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.

49
Quantification of Community Composition
Multiple tests were performed to quantify intertidal community composition.
These tests can be divided into analysis of transect data, and the analysis of quadrat data.
Analysis of Transect Data
Similarity coefficients using binary measures were used to compare results
between the presence/absence data from a selected MPA and the adjacent site with no
MPA designation. A binary measure of similarity was used because only
presence/absence data was taken, not quantitative measures like abundance or biomass
(Krebs, 1999). The data needed to estimate such a similarity coefficient is as follows:
a = Number of species in sample A and sample B (joint occurrences)
b = Number of species in sample B but not in sample A
c = Number of species in sample A but not in sample B
The binary similarity coefficient used in this quantification was the coefficient of
Sorenson. This coefficient shows how similar (in percentage) two biological communities
are to one another, and was used here to see how similar intertidal communities at MPAs
were to their respective control sites. The coefficient of Sorensen uses the following
equation:
Ss =
An additional measure of similarity that was used to compare transect data is
percentage similarity. Percentage similarity is useful in that binary data can be used and
the test is relatively unaffected by small sample size and richness (Krebs, 1999). Each

50
sample was standardized into percentages, so that the relative abundances all amounted to
100 percent. Percentage similarity uses the following equation:
P = )
where P = Percentage similarity between sample 1 and 2
p1i = Percentage of species i in community sample 1
p2i = Percentage of species i in community sample 2
Another measure similarity used to analyze transect data was coefficient of
community. This measure is different than percentage similarity in that it measures the
difference is proportion of each species, rather than just the number of species (Smith,
1990). The coefficient of community can be calculated as follows:
C = (100)
where C = measure of similarity between two communities (from 0 to 100)
a = sum of scores for one community
b = sum of scores for the second community
W = sum of lower scores for each species
Lastly, the proportion of each species’ occurrence within each transect was
calculated. For example, if an aggregating anemone (Anthopluera elegantissima)
occurred in 11 of the 25 ten-foot intervals of the transect, the proportion of occurrence for
this species would be 44%.
Analysis of Quadrat Data
Because abundance of individuals was recorded within the quadrats, a measure
that captures both heterogeneity and evenness was utilized (Krebs, 1999). Simpson’s

51
index of diversity, a measure of biodiversity was used to analyze quadrat data. Simpson’s
index is calculated as follows:
D = 1 –
where D = Simpson’s Index
pi = Proportion of species i in the community.
Management Practice and Process Evaluation
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 (Krebs, 1999; Muthiga, 2009). Specific indicators used in this study were
adapted from established methodologies used for the evaluation of protected areas (Ehler,
2003; Ervin, 2003; Hockings et al., 2006; Muthiga, 2009; Pomeroy et al., 2004; Staub &
Hatziolos, 2004; Walmsley & White, 2003). Indicators were chosen to evaluate the
context, planning, inputs, and processes in place at each MPA. Context refers to what
factors were taken into consideration prior to a site’s establishment as a MPA such as
justification (e.g., what resources would be protected), vulnerability to anthropogenic
stressors, and longterm viability (i.e., how will the area respond to future threats such as
development and climate change). Planning refers to planning documents and appropriate
legal protection and boundary demarcation. Inputs refer to what resources go into
managing the area, such as staffing, infrastructure, funding and research. Process refers to
what procedures and methods are used to manage the area, including: 1) management

52
planning (e.g., are the results of research and monitoring incorporated into planning); 2)
decision making (e.g., internal organization is clear); 3) research, monitoring and
evaluation of resources; 4) enforcement of regulations, and 5) implementation of
education and awareness programs. See Tables 4 - 7 for the list of indicators used to
evaluate the selected MPAs.
Table 4
Indicators Used to Evaluate the Context of MPA Management
Subcategory Indicators
Justification 1. A resource inventory was conducted prior to designation.
2. Designation criteria were used to establish the area as an MPA.
3. Public input was taken into consideration prior to the area’s
designation as an MPA.
Vulnerability 1. Surrounding land use is favorable for protected area establishment.
2. There has been an analysis of the area’s threats and pressures.
Long-term
viability
1. Climate change and sea level rise were taken into consideration
prior to designation.
2. Projected development in the surrounding area will not be a
detriment to the mission of the protected area.
3. The MPA has long term, legally bound protection.
Table 5
Indicators Used to Evaluate the Planning of MPA Management
Management
plan
1. There exists a management plan for the area.
2. The management plan is relatively recently written.
3. The plan is complete and contains the following elements which are
clearly defined:
i. Goals
ii. Objectives
iii. Management Strategy
a. Advisory committees
b. Interagency agreements
c. Boundaries
d. Zoning Plan
e. Regulations
f. Social, cultural, and resource studies plan
g. Resource management plan
h. Interpretive plan

53
Table 5 (continued)
i. Public Input
iv. Administration
a. Staffing
b. Training
c. Facilities and equipment
d. Budget and business plans, finance sources
v. Surveillance and enforcement
Security 1. MPA boundaries are properly demarcated on site.
Table 6
Indicators Used to Evaluate the Inputs of MPA Management
Staffing 1. A decision-making and management body is in existence.
2. The level of staffing is sufficient to effectively manage the area.
3. Staff members have adequate skills to conduct critical management
activities.
4. Training and development opportunities are appropriate to the needs
of the staff.
5. The level of patrol staff is sufficient to effectively enforce laws and
regulations.
Infrastructure 1. Transportation infrastructure is adequate to perform critical
management activities.
2. Field equipment adequate to perform critical management activities.
3. Staff facilities adequate to perform critical management activities.
4. There are adequate systems for processing and analyzing data.
Finances 1. Funding in the past five years has been adequate to perform critical
2. Funding for the next five years is adequate to conduct critical
3. Funding is not entirely dependent on government funding; instead,
funding also comes from NGOs, taxes, fees, etc.
Research 1. A program of management-oriented survey and research work is in
operation.

54
Table 7
Indicators Used to Evaluate the Process of MPA Management
Management
Planning
1. There is a strategy for addressing the area’s threats and pressures.
2. A detailed work plan identifies specific targets for achieving
management objectives.
3. The results of research and monitoring are routinely incorporated
into planning.
Management
decision-
making
1. There is clear internal organization.
2. Management decision-making in transparent.
3. Staff regularly collaborates with partners, local communities, and
other organizations.
Research,
monitoring and
evaluation
1. Critical research and monitoring needs are identified and prioritized.
2. Key biophysical, socioeconomic, and governance issues are
monitored and evaluated.
Enforcement 1. Clear authority is provided to enforce regulations.
2. Appropriate penalties are assessed for non-compliance.
Education and
awareness
1. Educational material is accessible to the public.
2. Public outreach program has been created and is operational.
Each indicator was stated as a “benchmark” statement, i.e. described the ideal
condition of a particular element of management. Available evidence to support each
indicator was then scored as “considerable,” “moderate” or “negligible.” An indicator
receiving a score of “considerable” refers to evidence sufficient to support the claim that
a certain management element was obvious and well developed and currently being
implemented. An indicator receiving a score of “moderate” refers to evidence suggesting
that a certain management element was only partially developed or was present but not
fully enforced. An indicator receiving a score of “negligible” could refer to a lack of
evidence to support the accuracy of the statement, or could refer to the complete lack of
consideration for a certain management element. If two sites had similar management
strategies but it later became clear that they were scored differently, scores were then
adjusted to reflect higher scoring accuracy and the similarity between the sites.

