft-bodied, are considered “showy”
(i.e., are brightly colored and/or aesthetically pleasing) and/or can easily be harvested in a
number of ways (Kyte, 1989; Carney & Kvitek, 1991). While a permitting system for
NGMI harvest is in existence, past compliance can be considered spotty, with record-
keeping lacking definition between permits for research/education and permits for
research-for-profit or display-for-profit scenarios (Carney & Kvitek, 1991).
Marine invertebrates play a crucial role in the proper functioning of the marine
ecosystem. Some NGMI, like the purple sea star (Pisaster ochraceus) for example,
actually control the abundance and distribution of other invertebrates in their community,
making them a keystone species. Decreased densities of the purple sea star are associated
with mussel population explosions and decreased species richness and diversity (Dethier,
Duggins & Mumford, 1989; Smith, 2010).
Non-consumptive marine invertebrate harvest has significant impacts on the
marine ecosystem. Direct sources of non-consumptive harvest include collecting for: 1)
teaching; 2) schools by commercial supply companies; 3) research and bioassays; 4)
public aquariums; 5) bait, and 6) souvenirs. Collections for research and bioassays are
particularly damaging, as thousands of individuals are often taken in one sampling effort,
usually by means of dredging or trawling. Dredging is especially harmful as machinery
may indiscriminately remove entire colonial invertebrate communities, which provide
habitat for other smaller NGMI. Hobby shell-collecting is particularly harmful for snail
populations, whose vibrant, decorative shells are collected, traded and sold to commercial

11
sea shell suppliers (Kyte, 1989). Non-consumptive losses have shown to significantly
decrease abundances of anemones (Anthopluera spp.), rock jingles (Pododesmus spp.),
sea stars and terebellid worms at non-protected urban sites. The abundance of rocks with
barnacles on their under-sides is higher at non-protected sites as well, indicating non-
consumptive users are not returning rocks to their original positions. Rock flipping is a
significant source of mortality for NGMI, as the practice crushes sensitive organisms if
the rock is set back down on them, or can lead to desiccation or increased vulnerability to
predators (non-human and human) and trampling if the rock is left up-turned (Carney &
Kvitek, 1991).
Non-traditional harvest is harvest of NGMI not typically used as a food source,
often by groups from other parts of the world where foraging for intertidal organisms is
part of their everyday culture. Non-traditional harvest generally occurs on beaches easily
accessible to the public near urban centers, and has been known to be a source of total
denudation of beachscapes (Kyte, 1989). At beaches close to urban centers with high
human visitation, moonsnails (Euspira lewisii), dogwinkle snails (Nucella spp.), and
graceful crabs (of various genera) are most often observed as being collected for
subsistence (Carney & Kvitek, 1991). Nucella spp. are particularly important in the
marine environment, as they are barnacle predators. As their abundance declines,
barnacle abundance will likely increase, impacting the remaining infaunal community
(Connell, 1970). Marine algae is also a source of non-traditional harvest. In 1990, one
study showed that approximately 8,000 gallons of marine algae were harvested from 13
Puget Sound beaches. A significant loss in marine algae will likely be a significant loss in

12
intertidal habitat, protection and food for marine fish and invertebrates (Carney & Kvitek,
1991).
Human visitation to intertidal areas through walking, hereby known as trampling,
is another source of loss to NGMI and algae. On rocky intertidal beaches of California, it
has been found that trampling causes a reduction in percent cover of California mussels
(Mytilus californianus), as well as reductions in mean cover, mussel bed thickness and
individual biomass (Smith, Fong & Ambrose, 2008). Trampling studies on the San Juan
Islands have shown that brown algae (particularly Fucus spp.) will decrease in cover by
30% in response to trampling. Additionally, area of bare rock increased after trampling
treatments were complete, suggesting there is a lag time in mortality rates for rock-
encrusting invertebrates in response to trampling (Jenkins, Haas, Olsen & Ruesink,
2002). On a particularly low tide day in 1995 (-3.2 feet), Rosario Beach, WA was
transformed into a “moonscape” after over 1,200 visitors trampled the intertidal zone,
completely denuding it of invertebrates and algae. Since this trampling event, strict
regulations on group registration, etiquette, and beach accessibility have been enacted
(Island County/WSU Beach Watchers, 2008).
Recreation
Tourism and recreation in coastal and marine locales is an increasingly larger
component of tourism as a whole (Hall, 2001), and can have many negative impacts on
the environment in which it is based. Snorkelers and divers who swim too close to shore
are likely to break fragile benthic species, and can change fish behavior through feeding
(Rouphael & Inglis, 1995; Milazzo, Badalamenti, Vega-Fernandez, & Chemello, 2005).
Tourists can invoke many of the same negative impacts of commercial fishing through

13
trampling, boat anchoring and mooring, and illegal species collection (Shiel & Taylor,
1995; Milazzo, Badalamenti, Ceccherelli, & Chemello, 2004; Ojeda-Martínez,
Casalduero, Bayle-Sempere, Cebrián, Valle, et al., 2009). This infusion of tourists
necessitates the building of infrastructure to support tourist activity. Uncontrolled
development associated with these activities can change coastal ecology, can increase
erosion, and can destroy marine habitats and species (Burak, Dogan, & Gazioglub, 2004).
Shoreline Modification
Shoreline modification is common to most aquatic systems, and can have many
detrimental effects. In the Puget Sound, activities such as armoring, diking, groining, and
the construction of overwater structures (e.g., docks) have the ability to drastically
change the Sound’s hydrology and hydrodynamic regime. Both armoring and groining
simplify natural processes in the nearshore environment, such as erosion and
sedimentation, by interrupting intertidal energy (i.e., wave energy). For example,
bulkheads are installed to eliminate erosion by reflecting wave energy back to open
waters. Consequently, down-drift beach profiles are not supplied with sediments they
would have under natural conditions, and intertidal substrates are down-cut (MacDonald,
Simpson, Paulsen, Cox, & Gendron, 1994).
Within the last century, the Puget Sound has lost nearly 80% of its major
estuarine wetlands, with one of the causal activities being diking. Dikes aim to restrict
natural tidal flows, especially to areas deemed attractive for agriculture and development.
Disrupting natural tidal flows causes subsidence, mainly due to lack of sediment
deposition and compression from animal, human, and machine traffic. This added traffic
leaves sensitive aquatic environments vulnerable to invasion of exotic species and

