CZ2011

CZ2011

• 1.
  Management Strategy Context What factors weretaken into consideration prior to MPA designation? Example Indicator A resource inventory was conducted prior to designation Planning Documents and legislative tools for MPA implementation Example Indicator MPA boundaries are properly demarcated Inputs Resources used to implement management Example Indicator Level of patrol staff is sufficient to enforce laws and regulations Process Procedures and methods used to manage the area Example Indicator Educational material is accessible to the public COUPLING INTERTIDAL COMMUNITY SURVEYS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY EVALUATIONS TO ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IN THE PUGET SOUND, WASHINGTON Erin Dilworth, Master of Science Candidate Central Washington University, Resource Management Graduate Program [email protected] ABSTRACT Intertidal community response to Marine Protected Area (MPA) designation and related management strategies in the Puget Sound, WA 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 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 may need more managerial attention before differences can be detected inside protected areas. Do MPAs maintain or enhance intertidal biodiversity within their boundaries, and what roles do protection level and management strategy play? INTRODUCTION Washington State is home to 127 aquatic and terrestrial reserves known as Marine Protected Areas, totaling roughly 644,000 acres and 1,136 miles of shoreline. The term “Marine Protected Area” has been active in the management landscape since the early 1990s as a means of networking and coordinating the design and implementation of protected areas. Many protected area designations are included in Washington’s system of MPAs: •National, state and city parks •Marine sanctuaries and wildlife refuges •Conservation areas and marine preserves, etc. The widespread approval and implementation of MPAs has been hindered as their applicability as an effective management instrument has been questioned due to the lack of a single program-wide design or coordination scheme across the 12 diverse managing agencies in the state. Common discrepancies include dissimilar or mismatched objectives, site selection criteria, implementation design, funding, protection level designation and monitoring practices. The MPA Work Group has identified data gaps in coordination and consistency, and has called for performance evaluations of existing MPAs to determine if they provide enough ecosystem protection and if the various levels of protection provided are proficient in achieving their management goals. PUGET SOUND INTERTIDAL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY EVALUATION INTERTIDAL COMMUNITY SURVEY A quantitative evaluation of the management policies and practices in place at each MPA surveyed was completed through combination of review and evaluation of management documents, observations of management practices made during field visits, and interviews with site managers. Indicators, or criteria used to assess the condition of a system, are widely used to evaluate and quantitatively score management policies and practices. Indicators were chosen to evaluate four components of management: context, planning, inputs, and processes. Evidence used to evaluate each indicator was scored as considerable, moderate or negligible. 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. The Puget Sound basin is home to over 200 species of fish, 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 mammals. This diverse mix of life is being threatened by multiple human-induced shoreline modifications such as diking, dredging, armoring, extraction, and deforestation. As of 2006, 64 species have been listed as a “species of concern”, growing from 60 in 2002. Many of these species rely on nearshore environments, suggesting that declines are at least in part due to changes in nearshore ecosystems. Intertidal communities are heavily impacted by commercial and recreational harvest, and non-consumptive losses due to collecting, trampling and rock turning, among others. Sampling occurred at extreme low tide events during the summer of 2010. Sites were selected to control for substrate, fetch, age and level of protection. Three Uniform Multiple Use, three Zoned Multiple Use, and three No Take MPAs, plus nine adjacent control sites were surveyed. 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. Within 10 feet of either side of the transect line, the presence or absence of intertidal organisms was recorded down to the lowest taxonomic level possible. 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. Belt transect survey method. WSU/Island Co. Beach Watchers performing quadrat survey. Sample intertidal community survey layout. Left: Map of 18 study sites Top: Emma Schmitz Memorial Marine Preserve in Seattle. Bottom: Colvos Passage Marine Preserve in Gig Harbor. Pictures are illustrative of mismatched siting criteria and environmental conditions Protection Level 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 Area(s) (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. Blood star (Henricia leviuscula) Acorn barnacle (Balanus glandula) Red rock crab (Cancer productus) Lewis’ moonsnail (Euspira lewisii) Purple sea star (Pisaster ochraceus) Pacific plate limpet (Lottia scutum) Mossy chiton (Mopalia muscosa)Goose barnacle (Pollicipes polymerus) Green sea anemone (Anthopluera xanthogrammica) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION • Intertidal community composition is similar between MPA and control sites, and do not become less similar with increased protection indicating that higher levels of protection do not necessarily enhance intertidal community richness. •Pacific blue mussel, red velvet mite, aggregating anemone and dogwinkle snails show significant response to level of protection, and in only one case (Pacific blue mussel) did NTL sites outrank ZNL sites, again suggesting that higher levels of protection do not necessarily enhance individual species’ abundance. •Pacific blue mussel and red velvet mite also showed significantly higher proportions at MPAs than at control sites. •Invertebrate diversity was found to be significantly higher at the -1’ tidal height quadrats of MPAs than control sites, and was positively correlated with well-developed planning strategies and with highly scoring management regimes as a whole (average of context, planning, inputs and process scores). Invertebrate diversity at the 0’ tidal height was negatively correlated with poorly developed planning strategies and positively correlated with total management. •Vegetation diversity at the -1 foot tidal heights was negatively correlated with highly scoring management regimes - those with more developed planning strategies especially – and positively correlated to underdeveloped planning strategies. •No significant correlation was found between similarity coefficients and management scores. One would expect that site pairings of low similarity (i.e., MPA and control site do not have similar intertidal communities) would correlate with high management scores. Lack of such findings suggests that intertidal communities do not respond to management strategies in any right, and may be more a function of environmental conditions or other variables not studied here. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that there was no correlation between any intertidal community parameter and management context, inputs or process. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PercentageSimilarity Sorenson Coefficient Coefficient of Community Percent Similarity Level of Protection 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 Simpson'sInvertebrateDiversity Index Planning Scores - % Considerable 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 Simpson'sInvertebrateDiversity Index Planning Scores - % Negligible 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 Simpson'sInvertebrateDiversityIndex Average Management Scores - % Considerable 0' -1' 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 Simpson'sVegetationDiversity Index Average Management Scores - % Considerable Red velvet mite (Neomolgus littoralis) Pacific blue mussel (Mytilus trossulus) Aggregating anemone (Anthopleura elegantissima) Dogwinkle snails (Nucella spp.) Invertebrate diversity at the 0 and -1 foot tidal heights correlation with proportion of site average management scores evaluated at “considerable”, p = 0.0584 and P = 0.0756, respectively. Invertebrate diversity at the -1’ tidal height correlation with proportion of site planning scores evaluated as “considerable”, p = 0.0441. Invertebrate diversity at the 0’ tidal height correlation with proportion of site planning scores evaluated as “negligible”. p = 0.0853. Vegetation diversity at the -1’ tidal heights correlation with proportion of total average management score evaluated as “considerable”, p = 0.0756. Mary Jo Adams Mary Jo Adams Dave Ingram
• 2.
  MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1) TheMPAs studied here only addressed a few potential causes of negative impacts to intertidal communities (i.e. only harvest was restricted in these MPAs). Human trampling has proven to be a limiting factor for intertidal populations, consequently, a habitat-focused approach to marine conservation may be more effective than harvest regulations. 2) Enhanced knowledge and understanding of intertidal population dynamics in order to more appropriately site and design MPAs for population replenishment considerations. Some of the MPAs used in this study may have been too small to facilitate benthic population replenishment or to protect intertidal communities from external stressors such as pollution. 3) Zoned-multiple Use MPAs often showed higher abundances of some organisms than No Take Reserves - consider implementing more ZNL MPAs, given the uncertainty of the effectiveness of no- take reserves and the potentially lower financial and administrative costs of ZNLs versus NTLs. 4) Approach further MPA establishment with caution: the results of this study coupled with a lack of unambiguous data from the scientific community surrounding the effectiveness of MPAs in general may lead to artificially high expectations of managers and the public, and may lead to an abandonment of MPA establishment if outcomes continue to be variable. CONCLUSIONS The goal of this study was to determine the effectiveness of MPAs in the Puget Sound by evaluating intertidal communities and the management strategies which oversee their protection. Intertidal communities showed variable responses to MPA designation, with only a few individual species (i.e., Pacific blue mussel and red velvet mite) showing higher abundances in MPAs versus unprotected control sites. Invertebrate diversity in low elevation areas showed a positive response to MPA protection, and positively correlated with well-developed management strategies. However, intertidal communities as a whole were similar between protected and non-protected sites. These communities showed no correlation with management inputs and processes, indicating that variable environmental conditions or other external stressors may play a bigger role in shaping intertidal community structure. Low elevation invertebrate communities did positively correlate with increased efforts in planning, suggesting that a well-developed management plan is key to protecting invertebrate diversity. Given the variability of documented MPA research and the results of this study, some further research is warranted in order to address some of these management recommendations and the ambiguity surrounding MPA efficacy in the Puget Sound: 1) Do sites that address all causes of intertidal disturbance (i.e., No Access MPAs) have healthier intertidal communities? 2) How do external stressors (e.g., chemical contamination, conflicting landuses, etc.) affect intertidal communities? 3) What are the habitat requirements for reproduction, migration and juvenile rearing for intertidal populations, especially those keystone species which help shape intertidal community composition? ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to the CWU Faculty Development and Research Committee for providing funding to complete this research. Thanks to Amanda Johnston and Jeff Malone for help in surveying intertidal communities, and Tommy Wachholder for GIS help. Thanks to my advisor, Dr. Anthony Gabriel, for continued help in developing this research. Lastly, thank you to my friends and family who have supported me throughout my entire academic career. REFERENCES Agardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M.P., Day, J., Dayton, P.K., Kenchington, R. et al. (2003). Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 13, 353-367. Allison, G.W., Lubchenco, J. & Carr, M.H. (1998). Marine reserves are necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation. Ecological Applications, 8(1) Supplement, S79-S92. Carney, D. & Kvitek, R.G. (1991). Assessment of nongame marine invertebrate harvest in Washington. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Dethier, M.N., Duggins, D.O. & Mumford, T.F. Jr. (1989). Harvesting of non-traditional marine resources in Washington State: Trends and concerns. The Northwest Environmental Journal, 5, 71-87. Ervin, J. (2003). WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N., & Courrau, J. (2006). Evaluating effectiveness: a framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas, 2nd edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xiv + 105 pp. Island County/WSU Beach Watchers. (2003). Training manual for Island County/Washington State University Beach Watchers: Beach monitoring procedures. Coupeville, WA: Author. Murray, M.R. & Fergeson, L. (1998). The Status of Marine Protected Areas in Puget Sound. Proceedings of the 1998 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference, Seattle, WA. Pomeroy, R.S., Parks, J.E., & Watson, L.M. (2004). How is your MPA doing? A guidebook of natural and social indicators for evaluating marine protected area management effectiveness. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xvi + 216 pp. Van Cleve, F.B., Bargmann, G., Culver, M., & The MPA Work Group. (2009). Marine Protected Areas in Washington: Recommendations of the Marine Protected Areas Work Group to the Washington State Legislature. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.