55
The proportion of indicator statements receiving a score of considerable,
moderate or negligible was then calculated for each category. For example, the context
category includes eight different indicators. For Site A, two of these indicators received a
score of considerable, five were moderate, and one was negligible. Consequently, for the
context category, 25% of indicators were rated considerable, 62.5% were rated moderate
and 12.5% were rated negligible. Once these proportions were determined for each
category, average total proportional scores were calculated.
Some subjectivity is inherent in this type of evaluation; however, given the
descriptions of how the indicators were scored, this method is replicable. Scoring was
based on a three-tiered system in order to capture nuances in management strategy
between MPAs. Adding more scoring tiers may have given a false sense of precision.
The questions used to determine context, inputs and process scores are outlined in
Tables 8-10. Planning indicator scores were determined with the use of management
documents and field observations.
Table 8
Information Used to Determine Context Scores
Subcategory Questions
Justification 1. Does a resource inventory exist for this MPA?
2. What types of criteria were used to establish this site as an MPA?
3. How is the public involved in the designation and protection of the
MPA?
4. Were public meetings held prior to the area’s designation as an MPA?
5. Were public comments taken into consideration prior to the area’s
designation?
Vulnerability 1. Was surrounding landuse considered prior to the MPA’s
establishment?
2. Are there guidelines for what is considered appropriate surrounding
land use in the establishment of a MPA?
3. Has the area’s threats and pressures been inventoried?

56
Table 8 (continued)
Long-term
viability
1. Were sea level rise projections considered prior to the MPA’s
establishment?
2. Was projected development in the surrounding area considered prior to
the MPAs establishment?
Table 9
Information Used to Determine Inputs Scores
Staffing 1. Is there a system for making management-related decisions?
2. Is individual responsibility in making management decisions clearly
defined?
3. How many staff members take responsibility in the management of
the MPA?
4. What percent of their time is devoted to the management of the
MPA?
5. What were the qualifications for potential management staff (i.e.
level of education, years of experience)?
6. What opportunities exist for staff to increase their knowledge and
awareness of pertinent management issues?
7. What opportunities exist for staff to increase their level of skill in
the area of natural resource management (e.g. training in
monitoring, data analysis, etc.)?
8. What enforcement entity is responsible for patrolling the area?
9. How often is the site patrolled?
Infrastructure 1. How does staff make site visits?
2. What equipment is available to staff to collect data?
3. What types of facilities are available to staff to store, process, and
analyze data?
4. What systems are available for processing and analyzing data (i.e.
computer software)?
Finances 1. What is the primary source of funding for the management of the
area?
2. What is the permanency of this funding source?

57
Table 10
Information Used to Determine Process Scores
Management
planning
1. How are the area’s threats and pressures identified and dealt with?
2. What is done with the results of research and monitoring activities?
Management
decision-
making
1. Is there a system for making management-related decisions?
2. Is individual responsibility in making management decisions clearly
defined?
3. How are management decisions relayed to the public?
4. What collaborations exist for the purposes of making management
decisions?
Research,
monitoring and
evaluation
1. How often is the site monitored for biophysical or social data?
2. What types of data is collected from the site?
Enforcement 1. What enforcement entity is responsible for patrolling the area?
2. How often is the site patrolled?
3. What penalties are assessed for non-compliance with the area’s rules
and regulations?
Education and
awareness
1. How does the managing agency address public outreach?
2. What sorts of public outreach and education programs are in place at
this MPA?
Statistical Analysis
Once the collected data were transformed using the above-mentioned procedures
(i.e. similarity coefficients, Simpson’s Index, species’ proportions and management
scoring), statistical analyses could be performed. The Wilcoxon T test was used to test for
differences in Simpson’s Index values at each tidal height (i.e. +1, 0, and -1 foot)
between MPAs and control sites. This test was also used to test for differences in species’
proportions between MPAs and control sites. Lastly, this test was used to test for
differences in environmental conditions (including slope and substrate) between MPAs
and control sites. This test was appropriate for this study in that the data collected was
non-parametric and not normally distributed (McDonald, 2009).

58
The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test for: 1) differences in Simpson’s Index
values among MPAs of different protection level (including control sites) for each tidal
height; 2) differences in similarity coefficients among the different levels of protection,
and 3) differences in species’ proportions among MPAs of different protection level
(including control sites). These tests were performed in order to determine differences in
intertidal communities between MPAs and unprotected sites, and between different levels
of protection. This test was also used to test for differences in environmental conditions
(including slope and substrate) between MPAs of different levels of protection. This test
was appropriate for this data as there was a small sample size in which the data was not
normally distributed (McDonald, 2009).
A Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used to test for significant
relationships between similarity coefficients and Simpson’s Index values from each tidal
height and 1) proportional management category scores and 2) averages of all
management proportional scores. These tests were performed to determine the
relationship between quality of management and the health of the associated intertidal
community. This non-parametric test was appropriate due to this study’s small sample
size and the data’s non-normal distribution (McDonald, 2009).
A p-value of 0.10 was used for all statistical comparisons. Due to the small
sample size of this study, using a p-value of 0.10 decreased the chance of achieving a
false negative and increased the chance of detecting subtle differences throughout the
intertidal community (McDonald, 2009).

59
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The purpose of this research was to evaluate conditions present at a selection of
MPAs in the Puget Sound, WA. Baseline environmental conditions were determined with
the use of ArcMap 10 while intertidal community compositions were calculated through
on-site belt transect and quadrat surveys. Management policies and practices were scored
quantitatively using indicators adapted from various evaluation methodologies. The
statistical significance of intertidal community relationships, and of intertidal community-
management strategy relationships was also determined.
Environmental Conditions
Environmental conditions at each site were determined through field observations
with the use of ArcMap 10 (ESRI, 2009) in order to ensure that outside environmental
conditions were not playing a role in variances between intertidal communities at MPAs
and control sites and between MPAs of different protection. Using the Wilcoxon T test,
substrate composition (Table 11), intertidal zone width and slope (Table 12), slope
stability (Table 13), landuse/landcover (Table 14) and eelgrass distribution (Figure 4)
were not significantly different between MPAs and their control sites (p > 0.10). The
Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant differences between these environmental
variables and level protection (p > 0.10).