14
increased predator activity. Additionally, blocking tidal flows blocks the connectivity
between aquatic systems, causing a loss in the ecological productivity of the individual
systems, as well as loss to access routes for fish and wildlife (Clancy et al., 2009).
Overwater structures have the ability to modify the wave energy, ambient light
regime, substrate, and water quality of an aquatic ecosystem. These changes ultimately
change ecological processes, such as migration, spawning, young-rearing, and predator-
prey dynamics. Support structures for docks, piers, and pilings also enhance scour-action
and sedimentation as currents move past them (Clancy et al., 2009).
Some MPA types aim to protect marine and estuarine areas from these types of
activities. Both No Impact and No Access MPAs (see Table 1) prohibit the construction
of docks, piers and bulkheads, among other shoreline modification structures.
Biodiversity in Marine Systems
Maintaining and/or enhancing biodiversity is one of the main goals of MPAs. One
of the most widely accepted definitions of biodiversity (Gaston, 1996) is that of the US
Congress Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), and is as follows: “the variety and
variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur. . .”
(OTA, 1987). The concept of “biodiversity” has been widely accepted as a significant
measure of ecosystem health and functioning, and consequently, the loss of it is viewed
as a negative occurrence (Gaston, 1996).
A healthy marine environment, one with a high level of biodiversity, provides
many services. In 2006, Washington’s fishery sector directly or indirectly provided
16,374 jobs and $540 million in personal income (TWC Economics, 2008). Recreational
activities like tourism, wildlife viewing, diving, boating, and fishing also provide for both

15
market and non-market value. Marine and estuarine environments also provide
“ecosystem services.” These services include the assimilation of pollutants, buffering
against natural disasters like flooding, and a rich supply of food and habitat for wildlife.
One way to estimate the dollar value of these ecosystem services is through Habitat
Equivalency Analysis. This type of analysis can be used when a habitat is injured or
destroyed. The dollar value of the habitat and the services is provides can be calculated as
the total cost it takes to restore the habitat to a baseline state (NOAA, n.d.). Lastly,
coastal environments also have intrinsic worth, which cannot be valued on a numerical
scale (NRC, 2001).
Introduction to Marine Protection in Washington State
History
Beginning in the late 20th
century, geographically based protection has been
utilized in Washington for the conservation of marine resources–well before the term
“marine protected area” was introduced to the management landscape. The first defined
area set aside for the protection of natural resources in Washington was 1907 with the
creation of the Flattery Rocks and Copalis National Wildlife Refuges. The area of
protected lands increased considerably in 1923 with the creation of the San Juan
County/Cypress Island Marine Biological Preserve and in 1994 with the establishment of
the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (Van Cleve et al., 2009).
Beginning in the early 1990s, concerns about cross-border ecological issues
between Washington and British Columbia continued to grow. In response, Washington
Governor Mike Lowry and British Columbia Premier Mike Harcourt established the
Environmental Coordinating Council in 1992. In 1993, the Washington and British

16
Columbia governments created the International Task Force to focus on water quality
issues in the Puget Sound and Georgia Basin. In 1994, the Marine Science Panel (the
Panel), a group of scientists from both Washington and British Columbia, published a
report that included a list of recommendations on marine resource issues to the
International Task Force. One of the Panel’s most highly prioritized recommendations
was to establish MPAs (Van Cleve et al., 2009).
In response to this recommendation, the MPA Work Group, consisting of multiple
agency representatives, was created in 1995. In 1998, the MPA Work Group drafted, but
never finalized a strategy for MPA design, establishment, and implementation (Van
Cleve et al., 2009). However, in that same year, the Washington Fish and Wildlife
Commission implemented a policy advocating the use of MPAs for marine resource
management and protection (Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, 1998).
In 2000, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 13158 which defined the
term “marine protected area” and announced the need for the establishment of a national
network of MPAs, as well as created the National MPA Center under the National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The National MPA Center, under the
guidance of NOAA and in collaboration with the Department of the Interior, was
assigned the responsibility of using available science, training, technology and
information to report on the planning, management, and evaluation of this national
network of MPAs (Executive Order No. 13158, 2000). In 2003, the MPA Federal
Advisory Committee was created with representation from Washington State (Van Cleve
et al., 2009).

17
In 2000, the Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT) published a plan to involve
agencies and tribal governments in the science-based identification of candidate MPA
sites and siting considerations, as well as collaboratively develop a management strategy
for a system of Washington MPAs that included educational elements, site-specific goals
and objectives, as well an acknowledgement of tribal rights (PSAT, 2000). In a 2001
report, the PSAT emphasized their plan to collaborate with agencies and tribal
governments in the development of designation criteria and implementation standards for
MPAs, as well as in the identification of research efforts and needs and marine resource
protection gaps (PSAT, 2001). Two years later, the PSAT published a plan further
highlighting the need for a collaborative effort on previously published objectives (e.g.
development of comprehensive management plans, identification of research needs and
gaps, etc.) as well as the need for monitoring and evaluation in MPA implementation
(PSAT, 2003).
Most recently in 2008, the PSP’s Action Agenda prioritized the implementation of
a state-wide system of Marine Managed Areas and Aquatic Reserves that enhance the
conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem health in the Puget Sound. A closely related
priority was to collaborate with the Marine Managed Areas Work Group to make
recommendations on how to improve the effectiveness of MPAs in Washington (PSP,
2008).
Management
Twelve federal, state and local agencies are responsible for the management of
MPAs in Washington State. Collectively, these agencies represent various strategies of
management, including research, monitoring, evaluation, and enforcement. The

18
information included below was retrieved through available management documents, and
is meant to be a summary, not a complete description of, management activities. It is
important to reiterate that many of the activities discussed herein were in effect well
before federal or state legislatures enacted the term “Marine Protected Area,” but now use
the term to describe any area established with the goal of marine protection and
conservation.
Federal Agencies
The federal agencies responsible for the management of MPAs in Washington are
NOAA, National Park Service (NPS) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration is responsible for the management of the Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS), a Uniform Multiple-Use MPA over 300,000 acres
in size, established in 1994 (Van Cleve et al., 2009). As Marine Sanctuaries are regulated
under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) of 1972, OCNMS was established
through approval by the Secretary of Commerce. Public hearings must be held prior to
sanctuary establishment in order to scope the concerns and suggestions of the associated
stakeholders. Under the NMSA, the following activities are prohibited on sanctuary
grounds: the destruction or injury of any sanctuary resource; the possession, sale,
purchase, import, export, or delivery of any sanctuary resource; exploring for, or
developing and producing oil, gas, or minerals; discharging or depositing any material;
seabed alteration; flying motorized aircrafts less than 2,000 feet above the sanctuary, and
the Department of Defense is prohibited from conducting bombing activities. Olympic