60
Table 11
Substrate Composition at Each Site.
Site Substrate (%)
Sand Gravel Cobbles Boulders Erratics Hardpan
Colvos Passage
MPA 10.00 17.50 70.00 0.50 0 0
Control 16.82 21.82 60.45 0.91 0 0
Des Moines
MPA 18.33 1.52 79.70 0.45 0 0
Control 78.89 5.83 14.44 0.83 0 0
Octopus Hole
MPA 0.63 65.00 21.88 12.50 0 0
Control 0.50 41.00 47.50 10.00 0 0
South 239th
St.
MPA 32.78 4.17 60.00 3.06 0.28 0
Control 50.60 0 41.80 7.20 0 0
Titlow Beach
MPA 0.71 6.43 87.50 5.36 0 0
Control 1.43 10.00 85.36 0.71 0 2.50
Discovery Park
MPA 8.82 5.29 75.29 10.59 0 0
Control 17.83 2.17 73.91 6.09 0 0
Emma Schmitz
MPA 34.71 3.53 57.06 4.71 0 0
Control 52.00 4.50 41.00 2.50 0 0
Richey Viewpoint
MPA 45.00 1.15 15.77 3.85 0 33.85
Control 17.08 3.75 67.5 11.67 0 0
Possession Point
MPA 31.19 7.14 58.10 3.57 0 0
Control 22.59 6.30 68.89 2.22 0 0
MPA Sites
Median 18.33 5.29 59.72 3.84 0 0
IQR 23.26 3.28 16.90 1.80 0 0
Control Sites
Median 17.83 5.83 60.45 2.50 0 0
IQR 26.71 5.13 24.77 5.68 0 0
Wilcoxon T p-value 0.27 0.91 0.72 0.64 N/A N/A
Kruskal-Wallis p-value 0.96 0.90 0.95 0.71 N/A 0.69
Note. N/A = Too many tied pairs to perform test.

61
Table 12
Intertidal Zone Width and Slope, and Shoreline Modification Features Present.
Site
Intertidal
Zone
Width (ft.)
Intertidal
Zone
Slope
(%)
Shoreline
Modification
Colvos Passage
MPA 95 9.43 Cement bulkhead
Control 104 9.17 Unmodified
Des Moines
MPA 660 0.97 Rocky bulkhead
Control 360 1.89 Rocky and wooden bulkhead
Octopus Hole
MPA 80 9.58 Rocky bulkhead
Control 100 8.71 Cement bulkhead
South 239th
St.
MPA 360 2.16 Rocky and cement bulkhead
Control 250 3.27 Rocky bulkhead
Titlow Beach
MPA 140 12.08 Unmodified
Control 135 7.19 Rocky bulkhead
Discovery Park
Emma Schmitz
Richey Viewpoint
Possession Point
Control 270 2.25 Unmodified
MPA Sites
Median 170 3.80 --
IQR 98.50 5.17 --
Control Sites
Median 230 3.27 --
IQR 96.25 3.66 --
Wilcoxon T p-value 0.95 0.48 --
Kruskal-Wallis p-value 0.75 0.59 --

62
Table 13
Slope Stability Composition at Each Site.
Site Slope Stability (%)
Stable Unstable Unstable-Old Slide Intermediate Modified
Colvos Passage
MPA 89.30 9.97 0 0.73 0
Control 2.59 17.61 10.3 69.49 0
Des Moines
MPA 64.07 35.93 0 0 0
Control 7.07 92.93 0 0 0
Octopus Hole
MPA 0 100 0 0 0
Control 18.69 81.31 0 0 0
South 239th
St.
MPA 94.11 5.89 0 0 0
Control 90.98 9.02 0 0 0
Titlow Beach
MPA 100 0 0 0 0
Control 80.53 0 1.95 0 17.52
Discovery Park
MPA 1.31 60.49 38.03 0 0.17
Control 55.84 44.16 0 0 0
Emma Schmitz
MPA 88.44 0 11.56 0 0
Control 99.48 0 0.52 0 0
Richey Viewpoint
MPA 100 0 0 0 0
Control 100 0 0 0 0
Possession Point
MPA 0 59.86 40.14 0 0
Control 0 0 100 0 0
MPA Sites
Median 88.44 9.97 0 0 0
IQR 77.91 52.41 8.67 0 0
Control Sites
Median 55.84 9.02 0 0 0
IQR 78.39 37.52 1.59 0 0
Wilcoxon T p-value 0.55 0.68 1.00 N/A N/A
Kruskal-Wallis p-value 0.72 0.68 0.17 0.76 0.35
Note. N/A = Too many tied pairs to perform test.

64
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Continuous
Patchy
Absent
The remaining environmental conditions derived from GIS data were too sparse
to statistically compare, though still provides insight to specific differences in
environmental conditions at each site. Six of the sites intersect with 303(d) listed
Impaired Waters. The Possession Point control site is listed as not meeting dissolved
oxygen standards, while both Richey Viewpoint sites exceed the allowable limit for fecal
coliform concentrations. Both Discovery Park sites have been listed as exceeding
allowable limits of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). Des Moines Beach Park
Conservation Area intersects with Des Moines Creek, an impaired waterway for
Figure 4. Eelgrass distribution among all sites. There were no significant differences
between MPAs and control sites (Wilcoxon T test, p = 1.000, 0.8927 and N/A for
absent, patchy and continuous distributions, respectively). There were no significant
differences in eelgrass distribution between protection levels (Kruskal-Wallis, p =
0.9378, 0.8979 and 0.8013 for absent, patchy and continuous distributions,
respectively.

65
excessive fecal coliform concentrations. This is largely due to its proximity with the Des
Moines Sewer District, and has since been prohibited from recreational shellfish harvest.
Des Moines Creek has also been listed as a passage for the priority species
cutthroat trout and the threatened Coho salmon. Only the Possession Point and Octopus
Hole sites have been approved for commercial shellfish harvest, while the Discovery
Park, Emma Schmitz, Richey Viewpoint and South 239th
Street Park sites are not
advisable for recreational shellfish harvest. Both Titlow Beach sites, as well as DPMPA,
ESMPA and DMC have been listed as Biodiversity Areas and/or Corridors. Additionally,
PPC and DPMPA have been listed as Priority Habitats due to their unique coastal cliff
and bluff habitats.
Quantification of Community Composition
Intertidal community composition was calculated for each site using belt transects
and quadrats. Within the belt transects, presence/absence data was recorded, while
percent cover and abundance was calculated within each quadrat. Over 60 species of
invertebrates and algae from 12 different phyla were found at the 18 study sites. Table 15
displays the frequency at which organisms from the Phylum Arthropoda occurred. Beach
hoppers (Traskorchestia traskiana), Balanus barnacles, little brown barnacles
(Chthamalus dalli) and hairy shore crabs (Hemigrapsus oregonensis) were present at all
sites, while the graceful kelp crab (Pugettia gracilis) was rarer, and only occurred at three
sites. Though not very abundant, the red velvet mite (Neomolgus littoralis) occurred at
five MPAs and only one control site.

66
Table 15
Frequency of Phylum Arthropoda
Frequency
Common Name Scientific Classification Total MPA Control
Beach hopper Traskorchestia traskiana 18 9 9
Crenate or acorn barnacle Balanus spp. 18 9 9
Little brown barnacle Chthamalus dalli 18 9 9
Hairy shore crab Hemigrapsus oregonensis 18 9 9
Hermit crab Pagurus spp. 16 9 7
Pill bug isopod Gnorimosphaeroma oregonense 13 5 8
Haystack barnacle Semibalanus cariosus 11 5 6
Purple shore crab Hemigrapsus nudus 10 4 6
Other isopod spp. Idotea spp. 9 5 4
Red velvet mite Neomolgus littoralis 6 5 1
Black-clawed crab Lophopanopeus bellus 5 3 2
Broken-back shrimp Heptacarpus spp. 5 3 2
Flat top porcelain crab Petrolisthes eriomerus 4 2 2
Red rock crab Cancer productus 4 2 2
Graceful kelp crab Pugettia gracilis 3 0 3
Table 16 shows the frequency at which organisms of the Phylum Mollusca
occurred. Clams (Bivalvia spp.) and checkered periwinkle snails (Littorina scutulata)
were present at all sites, while heart cockles (Clinocardium nuttallii), Lewis’ moonsnail
(Euspira lewisii) and opalescent nudibranchs (Hermissenda crassicornis) only occurred
at one site each.
Table 16
Frequency of Phylum Mollusca
Frequency
Unidentified clam spp. Bivalvia 18 9 9
Checkered periwinkle snail Littorina scutulata 18 9 9
Pacific blue mussel Mytilus trossulus 17 9 8
Unidentified limpet spp. Gastropoda 15 6 9
Smooth/frilled dogwinkle snail Nucella lamellosa 15 7 8
Hairy/mossy chiton Mopalia spp. 13 6 7
Chink snail Lacuna spp. 12 5 7
Green-false jingle Pododesmus macrochisma 8 4 4
Sitka snail Littorina sitkana 6 3 3
Note. Frequency = number of sites in which the organism occurred.

67
Table 16 (continued)
Frequency
Blue topsnail Calliostoma ligatum 4 1 3
Lined chiton Tonicella lineata 3 1 2
Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas 2 1 1
Barnacle-eating nudibranch Onchidoris bilamellata 2 1 1
Heart cockle Clinocardium nuttallii 1 0 1
Opalescent nudibranch Hermissenda crassicornis 1 0 1
Lewis’ moonsnail Euspira lewisii 1 0 1
Table 17 shows the frequency at which organisms of the Phylum Echinodermata
occurred. Mottled sea stars (Evasterias troschelii) were the most prevalent, occurring at
ten sites, while the green sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) only occurred at
one site. While not very abundant, the red sea cucumber (Cucumaria miniata) occurred at
five control sites and only two MPAs.
Table 17
Frequency of Phylum Echinodermata
Frequency
Mottled sea star Evasterias troschelii 10 5 5
Purple sea star Pisaster ochraceus 9 5 4
Red sea cucumber Cucumaria miniata 7 2 5
Sunflower sea star Pycnopodia helianthoides 3 1 2
Long-armed brittle star Amphiodia occidentalis 3 2 1
Green sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis 1 0 1
Table 18 shows the frequency at which organisms of the Phylum Cnidaria
occurred. Aggregating sea anemones (Anthopluera elegantissima) were the most
prevalent, occurring at 16 sites, while the moonglow (Anthopluera artemisia) and
Christmas (Urticina crassicornis) anemones were rarer, only occurring at one site each.
The lined anemone (Haliplanella lineata) is an exotic species, and occurred at two sites.

68
Table 18
Frequency of Phylum Cnidaria.
Frequency
Common Name Scientific Name Total MPA Control
Aggregating anemone Anthopluera elegantissima 16 7 9
Lined anemone Haliplanella lineata 2 1 1
Stubby rose anemone Urticina coriacea 2 1 1
Moonglow anemone Anthopluera artemisia 1 0 1
Christmas anemone Urticina crassicornis 1 0 1
Table 19 shows the frequency at which organisms of the Phyla Platyhelminthes,
Nemertea, and Annelida occurred. The saddleback flatworm (Notoplana sanguinea) and
polychaetes (Annelida spp.) were the most common, occurring at 12 sites, with
calcareous tube worms (Serpulidae spp.) and spaghetti worms (Thelepus spp.) being
rarer, occurring at one and two sites, respectively.
Table 19
Frequency of Phyla Platyhelminthes, Nemertea, and Annelida
Frequency
Saddleback flatworm Notoplana sanguinea 12 5 7
Polychaete worm Phylum Annelida 12 4 8
Ribbon worm Phylum Nemertea 9 5 4
Spaghetti worm Thelepus spp. 2 1 1
Calcareous tube worm Serpulidae spp. 1 0 1
Table 20 shows the frequency at which organisms of the Phylum Chordata
occurred. Presence of fish species was rare; however, black pricklebacks occurred at two
control sites while northern clingfish occurred at one control site.

69
Table 20
Frequency of Phylum Chordata
Frequency
Common Name Scientific Name Total MPA Control
Black prickleback Xiphister atropurpureus 2 0 2
Northern clingfish Gobiesox maeandricus 1 0 1
Table 21 shows the frequency at which organisms of the Phyla Chlorophyta,
Ochropyhta, Rhodophyta, and Anthophyta occurred. Sea lettuce (Ulva spp.) was the most
common plant life observed, occurred at all 18 sites, while laver (Porphyra spp.),
bleached burnett (Crytosiphonia woodii), sea noodles (Sarcodiotheca gaudichaudii), sea
laurel (Osmundea spectabilis), twisted tubes (Melanosiphon intestinalis) and sea
cauliflower (Leathesia difformis) only occurred at two or less sites each.
Table 21
Frequency of Phyla Chlorophyta, Ochropyhta, Rhodophyta, and Anthophyta
Frequency
Sea lettuce Ulva spp. 18 9 9
Turkish washcloth Mastocarpus spp. 12 6 6
Rusty rock Hildenbrandia spp. 10 6 4
Rockweed Fucus spp. 9 5 4
Filamentous red algae Phylum Rhodophyta 6 4 2
Eelgrass Zostera spp. 4 2 2
Witch’s hair Desmarestia aculeata 3 1 2
Laver Porphyra spp. 2 0 2
Twisted sea tubes Melanosiphon intestinalis 2 1 1
Sea cauliflower Leathesia difformis 2 1 1
Bleached burnett Crytosiphonia woodii 2 1 1
Sea noodles Sarcodiotheca gaudichaudii 2 1 1
Sea laurel Osmundea spectabilis 1 1 0