19
Coast National Marine Sanctuary does not have the authority to set harvest restrictions or
to restrict public access, however other regulatory agencies fill this role. Officers with the
appropriate authority (i.e. NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, US Coast Guard, WDFW
enforcement officers) may board and search any vessel suspected of non-compliance,
seize stolen sanctuary resources, and arrest any person found guilty of violating sanctuary
regulations. Those found in violation of sanctuary regulations are subject to fines and/or
imprisonment (NMSA, 1972; Van Cleve et al., 2009).
A 2011 Draft Management Plan for OCNMS is under revision and is currently
available for public comment. This plan is comprised of 20 distinct action plans that
cover the following priority objectives: implement effective coordinated and
collaborative management; satisfy Treaty Trust responsibility; perform collaborative
research and monitoring to aid ecosystem-based management; improve marine resource
literacy; protect the sanctuary’s natural resources, and understand and document the
sanctuary’s historical, cultural, and socioeconomic significance (NOAA, 2011).
National Park Service. The National Park Service is responsible for the
management of two MPAs, Olympic National Park (ONP) and San Juan Island National
Historical Park (SJINHP). These areas were established in 1909 and 1961, respectively,
and are both considered to be No Impact MPAs. The total protected area covered by these
two parks is 1,752 acres (Van Cleve et al., 2009). National Parks are established and
administered under the NPS Organic Act of 1916 and the NPS General Authorities Act of
1970. Park resources are regulated under the Wilderness Act of 1964, with more specific
park regulations coming from the Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The
pertinent part of the CFR is entitled “Resource Protection, Public Use, and Recreation”

20
and pertains solely to parks owned by the NPS. Under this statute, the following activities
are prohibited: disturbing, possessing, injuring, removing, or destroying and natural or
cultural resource from the park, including living or dead wildlife and parts/products
thereof or any mineral resource; introducing wildlife or plant species to park areas, and
possessing or gathering wood from park grounds, among other regulations. The
Department of the Interior Secretary may set limits for the size and quantity of allowable
possessions at any given time. Hunting and trapping are allowed within park boundaries
where specifically mandated by Federal law. Regulations do exist for the type of fishing,
type of bait, and type of vessel used for fishing (Resource Protection, Public Use and
Recreation, 1983). As such, no-harvest reserves within ONP and SJINHP do not
currently exist. Enforcement is provided by on-site coastal rangers throughout the entire
year, with extra personnel supplementing seasonal enforcement (Van Cleve et al., 2009).
A congressionally-mandated monitoring program was established through the
creation of the NPS Natural Resource Challenge in 1999. This program provides funding
and support for monitoring activities in National Parks (NPS, 1999). The results of
monitoring activities are presented annually, and trend analyses are presented every five
years to aid park management and decision making (Van Cleve, et al., 2009).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The United States Fish and Wildlife
Service is responsible for the management of all the wildlife refuges in the state, nine of
which are considered MPAs. The earliest wildlife refuges in this state were established in
1907, and the most recent was established in 1990. Washington’s marine refuges
represent a variety of protection types, but most can be considered No Access MPAs.
These marine refuges together cover over 1,500 acres in the state. Most of the coastal

21
refuges were established through Executive Order in 1907 under the US Department of
Agriculture for the preservation of native bird and marine mammal breeding habitat (Van
Cleve et al., 2009).
Wildlife refuges are regulated under the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act (NWRSAA) of 1966. In refuges where the public is allowed access,
boating and shell fishing is only open from May 15th
through September 30th
of each
year. The disturbance, removal, and destruction of any plant, fish, bird, other vertebrate
or invertebrate species (including nesting materials, eggs, shells, feathers, etc.) is strictly
prohibited and those found non-compliant are subject to fines and/or imprisonment
(NWRSAA, 1966). At Washington coastal refuges, boaters are asked to stay 200 yards
away from island shorelines, but compliance with this request is considered voluntary.
Refuge staff are gifted the authority to enforce mandatory regulations, and may, without a
warrant, arrest any person found in violation of refuge laws. At coastal refuges in
Washington, there is little management or enforcement presence (Van Cleve et al., 2009).
Under NWRSAA, all refuges must develop a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP). The public is given the opportunity to comment on draft CCPs (NWRSAA,
1966). These plans can be seen as guiding documents, and outline objectives relevant to
refuge boundary expansion, tribal collaboration, public involvement, habitat restoration,
research and monitoring methods, environmental education, wildlife observation, hunting
and fishing, and boating (USFWS, 2005; USFWS, 2007; USFWS, 2010).
State Agencies
State agencies responsible for the management of MPAs include Washington
Department of Ecology (WDOE), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

22
(WDFW), Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), and Washington
Parks and Recreation Commission (WPRC).
Washington Department of Ecology. The Washington Department of Ecology is
responsible for the management of the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Preserve
(PBNERS), a 12,000-acre MPA that was established in 1980. This preserve can be
considered a Uniform Multiple-Use MPA (Van Cleve et al., 2009). Padilla Bay National
Estuarine Research Preserve was established through the National Estuarine Reserve
System (NERRS) under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Reserves designated
through this process must meet six criteria, and must adopt a management plan. Reserves
of the NERRS must comply with the System-Wide Monitoring Program, which includes
environmental characterization, site profiling, and monitoring. Under this monitoring
program, abiotic and biotic variables are measured, and watershed and land use
classifications are made.
The PBNERS has complete education, outreach, training, research, monitoring,
and funding programs in operation, and is continually recognized for its achievements in
these areas. The reserve continually surveys populations of invasive Spartina species,
percentage cover of emergent salt marsh vegetation, and native shore crab populations.
Research at the reserve is supported through funding by the Padilla Bay Foundation,
NOAA, and WDOE, which provides for an on-site laboratory and overnight
accommodations, as well as access to field equipment and research vessels.
The Department of Ecology manages PBNERS using existing state laws, as the
reserve itself does not have the regulatory authority to enforce resource protection.
Prohibited activities within the boundaries of PBNERS include camping, hunting, fire

23
building, destruction or theft of natural resources, and overnight parking outside of the
developed areas (WDOE, 2008).
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife is responsible for the management of 22 MPAs, covering a variety of
protection types, with a majority of its sites being considered either Uniform Multiple-
Use or No Take MPAs. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife MPAs have been
termed either “conservation areas” or “marine preserves.” Conservation areas prohibit all
takings, while limited takes are allowed at marine preserves. WDFW manages close to
2,000 acres of MPAs, with the earliest being established in 1970 and the latest being
established in 2009. A majority of MPAs under the regulation of WDFW were
established through public or outside agency suggestion. Additionally, the harvesting
public, largely recreational fishing groups, help shape the terms of harvest restrictions for
WDFW sites (Van Cleve et al., 2009). Enforcement of harvest restrictions is performed
by WDFW staff, as they have been given police powers for such activities under
Washington’s Administrative Code (Enforcement, 1976).
Monitoring at WDFW sites has been the responsibility of the agency’s Marine
Fish Science Unit, and has been underway since the early 1990s. The focus of these
monitoring projects has largely been to determine the effect of no-harvest reserves on
groundfish populations. More specifically, monitoring efforts aim to analyze trends in
species composition, reproductive effort, fish density and size before-and-after reserve
creation (Van Cleve et al., 2009).
Washington Department of Natural Resources. The Washington Department of
Natural Resources is responsible for the management of 14 MPAs in the state, covering

24
over 16,000 acres. These MPAs represent a variety of protection types. The earliest
WDNR MPA was established in 1981 and the latest was established in 2007 (Van Cleve
et al., 2009). Marine Protected Areas under the management of WDNR are known as
“Aquatic Reserves.” Aquatic Reserves do not necessarily prohibit any human or
commercial activities, but human use is maintained at an ecologically sound level that
coincides with reserve goals. Aquatic Reserves are maintained to fit into one of the
following categories: environmental reserves, scientific reserves, or educational reserves
(WDNR, 2005).
The Aquatic Reserves Program (ARP) provides WDNR a system for the
designation, management, monitoring, and evaluation of its MPAs. Aquatic reserves are
established on a biennial designation process, beginning with a nomination from
members of the public, non-government organizations, Tribes, local, state, or federal
agencies. After review of nominations, WDNR holds public comment hearings, which
offer the public the opportunity to offer additional information for the evaluation of the
proposed site. After public comment, a Technical Advisory Committee, and independent
group of professionals and scientists, uses 30 reserve criteria (with scientific and
education reserves requiring additional evaluative criteria) to evaluate how well each
proposal meets the goals and objectives of the ARP, to rank proposals, and if appropriate,
discuss why a proposed area should not be designated as an Aquatic Reserve.
Reserve nominators must work with WDNR to develop management and
monitoring plans. There is no single design for management or monitoring across
Aquatic Reserves; however, monitoring usually falls into one of the following categories:
implementation monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, or validation monitoring. Once

25
management and monitoring plans have been drafted, they are reviewed under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). After SEPA review, the proposal is sent to the
Commissioner of Public Lands, who can formally establish the aquatic reserve by issuing
a “Commissioner’s Order” (WDNR, 2005).
Program-wide evaluation criteria for existing sites are still being drafted by
WDNR; however, the progress of the ARP is monitored as reserves are established and
during systematic 10-year reviews (WDNR, 2005). Two intensive monitoring programs
are currently in place: nearshore fish usage assessment at the Cypress Island Aquatic
Reserve and eelgrass surveys at the Fidalgo Bay and Maury Islands Aquatic Reserves
(Van Cleve et al., 2009).
Washington Parks and Recreation Commission. The Washington Parks and
Recreation Commission is responsible for the management of all of Washington’s state
parks, 26 of which can be considered MPAs. These 26 MPAs cover over 9,000 acres and
all but seven are considered Uniform Multiple-Use MPAs. Of these, the earliest MPA
was established in 1915 and the latest was established in 2007. State parks that have been
classified as MPAs aim to provide recreational access to and interpretation of marine
areas in a manner that preserves those resources. Parks are established through the review
and approval of the WPRC, and maintain protection in perpetuity (Van Cleve et al.,
2009).
Invertebrate harvest is prohibited and algae harvest in controlled at WPRC MPAs.
Park rangers routinely patrol all WPRC areas and at many parks, rangers live on-site.
Parks without 24-hour ranger presence employ volunteer stewards to maintain an
authoritative presence on site (Van Cleve et al., 2009). Washington Parks and Recreation

26
Commission rangers have been gifted police powers for ensuring compliance with park
rules and regulations (Police powers vested in commission and employees, 1999). A
general monitoring plan does not exist for WPRC MPAs. However, through a public
process, issues requiring management attention are identified–if monitoring is identified
as an issue, site specific monitoring plans are then developed.
Local Agencies
Local agencies responsible for the management of MPAs in Washington include
Clallam County, City of Edmonds, City of Seattle, City of Tacoma and University of
Washington.
Clallam County. Clallam County is responsible for the management of the
Tongue Point Marine Life Sanctuary, also known as the Salt Creek Recreation Area, a
24.71 acre MPA that was established in 1989. This MPA is considered a Uniform
Multiple-Use area (Van Cleve et al., 2009). Management authority was originally gifted
to Clallam County from WDNR in 1989 after Clallam County noted instances of removal
and destruction of marine life by the public (WDNR, 1989). Clallam County has been
given the authority to prohibit the possession, disturbance, injury, defacement, removal or
destruction of any animal or plant matter. Those found noncompliant of park rules and
regulations are guilty of a misdemeanor and can be subject to fines and/or imprisonment
(Clallam County, 1980). Signage is the primary means by which the public is informed of
park laws and regulations (WDNR, 1989). Clallam County does not have the authority to
enforce fishing laws and regulations, and depends on the above-mentioned signage for
compliance with resource laws and regulations (B. Giddens, personal communication,
February 7, 2011).

27
City of Edmonds. The City of Edmonds is responsible for the management of
only one MPA, Edmonds Underwater Park, also known as Brackett’s Landing. This 47-
acre park was created in 1970 and is considered a No Take MPA (Van Cleve et al.,
2009). The City of Edmonds relies heavily on regulatory management, i.e. city
ordinances comprise most of the management strategy in place. The City of Edmonds’
Municipal Code states that it is unlawful to: operate motor vehicles of any kind; scuba
dive and/or free dive within 300 feet of any boat launching; possess any device used for
the taking of fish, bivalves, crustaceans, or any other marine plant or animal life; take or
possess any fish, bivalve, crustacean, or any other marine plant or animal life, or to harm
or contribute to the physical damage of marine habitats and species. Within the Municipal
Code also exists regulations on the taking and possession of shellfish. City of Edmonds
police officers act as “ex officio” fisheries patrol officers for the purpose of the stated
shellfish regulations. Lastly, violation of any regulation stated in this city ordinance is
punishable by law–the guilty party has committed a misdemeanor and is subject to a fine
no more than $1,000 (City of Edmonds, 2010).
Brackett’s Landing is under commercial lease from the Washington Department
of Natural Resources. Under this agreement, the area in question is leased to the City of
Edmonds from December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2020. Under the Operations and
Management Plan of this lease, “maintenance” is stated as being completed by volunteer
stewards on an almost weekly basis. This group has been responsible for the maintenance
of underwater man-made structures since 1977. Additionally, this lease states that the
“long term management” of the area will be undertaken by this same group of volunteers,
and that the current number of volunteers is sufficient for the completion of this task,

28
through the life of the lease. Any additional underwater man-made features for the
purposes of enhanced scuba experiences or for the attraction of wildlife must be approved
by WDFW (City of Edmonds, 2006).
City of Seattle. The City of Seattle is responsible for the management of six
MPAs, covering 108 acres. All Seattle MPAs were established in 2005, with the
exception of the Lincoln Park Marine Preserve, which was established in 1922. All
Seattle MPAs are considered Zoned Multiple-Use MPAs, with at least one No-Take Zone
(Van Cleve et al., 2009). These areas are protected under Seattle’s Municipal Code.
Under this code, the following activities are prohibited: intentional disturbance, damage,
removal, or destruction of any wildlife or plant species; shellfish harvest, and alteration
of intertidal or subtidal beds. It is the responsibility of Seattle Parks and Recreation
Department to install the necessary signs for control of such activities, as well as provide
the personnel for the enforcement of this code (City Park Marine Reserve Rule, 1990).
City of Tacoma. The City of Tacoma is responsible for the management of two
MPAs, Middle Waterway and Olympic View Resource Area (OVRA). These areas were
both established in 1997, and cover 13 acres jointly. Both of these sites are considered
Uniform Multiple Use MPAs (Van Cleve et al., 2009). Both sites are Natural Resource
Damage Assessment restoration projects, as such they are regulated under the state and
federal laws that govern Superfund sites (D. Pooley, personal communication, February
8, 2011). An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Agreed Order on Consent (AOC)
was drafted in 2002 for the removal of dioxin from the OVRA site. The five-year
physical and chemical monitoring outlined in the AOC has since been completed, and the
site remains under the regulation of the EPA indefinitely (Pentec Environmental, 2003).