70
Analysis of Transect Data
Transect data was first analyzed with the use of similarity coefficients, which
were used to determine how similar intertidal communities at MPAs were to their
respective control sites. These similarity coefficients were then compared with the level
of protection at each site (i.e. UML, ZNL, or NTL) using the Kruskal-Wallis test (Figure
5), in order to determine what role level of protection played in shaping intertidal
community composition. Using the coefficient of community, the range of similarity
values ranged from 53.34% at the Des Moines sites and 85.84% at the Emma Schmitz
sites. Using the Sorenson coefficient, the range of similarity values ranged from 66.67%
at the Des Moines sites and 89.55% at the Discovery Park sites. Using percent similarity,
the range of similarity values ranged from 62.36% at the Des Moines sites and 86.72% at
the Emma Schmitz sites. None of the results from the Kruskal-Wallis test were
significant, indicating that intertidal communities are similar between different levels of
protection (p > 0.10).
Figure 5. Percentage similarity between MPA and control site intertidal
communities.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PercentageSimilarity
Sorenson Coefficient
Coefficient ofCommunity
Percent Similarity

71
The presence/absence data collected at each transect was also transformed to give
each species’ proportional frequency (i.e., how often the species occurred in each ten-foot
interval of the belt transect). See Appendix A for individual species composition at each
site. These values were compared with protection level using the Kruskal-Wallis test and
comparison of mean ranks (p < 0.10). A significant difference was found between the
proportions of Pacific blue mussel (Mytilus trossulus), red velvet mite, aggregating
anemone and dogwinkle snails and protection level (Table 22). The mean ranks of Pacific
blue mussel were significantly higher at the NTL sites than the controls. The median and
interquartile range at the NTL sites was 75.00% and 10.98%, respectively, while the
median and interquartile range was 25.00% and 42.86% at the control sites, respectively.
The mean ranks of aggregating anemone were significantly higher at ZNL sites than NTL
sites. The median and interquartile range at the ZNL sites was 84.62% and 8.83%,
respectively, while the median and interquartile range was 0% and 27.78% at the NTL
sites, respectively. The mean ranks of red velvet mite were significantly higher at ZNL
sites than controls. The median and interquartile range at the ZNL sites was 5.88% and
9.84%, respectively, while both the median and interquartile range was 0% at the control
sites. The mean ranks of dogwinkle snail were significantly higher at ZNL sites than
NTL sites. The median and interquartile range at the ZNL sites was 52.94% and 10.18%,
respectively, while the median and interquartile range was 0% and 16.67% at the NTL
sites, respectively.

73
The proportions of individual species were also statistically compared between
MPAs and control sites using the Wilcoxon T test. Only two species, the Pacific blue
mussel and the red velvet mite, showed significantly higher proportions at MPAs than at
control sites (p = 0.0244 and p = 0.0592, respectively). The median proportion of Pacific
blue mussels was 80.00% at MPAs versus 57.69% at control sites, while the interquartile
range was 16.81% at MPAs versus 27.73% at control sites. The median proportion of red
velvet mites was 3.85% at MPAs versus 0% at control sites, while the interquartile range
was 5.88% at MPAs versus 0% at control sites.
Analysis of Quadrat Data
Quadrat data was analyzed using Simpson’s Index of diversity for each tidal
height (i.e. data was analyzed at the +1, 0, and -1 foot elevations, separately). The
Wilcoxon T test showed significantly greater invertebrate diversity at the -1 foot tidal
height quadrats of MPAs than control sites (p = 0.044). The median invertebrate diversity
index was 0.57 at MPAs and 0.32 at control sites, while the interquartile range was 0.09
at MPAs and 0.40 at control sites. No significant differences were found in vegetation
communities at any tidal height between MPAs and control, nor in invertebrate
communities at the 0 foot or +1 foot tidal heights between MPAs and controls (p > 0.10).
Using the Kruskal-Wallis test, a significant difference in invertebrate diversity at the -1
foot tidal heights was found between the levels of protection (p = 0.0643). While there
were no significant pairwise differences among the mean ranks, NTL sites showed the
highest mean rank over ZNL, UML and control sites.

74
Management Practice and Process Evaluation
Management policies and practices were quantitatively evaluated with the use of
indicators. These indicators were stated as “benchmark” statements, i.e., described the
ideal condition of particular element of management. These indicators were used to
evaluate the context, planning, inputs and processes of management in place at each
MPA (Tables 2-6). See Appendix B for scores of each indicator for each site.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Five of the nine sites in this study are managed by WDFW: Colvos Passage
Marine Preserve, Octopus Hole Conservation Area, Des Moines Park Conservation Area,
South 239th
Street Conservation Area, and Titlow Beach Marine Preserve. A summary of
WDFW’s management context, planning, inputs, and process is described below.
Context
Colvos Passage and Octopus Hole had identical context scores, with the least
percentage of their total context score marked as negligible (Table 23). Des Moines Park
and South 239th
Street Park also had identical scores, but had the highest proportion
(62.50%) of their total context score marked as negligible. Colvos Passage and Octopus
Hole also had identical scores, with the highest proportion (62.50%) of their context
scores in the moderate category. Titlow Beach’s context scores were more evenly
distributed between the three scoring categories.

75
Table 23
Context Scores for Each WDFW Site
Site % Considerable % Moderate % Negligible
Colvos Passage 12.50 62.50 25.00
Des Moines Park 25.00 12.50 62.50
Octopus Hole 12.50 62.50 25.00
South 239th
Street 25.00 12.50 62.50
Titlow Beach 25.00 37.50 37.50
Colvos Passage, Octopus Hole, and Titlow Beach are inventoried several times
per year for fish living on the two southern rocky habitats. During these censuses, fish are
identified, counted, and measured (WDFW, n.d.b; WDFW, n.d.c; WDFW, n.d.e) It is
unclear whether these inventories began prior to the establishment of the MPAs. Formal
designation criteria were not used to establish any WDFW lands as MPAs, however, the
unique subtidal features of Colvos Passage and Octopus Hole, as well as interest by the
diving public made them prime areas for protection. Titlow Beach was set aside as a
MPA after the City of Tacoma School District asked the area be protected for educational
purposes. The City of Des Moines asked that the Des Moines Beach Park and South 239th
Street Park be set aside for extra protection in order to preserve some of their more
unmodified beaches (W. Palsson, personal communication, February 25, 2011).
Local diving groups nominated Colvos Passage and Octopus Hole for protection,
and as with all WDFW reserves, a public process was initiated. Prior to the establishment
of any reserve, the public is notified through WDFW’s website and through the press.
Public meetings are held and comments are heard before and evaluated by the
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. Lastly, an adoption meeting is held, where
the Commission chooses to maintain, modify, or reject their original reserve proposal. In