29
The Commencement Bay Natural Resource Trustees (Trustees) were originally
given authority over the restoration of both sites, and after several years of monitoring
and maintenance, the Trustees no longer have any legal or regulatory requirements to
perform additional monitoring, maintenance, or adaptive management at these sites.
However, the City of Tacoma has recognized the need for continued stewardship projects
at these sites, and has entered into a Settlement Agreement with the EPA, under which an
escrow account was created to provide necessary funding for such stewardship activities
as site monitoring and maintenance, administration, reporting and documentation and
adaptive management. Bi-monthly qualitative assessments are performed at each site, and
include the observation of survival of recent plantings, human impacts, trash and
vandalism, and the presence of large woody debris, to name a few (City of Tacoma,
2009).
University of Washington. The University of Washington, in cooperation with the
Friday Harbor Lab (FHL), is responsible for the management of the San Juan
County/Cypress Island Marine Biological Preserve, which was established in 1923. This
preserve covers over 2,200 acres and can be considered a Uniform Multiple-Use MPA
(Van Cleve et al., 2009). This MPA was first regulated in the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) in 1923 and later revised in 1969, where the gathering of biological
materials was listed as prohibited, and individuals found to be non-compliant were guilty
of a misdemeanor (Marine Biological Materials, 1969). The FHL sets harvest restrictions
and monitors collecting requests, but no quotas for such types of takings have been
established. Enforcement presence on site varies by location, with a full-time caretaker
present on the FHL preserve on San Juan Island, Shaw Island, and Yellow Island.

30
Regular patrolling is not present on the Argyle Bay or False Bay properties. Signage is
relied upon for public compliance at all of the associated properties. Research and
monitoring is present at this preserve, but only in a few select locations. The SeaDoc
Society has partnered with the University of Washington to assess the effectiveness of
some areas of the preserve. Permanent monitoring stations have been established on the
islands of San Juan, Yellow, Low, and Shaw, as well as in the bottomfish recovery zones
of San Juan County. At these stations, biological communities are enumerated with the
use of benthic transect counts, fixed photo quadrats, photo transects, diver, and remotely
operate motor vehicles and the data is synthesized for observation over time (Van Cleve
et al., 2009).
Other Relevant Mandates
In addition to the agencies listed above and their associated regulations, several
other federal and state authorities are pertinent to the protection of Washington’s marine
and estuarine resources.
Shoreline Management Act
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was adopted in 1971 after increasing
human impacts on the state’s shorelines raised concerns about natural resource use,
protection and restoration. Shorelines refer to all marine waters, streams and rivers, lakes,
upland areas termed shorelands, and wetlands and floodplains under certain conditions.
The SMA is designed to ensure that shoreline development is compatible with both
resource protection and appropriate public access. As such, single family residential, port,
recreational, water-dependent industrial and commercial, and public access developments
are given priority for shoreline alteration. The Act also identifies Shorelines of Statewide

31
Significance, and gives these areas conservation priority over local interest. All waters
within the Puget Sound are considered Shorelines of Statewide Significance, where
certain preferred uses are given priority. These uses include those that 1) preserve the
natural condition of the area, 2) protect shoreline-dependent natural resources and
ecosystems, 3) support long-term benefits, 4) recognize statewide interest over local
interest 5) foster public access and 6) enhance shoreline-dependent recreational activities
(WDOE, 2001).
Under this act, permits must be submitted for any shoreline development;
however, watershed restoration projects are exempt from the permitting process. Oil or
natural gas exploration can be granted along shorelines if the inquiring entity can prove
their project does not interfere with normal public uses or interferes with occurring
shoreline development projects, harm marine life, violate water quality standards, or
create a public nuisance (SMA, 1971).
Under the SMA, cities and counties with shorelines are required to develop a
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) in order to regulate shoreline uses consistent with the
purpose of the SMA. Shoreline Master Programs must contain elements on economic
development, public access, recreation, zoning, natural, historical, and cultural resource
conservation, science, and education. The WDOE is required to assist in the development
of SMPs for cities with ocean coasts, and must approve all SMPs (SMA, 1971).
The SMA and associated SMPs are considered the “core authority” of
Washington’s Coastal Zone Management Program, established under the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (WDOE, 2001, p. 98).

32
Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 was enacted after notable
impacts on coastal areas from growing human population growth and the associated
economic, industrial, commercial, and residential development. This act encourages
coastal states to exercise authority over their respective coastal waters and associated
lands through the development of state Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMP). Under
the CZMA, CZMPs should provide for natural resource protection, coastal development
management, compatible public access to coastal areas, public participation in decision-
making, assistance in the restoration of urban waterfronts, the encouragement of special
area designations and coordination of decision making and management strategies among
relevant agencies.
Coastal Zone Management Plans must be approved by the Secretary of
Commerce. Approval comes with evidence that the plan contains identification of :
coastal boundaries, permissible water and land uses, Areas of Particular Concern, means
by which the state plans to exert authority, the organizational structure of management
bodies, a planning process for energy facility siting and a planning process for studying
shoreline erosion causes and mitigation (CZMA, 1972). The CZMP must outline how
Areas of Particular Concern are designated, and how these areas will be preserved and
restored. In Washington, to be designated as an Area of Particular Concern, a site must
either 1) contain a resource of environmental value considered more important than local
concerns; 2) be identified as an area of concern by federal or state legislature, or 3) have
the potential for more than one water or land use or has value that may cause
disagreement among incompatible users (WDOE, 2001).