76
the case of Colvos Passage and Octopus Hole, upland property owners were not
supportive of the reserves, as divers often trespass on their property, so the reserves areas
are smaller than the original proposals (W. Palsson, personal communication, February
25, 2011).
Sea level rise and projected development were not considered prior to designating
these areas as MPAs. Neither of the Des Moines MPAs have had a resource inventory
completed, while informal inventories (i.e., lists of common species present) have been
completed at Octopus Hole, Colvos Passage, and Titlow Beach. Surrounding landuse was
not appreciably considered prior to the establishment of any of these areas. The two Des
Moines sites, as well as Titlow Beach, were chosen for protection because their intertidal
areas were relatively unmodified–however, all are surrounded by highly modified
environments. While Octopus Hole and Colvos Passage are set in more remote locations,
upland property owners are not supportive of the reserves because divers often trespass
on their beach property (W. Palsson, personal communication, February 25, 2011).
Planning
Colvos Passage, Des Moines Park, Octopus Hole and South 239th
Street Park all
had the highest percentage of their total planning score marked as negligible (Table 24).
Concurrently, Colvos Passage, Octopus Hole and South 239th
Street Park had identical
planning scores, with 71.70% of their total planning scores in the negligible category.
Titlow Beach’s total planning score was more evenly distributed across the three scoring
categories, but had the highest proportion (48.72%) of its planning score in the
considerable category.

77
Table 24
Planning Scores for Each WDFW Site
Des Moines Park 28.21 12.82 58.97
Octopus Hole 17.95 10.26 71.79
South 239th
Street 17.95 10.26 71.79
Titlow Beach 48.72 20.51 30.77
Only one of the five WDFW MPAs has a site-specific management plan–Titlow
Beach. The “Master Plan for Titlow Park,” developed in 2010 by Metro Parks Tacoma,
includes the following elements: goals, objectives, a list of advisory committees and
interagency agreements, maps including boundaries of the Titlow Beach Marine
Preserve, a list of regulations, and inventory of facilities and equipment. These
regulations cite the requirement to gain approval before any development can occur on
shorelines, wetlands, and streams. The City of Tacoma requires a Development Permit
and a Shoreline Permit for all development, which must include habitat management
plans that must be approved by WDFW. The plan makes mention of and
recommendations for, but does not have a detailed plan for the following elements:
interpretation, public input, budget and funding sources, and resource management.
Specifically, the plan calls for: expansion of environmental education programs based on
beach and wetland habitats; the use of soft engineering structures to maintain public
access while still protecting feeder bluffs and upland vegetation; the removal of toxic
pilings and derelict offshore structures, and increased recreational diving opportunities
and facilities. The following elements are entirely missing from this plan: zoning plan,

78
social and cultural resource studies plan, an inventory of staffing and available training,
surveillance, and a strategy for monitoring plan effectiveness.
All WDFW MPAs can be considered covered under the 2005 “Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS).” Goals and objectives are not explicitly
expressed in this document, however, are more detailed in the 2009-2015 WDFW
Strategic Plan (Gutzwiler & Koenings, 2008). The CWCS is missing most of the
elements of a management plan used for this evaluation. It does, however, contain the
following components: descriptions of plan advisory committees and interagency
collaborations, a resource management and interpretation plan, a plan for surveillance
and enforcement, and a plan for monitoring the effectiveness of the CWCS. Specific
objectives of the resource management plan related to biodiversity include: controlling
harvest of Pacific herring, establish area-gear restrictions for rockfish stocks, inventory
and prioritize restoration of riparian habitats, determine the abundance and distribution of
the western ridged and western pearshell mussels, collect basic biological information on
sand lance and surf smelt stocks, map kelp and eelgrass beds, and manage marine and
estuarine areas to control for impacts of urbanization (WDFW, 2005).
None of the WDFW MPAs have their boundaries demarcated on site; however,
all have signage at reserve entrances that address regulations regarding resource
protection.
Inputs
Input scores for all sites were similar, however, Colvos Passage, Octopus Hole
and Titlow Beach had the highest percentage (50%) of their total inputs score marked as
considerable (Table 25). Des Moines Park and South 239th
Street Park had identical

79
scores, with both the considerable and negligible categories receiving scores of 42.86%,
respectively.
Table 25
Inputs Scores for Each WDFW Site
Des Moines Park 42.86 14.29 42.86
Octopus Hole 50.00 14.29 35.71
South 239th
Street 42.86 14.29 42.86
Titlow Beach 50.00 14.29 35.71
The Fish Program of WDFW is the main authority in charge of MPA
management. Management decisions begin here with the “public process” noted above.
Individual responsibility within the Fish Program is not clear, and management actions
are only performed on an “as needed” basis. Staff members of the Fish Program are
considered professional biologists with at least a 4-year degree, or equal experience.
General training and conference opportunities are made available to WDFW staff,
however, these trainings generally focus on “more pertinent” management issues, such as
groundfish populations, and generally do not focus on intertidal area management. The
frequency of attendance at these trainings and conferences is considered minimal. Zero to
three staff members are available to deal with MPA management issues (e.g., illegal
harvest, extensive human trampling events, accumulation of toxic or derelict
fishing/docking gear, etc.) as they arise, with very little of their time being devoted to
MPAs in general. Sites that perform annual fish censuses (i.e., Colvos Passage, Octopus
Hole, and Titlow Beach) receive more attention from Fish Program staff. Patrol officers

80
are employed by WDFW, but seldom patrol MPAs (W. Palsson, personal
communication, February 25, 2011).
Agency vehicles, sampling equipment (e.g., scuba gear, boats, computers, etc.),
data analysis systems and software, and facilities are available regionally to collect,
process, and analyze data (W. Palsson, personal communication, February 25, 2011).
Forty-nine percent of WDFW’s budget comes from the State General Fund and the
Wildlife Account, which are supplied by state tax revenues, federal and local contracts,
and recreational license fees. The remainder of WDFW’s budget is covered by other
federal, private/local, and multiple state-dedicated accounts (Gutzwiler & Koenings,
2008). The permanency of these funding sources is variable, and is now in decline.
Funding deficiencies have lead to the failure to fulfill the recently made vacant marine
reserve manager position (W. Palsson, personal communication, February 25, 2011).
Neither of the Des Moines MPAs have an operational research and monitoring
program in place. Colvos Passage is surveyed eight times per year to monitor rocky
habitat species and young rockfish. Octopus Hole is surveyed twice a year to monitor
rocky habitat species, and Titlow Beach is surveyed once a year to monitor groundfish
populations. This information is in the process of being synthesized for long-term
monitoring of these populations. None of the WDFW MPAs conduct intertidal
community surveys (W. Palsson, personal communication, February 25, 2011).
Process
All sites, with the exception of Titlow Beach, had a relatively high proportion of
their total process scores marked as negligible (Table 26). Titlow Beach had the highest
proportion (66.67%) of its total process score marked as moderate. Both Colvos Passage