33
Washington was the first state to develop a CZMP, gaining approval from NOAA
and publishing the plan in 1976. Washington’s Coastal Zone Management program is
housed under WDOE’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program.
Consequently, WDOE is responsible for the planning, management, and enforcement
described in the CZMP. Washington relies on the statutory authority of already-existing
state regulations to comprise the regulations and enforcement of its CZMP. These
regulations include the SMA, SEPA, Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA), Clean Air
Washington Act (CAWA), the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) law,
and the Ocean Resources Management Act (ORMA). Under SEPA, environmental
impact statements must be drafted for major projects and decisions are interpreted for the
public. These actions are a supplement to the SMA, as all shoreline development
proposals must go through a review process, where the proposal can be modified or
denied. Under WPCA, WDOE is required to draft regulations, make routine inspections,
provide enforcement, and coordinate the dispersal of grants and loans as defined under
the Federal Clean Water Act. The CAWA also authorizes WDOE to coordinate activities
such as rule drafting, permitting, and establishing local clean air authorities, in an effort
to comply with the Federal Clean Air Act standards. In relation to coastal resources, the
EFSEC requires that all proposals for large thermal energy operations, oil refineries that
transport petroleum over marine waters, and the installation of petroleum and natural gas
pipelines, go through a permitting process. Lastly, ORMA acts as a supplement to SMA,
much like SEPA does, but only applies to waters of the Pacific Ocean. Project proposals
that fall between Cape Flattery and Cape Disappointment, within the Exclusive Economic

34
Zone (i.e. the area that begins at mean high tide and extends 200 miles seaward), are
subject to a review process under ORMA (WDOE, 2001).
Marine and Estuarine Ecosystem Protection
In addition to the state’s Shoreline and Coastal Zone Management Acts, other
regulatory mechanisms exist for the purpose of protecting marine and estuarine
ecosystems and communities. For example, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, fronted
by the USFWS, seeks to restore populations of threatened or endangered species, and the
habitats on which they depend. Section 9 of the Act states that it is illegal to take any
such animal by means of harassment, injury, direct killing or significant habitat
modification (Beatley, Brower & Schwab, 2002). The Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972, administered by NOAA makes it illegal to take any marine mammal or to import
any marine mammal product into the United States. However, there are exceptions for
Alaska Natives and for scientific research (NOAA, n.d.d).
Other mandates regulate for development and associated activities of coastal areas
in order to protect their ecosystems and communities. The Coastal Barriers Resources
Act (1982), also directed by the USFWS, provides for the prohibition of federal
incentives for the development of undeveloped coastal barrier systems. This act created
the Coastal Barriers Resources System, an inventory of undeveloped barrier islands that
require protection. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act provides a permitting process for
the release of fill and dredge material into US waters. Permit approval is carried out by
the US Army Corps of Engineers, and is a condition of mitigation to the maximum extent
if there are no practicable alternatives. The National Environmental Policy Act (1970),
administered by the EPA, is more of a policy tool than a regulatory mechanism. This act

35
requires federal agencies to document potential impacts of any project (e.g., shoreline
hardening) to the environment, including marine and estuarine ecosystems. In many
cases, an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared, and include any adverse
impacts of the project and proposed alternatives. This act has no regulatory muscle for
halting projects that have predictable significant impacts, but does provide for
documentation and information dissemination (Beatley, Brower & Schwab, 2002).
Many federal policies prohibit the dumping of waste products, which are cited as
a major threat to marine biodiversity (Gray, 1997). These acts include the: Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries (Ocean Dumping) Act of 1972 administered by the
EPA; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 lead by the EPA; Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 directed by EPA, and the Marine Debris Research, Prevention and Reduction
Act of 2006, lead by EPA in association with NOAA and the US Coast Guard (Beatley,
Brower & Schwab, 2002; NOAA, n.d.a.).
Assessing MPA Effectiveness
Using Biological Criteria to Assess MPA Effectiveness
One way to evaluate the use of MPAs in the marine environment is to assess their
effectiveness in terms of the ability to protect and even enhance biodiversity.
Effectiveness can be defined as the extent to which management actions are achieving the
desired goals and objectives of the protected area (Hockings, Stolton, Leverington,
Dudley & Courrau, 2000). The maintenance or enhancement of commonly exploited fish
populations is one such goal of MPAs. It is widely thought that MPAs increase the
abundance, productivity, and diversity of these fish communities (Claudet et al., 2006;
Friedlander, Brown, & Monaco, 2007; Lubchenco et al., 2003; Wallace, 1999), but this

36
conclusion is not all-encompassing. In the San Juan Islands, Washington, small red
urchins, scallops, rockfish, and lingcod exhibit the same abundance inside MPAs as they
do in unprotected sites (Tuya et al., 2000). Fish communities in southern California even
exhibit decreased abundance after MPA establishment, possibly due to the reserve’s
inadequate size for larval dispersal and recruitment (Parnell et al., 2005). Benthic
communities (e.g., corals, seagrasses) tend to show variable responses to the protection
provided by MPAs, often exhibiting similar conditions to benthic communities outside of
protected areas (Ceccherelli, Casu, Pala, Pinna, & Sechi, 2006; Montefalcone et al., 2009;
Rioja-Nieto & Sheppard, 2008).
Using Management Indicators to Assess MPA Effectiveness
Assessing MPA management policies and practices in addition to assessing
biological criteria is a holistic approach to evaluating MPA effectiveness. Consensus over
the use of management, or governance indicators to assess MPA effectiveness is growing
among conservation practitioners (Pomeroy, Parks & Watson, 2004). Governance refers
to the processes and structures in place used to govern behavior, both private and public
(Ehler, 2003). Indicators are a unit of measurement for a specific piece of information
that can be measured over time (Pomeroy et al., 2004). The chosen set of indicators must
be easy and inexpensive to measure, quantifiable, and easy to communicate over a broad
audience. Additionally, the chosen set of indicators must be relevant to management
goals, have a clear link to some environmental outcome, and provide early warning signs
of potential issues (Ehler, 2003). Consequently, no one set or model of indicator
assessment may be used for all protected areas, but must be adapted for a specific
location with specific management goals.

37
Multiple models have been created to assess governance in protected areas, with
many being adapted specifically for MPAs. Some models utilize multiple types of
indicators in a purely qualitative manner, i.e. the chosen indicators are not scored with a
numeric system (Hockings et al., 2006; Ojeda-Martínez et al., 2009; Pomeroy et al.,
2004). For example, Pomeroy et al. (2004) laid out an evaluation methodology that
included biophysical, socio-economic and governance indicators. Biophysical indicators
include focal species abundance and food web integrity, among others. Examples of
socio-economic indicators include perceptions of seafood availability and household
occupational structure. Governance indicators include local understanding of MPA rules
and regulations and enforcement coverage. Hockings et al. (2006) developed and
implemented a six-part management evaluation process: 1) context review (i.e., what is
the existing status and what are the pressures of the area); 2) planning (i.e., what are the
goals of the area and how will they be achieved); 3) inputs (i.e., what resources are
needed to effectively manage the area); 4) process (i.e., what are the standard
management procedures;) 5) outputs (i.e., what are the results of the first four steps), and
6) outcomes (i.e., were the management objectives achieved). Ojeda-Martínez et al.
(2009) developed a similar Driver-Pressure-State-Impacts-Response (DPSIR) framework
as a tool for MPA evaluation, which can help managers select indicators best suited for
their site’s unique makeup of drivers (i.e., elements that cause changes in the protected
area’s system), pressures (i.e., factors that threaten protected area resources); state (i.e.,
current condition of the protected area); impacts (i.e., how certain resources are
changing), and response (i.e., how communities and agencies respond to changing
environments).

38
Other evaluation methodologies utilize more measurable systems of assessment
of protected areas. One model scored indicators using easily recognizable universal
characters: a plus sign for a positive trend, a minus sign for a negative trend, an equals
sign for no change, and a question mark for unknown measurement (Muthiga, 2009). The
World Wildlife Fund’s Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area
Management Methodology scores indicators based on the condition of a benchmark
statement using qualifiers. This model uses the phrases “yes,” “mostly yes,” “mostly no”
and “no” to score the condition of each indicator (Ervin, 2003). Because the above-
mentioned models do not operate on a numerical scoring system, their use for statistical
analyses is limited.
Few governance indicator models have been developed that allow trends in MPA
management to be analyzed statistically (Staub & Hatziolos, 2004; Walmsley & White,
2003). The indicators used in these models are ranked based on the condition of the
parameter being measured in the protected area. For example, the presence of guards on
site is an easily quantifiable indicator, and can be scored as such: no guards on site (score
= 0), guards occasionally present (score = 1), guards present for a limited period per day
(score = 2) or guards present 24 hours a day (score = 3). The information needed to use
these types of indicators can be retrieved through site visits, the review of management
documents, and through interviews with management officials (Walmsley & White,
2003).
This type of quantitative management evaluation technique was used to assess the
influence of social and governance factors on the success of a marine sanctuary in the
Phillippines (Walmsley & White, 2003). Degree of community involvement was

39
measured and scored on a scale of zero to three. A score of zero was given if the
respondents believed that the community knew of the sanctuary; one if the community
was in favor of the sanctuary; two if the community was involved in the management of
the sanctuary, and three if the community benefited from the sanctuary’s existence.
Management and enforcement indicators were also measured and scored on a scale of
zero to three, depending on the degree of compliance with the positive indicator. The
management indicators measured were sanctuary boundary demarcation, availability of
information and educational material, presence of mooring buoys, and the presence of
guards. The enforcement indicators measured were presence of anchors/anchor damage,
frequency of regulatory violations, severity of regulatory violations, and enforcement of
punishments. After surveying the sanctuary for fish and substrate cover, it was found that
both management and enforcement scores were significantly related to some positive
ecological trends. The management scores were positively related to increased abundance
in large predators, and to the change in soft coral cover in deeper areas of the sanctuary.
The enforcement scores were positively related to increased the change in abundance of
target species, and explained some of the variation in the change in species richness,
although not significantly (Walmsley & White, 2003).

40
CHAPTER III
METHODS
The assessment of the effectiveness of MPAs in the Puget Sound was achieved
through six steps: 1) setting controls and site selection; 2) utilizing GIS technology to
determine pre-existing environmental conditions at each site; 3) surveying intertidal
communities for presence/absence and abundance data; 4) quantifying community
compositions; 5) numerically evaluating the management policies and practices in place
at each MPA selected and 6) completing a statistical analysis to compare biodiversity,
management policy/practice, and protection level.
Physical Setting and Site Selection Criteria
The Puget Sound estuary is located between the Olympic Mountains to the west,
and the Cascade Mountains to the east. The entire Puget Sound watershed covers 17,000
square miles, with approximately 2,800 square miles of that area being comprised of
passages, deep channels, inlets, bays, and 52 islands. Puget Sound was formed via glacial
carving of glacial and interglacial sediments about 10,000 to 14,000 years ago. This
carving created the deep and narrow channels, islands, and peninsulas that can be seen
within the Sound today (Gelfenbaum et al., 2006).
The most common shoreline class in the Puget Sound is one of mixed sand and
gravel beaches supported by high coastal bluffs. Soft-bottom habitats are generally
confined to the northern Sound, are more common than rocky-bottom habitats. Other
habitat types found within the Sound are river deltas, tidal flats and salt marshes (King
County Department of Natural Resources, 2001). Puget Sound is mainly composed of
four rock types: quaternary glacial drift and alluvium, extrusive igneous rock, intrusive

41
igneous and metamorphic rock, and consolidated sedimentary rock. The average depth of
the Sound at the mean low water level is 205 feet, and is deepest just off of Point
Jefferson, about five miles northwest of Seattle, where the depth reaches 930 feet. Tidal
range changes drastically across the sound. Daily tidal water level change is
approximated at eight feet in the Strait of Juan de Fuca; 11.3 feet in Seattle; and 13 feet in
Tacoma. In respect to mean lower low water lines, tidal extremes (minimum-maximum)
for these locations during July of 2009 were -1.24 – 11.08 feet, 4.05 – 20.09 feet, and -
3.17 – 13.32 feet, respectively (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
2010). Precipitation within the Sound is the product of a temperate maritime climate, and
annual averages range between 33.59 inches at Bellingham to 52.37 inches at Olympia.
Average annual temperatures range from 49.1°F in Bellingham to 53.2°F in Seattle
(Kruckeberg, 1991).
Surface waters within Puget Sound are generally cold, nutrient-rich, and highly
productive. Surface water temperatures vary seasonally, and range from 13°F to 45°F and
have an average salinity of 27 psu (practical salinity units). Deeper waters within the
Sound are around 43°F and have an average salinity of 30 psu (Gelfenbaum et al., 2006).
MPAs of a similar habitat type and environmental condition were selected in
order to ensure that basic variables of substrate, fetch and age were not a factor in
affecting possible differences in biodiversity across sites. Only MPAs located in partly
enclosed, intertidal, estuarine areas with mixed coarse substrates (as described by WDNR
ShoreZone data) that were established between 1998 and 2005 were included in this
survey. Mixed coarse substrates allow for maximum species richness, as many intertidal
organisms are sessile and cling to rocky substrates, eliminating the need to perform

42
bivalve digs. Additionally, partly enclosed beaches have minimal fetch, allowing for
more wave energy-sensitive species (e.g., mussels) to establish themselves. Lastly, only
MPAs established between 1998 and 2005 were selected as this age group was most
prevalent among beaches with mixed coarse substrate and partial enclosure, allowing for
the largest possible sample size.
Nine MPA sites were surveyed, divided equally between the following protection
classes: 1) uniform multiple-use, 2) zoned multiple-use with no-take (i.e. no harvest or
collection) area, and 3) no take. These classes represent protection levels ranging from
low to high, respectively. Nine areas with no MPA designation adjacent to those listed
above were also selected, and served as comparative control sites. Control sites were
placed at approximately 250 meters from the center of their adjacent MPA.
After the above-mentioned criteria were taken into consideration, the following
UML MPAs plus their adjacent unnamed control sites were selected to be included in this
survey: Possession Point State Park (PPMPA), Colvos Passage Marine Preserve
(CPMPA), and Titlow Beach Marine Preserve (TLMPA). The following ZNL MPAS
plus their adjacent control sites were selected: Discovery Park (DPMPA), Emma Schmitz
Memorial Marine Preserve (ESMPA), and Richey Viewpoint Marine Preserve
(RVMPA). The following NTL MPAs were selected: City of Des Moines Park
Conservation Area (DMMPA), South 239th
Street Park Conservation Area (SSMPA), and
Octopus Hole Conservation Area (OHC) (Figure 1). A “C” is added to the end of site
names to denote “control site” (e.g., OHC for Octopus Hole Control site).