81
and Octopus Hole had the highest proportion (50%) of their process score in the moderate
category, while both Des Moines and South 239th
Street Park had the highest proportion
(66.67%) of their process score in the negligible category.
Table 26
Process Scores for Each WDFW Site
Des Moines Park 8.33 25.00 66.67
Octopus Hole 8.33 50.00 41.67
South 239th
Street 8.33 25.00 66.67
Titlow Beach 8.33 66.67 25.00
The threats and pressures of Colvos Passage, Octopus Hole, and Titlow Beach
have been identified by WDFW staff, but have not been formally inventoried and are
dealt with on an “as needed” basis. Threats and pressures of the two Des Moines sites
have not been identified. As noted above, only three of the five WDFW sites have an
operational research and monitoring program in place, with groundfish population
surveys being top priority. However, human-use and other cultural/socioeconomic data
are not collected at any WDFW site. The results of research and monitoring are not
routinely incorporated into planning, as management action is described as taking place
on an “as needed” basis, however, reports on these subtidal surveys are forthcoming (W.
Palsson, personal communication, February 25, 2011).
As described above, the main management body for WDFW’s MPAs is the
WDFW Fish Program. Internal organization is not clear, as individual responsibility
within the Fish Program itself is not immediately apparent. Management decision making

82
is transparent, however, as extra-routine management actions must go through the “public
process” described above (W. Palsson, personal communication, February 25, 2011).
Enforcement authority on WDFW lands is not always clear, as MPA boundaries
are not properly demarcated on site. Consequently, as violations may occur on site,
WDFW patrol officers find it difficult to assess the appropriate penalties (W. Palsson,
personal communication, February 25, 2011).
Educational material is accessible to the public in the form of signage at all
WDFW MPAs. These signs address resource protection and relevant regulations, and
only provide information on the area’s natural history at Titlow Beach and Colvos
Passage. Take-away brochures or pamphlets are not provided. A public outreach program
is not in operation at any WDFW MPA, as WDFW relies on signage and their Sport
Fishing Pamphlet (available online) to educate the public about resource protection (W.
Palsson, personal communication, February 25, 2011).
Washington Parks and Recreation Commission
Possession Point State Park is owned and managed by the WPRC, and is
considered a satellite park to South Whidbey State Park. An evaluation of WPRC’s
management context, planning, inputs, and process is described below. Possession
Point’s management scores were relatively evenly distributed across the three scoring
categories (Table 27). Possession Point’s planning component scored poorly, with a
majority of the indicators (43.59%) marked as negligible. The context and process
indicators were scored more highly, with 62.50% of the context indicators 41.67% of the
process indicators scored as moderate, respectively.

83
Table 27
Management Evaluation Scores for Possession Point State Park
Considerable
%
Moderate
%
Negligible
%
Context 25.00 62.50 12.50
Planning 23.08 33.33 43.59
Inputs 35.71 28.57 35.71
Process 33.33 41.67 25.00
Context
A resource inventory was not performed at Possession Point prior to the area’s
designation as a MPA. No formal designation criteria was used to choose this site,
however, public interest in the area triggered its formal protection. The area was up for
sale prior to being established as a MPA, so members of the community, local kayakers,
and WPRC fronted the money to purchase the land. No public comment hearings were
held prior to the area’s purchase; however, the acquisition was fueled by public concern
about projected development and urban sprawl (P. Anderson & T. Cooper, personal
communication, March 3, 2011).
Surrounding landuse is only of moderate concern to Possession Point, as the area
was acquired in order to avoid further development. The WPRC has initiated a landuse
classification plan for all its lands, termed CAMP (Classification and Management Plan).
The main purpose of any CAMP is to identify park boundaries and land classifications
within (with emphasis on natural areas), inventory species, and identify key issues
affecting the park’s natural, historical, cultural or recreational resources. Development of
a CAMP relies on public participation, especially for identifying potential park additions,
or areas that may be purchased from private landowners (WPRC, 2008). A CAMP has

84
not yet been completed for Possession Point. A formal analysis of the area’s threats and
pressures has not been completed, however, WPRC staff are well aware of these threats
and pressures. Sea level rise and climate change were taken into consideration prior to the
area’s acquisition. Beach erosion is the major threat to Possession Point, and WPRC has
been working with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) since its
establishment to construct a beach retaining wall (P. Anderson & T. Cooper, personal
Possession Point is part of the Cascadia Marine Trail, giving it long-term legal
protection under RCW 79A.05.380-425.
Planning
Possession Point has a site-specific management plan, and can also be considered
a part of the WPRC agency-wide management plan. The site specific plan, “Possession
Point Interim Operating Plan,” is a four-page document published in 2001, directly
following the area’s purchase. This plan is missing goal statements, but does list
objectives concerning natural resource management, recreation management, and
resource management and protection. These objectives include limiting shoreline access
to foot and boat traffic, limiting trail construction and banning the use of fire arms and
live trapping, This plan is also missing any description of advisory committees, zoning
plans, social and cultural resource studies, interpretation, staffing, staff training, facilities
and equipment, budget and finances, and evaluation of plan effectiveness. Park
boundaries, public input process, and surveillance and enforcement activities are
included. The plan does mention agreements with WDFW and the Island County Weed
Control Board for the removal of noxious weeds and invasive species. Inclusion of

85
regulations and resource management plans and strategies can be considered moderate, as
these elements are discussed as part of the plan’s objectives, but are not laid out as
defined strategies or processes (WPRC, 2001).
The agency-wide management plan under which Possession Point is regulated is
titled, “Protecting Washington State Parks’ Natural Resources: A Comprehensive Natural
Resource Management Policy,” a 22-page document published in 2010. This plan is
missing the following elements: advisory committees, boundaries, staffing, facilities and
equipment, budget and finances, surveillance and enforcement, and monitoring of plan
effectiveness. The goals outlined in this plan are broken down into the following
categories: biodiversity protection, non-biotic resources, disturbance events, resource use,
and planning. Under each goal, relevant objectives and regulations as defined by WAC,
RCW, and other agency documents are listed. In order to protect biodiversity, this plan
states that the taking of all natural living organisms in prohibited, unless permitted by
WPRC. The plan also outlines a goal to inventory, monitor and restore populations which
have been listed as threatened or endangered, as well as the habitats they depend on.
Non-invasive exotic species will not be allowed in natural areas, but will be allowed to
proliferate in parks deemed as recreation and heritage sites, while invasive exotics will be
removed from all park sites. Lastly, this plan states the WPRC’s commitment to allowing
ecosystem process to continue unabridged, including human-induced succession events
such as forest thinning and planting pioneer vegetation.
While not clearly stated as defined strategies, the following elements are listed
under goals: interagency agreements, zoning plans, social and cultural resource studies,