43
Figure 1. Map illustrating MPAs and control sites selected for evaluation.

44
Determination of Pre-Existing Environmental Conditions
Environmental conditions at each site were determined with the use of the GIS
software ArcGIS (ESRI, 2010). At each site, two 200 meter-wide, 100 meter-deep (from
the shoreline) study area polygons were centered on each survey point (Figure 2). The
area of each rectangle was dependent on the shape of the shoreline. Inside each rectangle,
the proportion of various relevant environmental factors that might influence biodiversity
at each site was calculated (Table 2).
Figure 2. Study area polygons used to calculate the proportions of certain
environmental conditions at each site in ArcMap10.

45
Table 2
Datasets Used to Measure Environmental Conditions at Each Site.
Dataset Name Type Source Year
Landuse/Landcover Raster United States Geological Survey 2001
303(d) Listed Waters Shapefile Washington Department of Natural Resources 2007
Slope Stability Shapefile Washington Department of Ecology 2004
Eelgrass Distribution Shapefile Washington Department of Natural Resources 2007
PHS Shapefile Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2011
Landuse/landcover was measured as surrounding landuse may affect intertidal
communities in different ways, e.g., a beach surrounded by high density commercial
development may have a very different intertidal community than a beach community
surrounded by coastal wetlands. The presence of 303(d) listed waters was measured as
certain pollutants can affect intertidal communities. For example, if a beach receives
runoff from a wastewater treatment plant, those high concentrations of organic matter can
cause eutrophication. Slope stability was measured to capture differences in erosion
susceptibility and beach morphology. Eelgrass distribution was measured as eelgrass
beds are important for reproduction and juvenile rearing for many marine species
(Kozloff, 1993). Lastly, presence of priority habitats and species was measured to
illustrate the presence of biodiversity hotspots or areas of unique habitat which may
support more rich intertidal communities. This information was used to compare
environmental conditions between MPAs and control sites, and between MPAs
representing different protection levels, in order to ensure that these variables did not play
a role in creating compositional differences between comparable intertidal communities.
Intertidal Community Survey
Sampling occurred at extreme low tide events during the summer of 2010 in order
to capture the presence of all intertidal communities situated at different tidal heights

46
(Table 3). Low tide days along were determined with the use of daily tide charts provided
by NOAA. Belt transect surveys were completed at each of the 18 study sites, taking one
day to complete per site. Following methods outlined by Island County/WSU
Beachwatchers, one transect was placed perpendicular to the water’s edge, from the
backshore to the predicted lowest tidal height in reference to the Mean Lower Low Water
(MLLW) for that day (Figure 3). Tidal predictions were retrieved from NOAA’s Tides
and Currents website (NOAA, n.d.). Within 10 feet of either side of the transect line, the
presence or absence of intertidal organisms (e.g., seaweeds, crustaceans, bivalves) was
recorded down to the lowest taxonomic level possible (see Appendix C for sample data
sheets). Some detail is lost in performing presence/absence counts. For example, a ten-
foot interval that had one checkered periwinkle snail (Littorina scutulata) will be
recorded the same way as another ten-foot interval that had 100 checkered periwinkle
snails. However, this method is advantageous when sampling time is limited.
Additionally, three transects were placed parallel to the water’s edge at each site,
and were set at the +1, 0, and -1 foot tidal heights in reference to the MLLW for that day
(Figure 3). The identification of these tidal heights was determined with the use of the
computer software, WXTide32 Version 4.7, as this software allows the user to determine
the exact time of certain tidal heights, making transect placement more accurate (Hopper,
2007). Three 0.25 m2
quadrats were placed along each transect, with the center quadrat
placed on the center line of the belt transect, and the other two spaced 15 feet from either
side of this center, and were used to record the type and abundance of intertidal
organisms present (Island County/WSU Beach Watchers, 2003). Aggregating organisms
(e.g. aggregating anemones, barnacles, etc.) and vegetation were recorded as percentage

47
cover while more solitary organisms (e.g. sea stars, limpets, etc.) were recorded as a
count of individuals. Any percentage cover recording was later transformed into
abundance data with the use of individual size measurements from the literature. Species
identification was aided through training with the Island County/WSU Beach Watchers
the spring prior to sampling, and many guides were used in field (Adams & Holmes,
2007, 2009; Kozloff, 1993; Lamb & Hanby, 2005; Sept, 1999).
To ensure the validity of site comparisons, proportions of substrate sizes (e.g.,
cobble, gravel, sand) and slope was estimated within the belt transects. Slope was
estimated within every 10-foot interval of the belt transect by first tying a string fitted
with a bubble level to a stake at the upland point of the 10-foot interval. At the downhill
point of the interval, the string was adjusted until the level was balanced, and then a
meter stick was placed adjacent to the string to observe the elevation of the string from
the substrate’s surface. This elevation was then transformed into feet, and divided by 10
(feet) to obtain slope in percentage. Substrate composition was estimated visually.
Table 3
Schedule for Intertidal Community Surveys.
Site Date
Surveyed
Site Date
Surveyed
Des Moines Beach MPA July 8, 2010 South 239th
Street Control July 25, 2010
Emma Schmitz MPA July 9, 2010 Discovery Park MPA July 26, 2010
Emma Schmitz Control July 10, 2010 Titlow Beach MPA August 6, 2010
Richey Viewpoint MPA July 11, 2010 Titlow Beach Control August 7, 2010
Des Moines Beach Control July 13, 2010 Octopus Hole MPA August 8, 2010
South 239th
Street MPA July 14, 2010 Octopus Hole Control August 9, 2010
Richey Viewpoint Control July 22, 2010 Discovery Park Control August 10, 2010
Colvos Passage Control July 23, 2010 Possession Point MPA August 11, 2010
Colvos Passage MPA July 24, 2010 Possession Point Control September 6, 2010

48
Figure 3. Sample layout for intertidal community survey. A = length of belt transect,
from backshore environment to water’s edge at low tide. B = width of belt transect, 20
feet. C = distance between quadrats, 15 feet. D = distance from backshore environment to
+1 foot tidal height. E = distance from backshore environment to 0 foot tidal height. F =
distance from backshore environment to -1 foot tidal height. T1-Q1 = a unique identifier
for the first quadrat sampled at the first tidal height observed.

Dilworth_Thesis_Final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Dilworth_Thesis_Final

Similar to Dilworth_Thesis_Final (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Dilworth_Thesis_Final