86
resource management plans, interpretation, public input, and staff training (WPRC,
2010).
Boundaries at Possession Point are not demarcated on site. There is signage at the
park entrance, but the signs do not address resource protection or expected visitor
behavior.
Inputs
There are two main staff members on site at South Whidbey State Park, whose
responsibility includes the oversight of Possession Point. Under normal circumstances, 90
percent of staff time is devoted to maintenance and operation at South Whidbey, with the
remaining 10 percent of their time being devoted to Possession Point. Under current
conditions, about 30 percent of staff time is devoted to Possession Point, due to the
planned construction of the beach retaining wall. After the purchase of Possession Point,
the park manager requested a full-time equivalent staff member for the oversight of the
Possession Point property, but was refused due to budget constraints. South Whidbey and
Possession Point receive additional staff in the summer months to coincide with increased
visitorship. Authority flows from the park ranger to the park manager who handle regular
maintenance activities, while bigger, more specialized resource issues go “up the ladder”
to regional personnel. Park staff is expected to have a two or four year degree or the
equivalent in experience. The park ranger lives on site, adjacent to the Possession Point
property, providing a constant presence of authority. Staff is given the opportunity to
attend conferences and training events, given they submit a training request. Often times,
staff seeks out opportunities that have no registration fee, as funding is scarce (P.
Anderson & T. Cooper, personal communication, March 3, 2011).

87
Agency vehicles and on-site facilities are made available to WPRC to perform
management activities. As it is not part of WPRC’s mission to collect and inventory
biological data, there are no resources to collect this type of data on site (i.e., scuba,
boats, sampling nets, etc.). This type of activity would be more suited for regional
personnel or would be contracted out to another agency, like WDFW (P. Anderson & T.
Cooper, personal communication, March 3, 2011).
Funding for WPRC is provided through the Parks Renewal and Stewardship
Account, and the State General Fund. The Parks Renewal and Stewardship Account
receives money through concessions, user fees, leases, donations, and other park-based
activities. Possession Point and South Whidbey State Park also receive money from in-
park operations, like the sale of fire wood. WPRC also receives money from Washington
State Recreation and Conservation Office, which provides grant money for park
stewardship and maintenance activities. The availability of funding from the State
General Account is diminishing, and may be slated for termination for WPRC on June
30, 2011 (P. Anderson & T. Cooper, personal communication, March 3, 2011).
Staff at Possession Point are not currently collecting any biological or cultural
data. The park ranger is currently monitoring abundance and type of visitor use for
recreational divers, as vehicle access to the shoreline is prohibited and divers must obtain
a permit to bring their gear to the site (P. Anderson & T. Cooper, personal
Process
There is no formal mechanism for inventorying and addressing threats and
pressures at Possession Point, however, on-site staff have knowledge of these stressors.

88
While there is a site-specific operating plan for Possession Point, it does not include
defined strategies or plans for achieving management objectives. The results of
visitorship monitoring are not currently being incorporated into management, however,
parks staff believe that once Possession Point becomes more popular, this data will be
used for visitor management (P. Anderson & T. Cooper, personal communication, March
3, 2011).
As described above, there is clear internal organization for making management-
related decisions, and staff members comprehend their individual responsibilities. As
management decisions become tangible, a 30-day comment period begins. Staff at
Possession Point keep a list of stakeholders, neighbors, business entities and other
individuals with a vested interest in park operations, and notify them of management
issues and pending decisions. There is also limited collaboration with other agencies, like
WDFW, and there has been collaborations with tribes (Tulalip, Skagit, and Snohomish)
for fishing rights and land acquisition (P. Anderson & T. Cooper, personal
The park ranger is the main authority for patrolling the area and enforcing
regulations. There is no defined patrol schedule, and WPRC staff believe the first step to
compliance is education, consequently, most offenses are initially met with instruction on
park rules and regulations pertaining especially to the intentional or unintentional
disturbance, damage and killing of any living organism, while repeated or more serious
infractions are cited. Agency funding for interpretation programs is very limited. Staff at
Possession Point, do however, manage to bring in around 130 interpretive activities

89
during the summer months, with a majority of interpreters participating for free (P.
Anderson & T. Cooper, personal communication, March 3, 2011).
City of Seattle
The City of Seattle Parks and Recreation Commission (Seattle) manages three of
the MPAs selected for this study: Discovery Park, Emma Schmitz Memorial Park, and
Richey Viewpoint. A summary of Seattle’s management context, planning, inputs, and
process for all sites is described below.
Context
Context scores were relatively evenly distributed across the three scoring
categories (Table 28). While not noticeably different, Discovery Park had a higher
proportion (37.50%) of its total context scores marked as considerable than did Emma
Schmitz Park and Richey Viewpoint (25%). All sites had 37.50% of their context
indicators scored as negligible.
Table 28
Context Scores for Each Seattle Site
Discovery Park 37.50 25.00 37.50
Emma Schmitz 25.00 37.50 37.50
Richey Viewpoint 25.00 37.50 37.50
Resource inventories for Seattle park lands have been conducted, at various
degrees of formality. In the 1970s, the University of Washington completed baseline
studies for Seattle’s parks, and in 1994, wildlife resource inventories were completed
using “aerial photo interpretation, limited field surveys. . . . reports and other data in
Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation files, Washington Department of Fish and

90
Wildlife (formerly the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife) Priority Species and
Habitat (PHS) data, published journal articles, and other publications,” (M. Plunkett,
personal communication, March 20, 2011; Miller, 2000, p. 21). Discovery Park has had
more personalized inventories completed (University of Washington, 1974; Jones &
Stokes, 2002). Formal designation criteria were not used to establish these sites as MPAs,
as Seattle chose land already under their ownership for additional protection. Sites were
chosen that were relatively unmodified, with moderate visitorship, where compliance
with additional regulations could be expected. In order for these sites to receive this
additional protection, a public hearing was held before the Board of Park Commissioners,
after a notice was published in the Journal of Commerce. In addition to the original
public hearing, there were also two comment periods. Most attendees of these meetings
from were from environmental agencies or local communities, and showed support for
the additional level of protection provided by designating the areas as MPAs (P. Hoff,
personal communication, March 22, 2011).
Surrounding landuse was not considered prior to establishing these areas as
MPAs, as Seattle only looked within their inventory of land to choose sites for additional
protection–with all three sites being situated in residential or low development areas. An
inventory of the areas’ threats and pressures has not been completed, and climate change
and projected development were not considered prior to these areas’ establishment (M.
Plunkett, personal communication, March 30, 2011). All of Seattle’s marine reserves are
protected by the “rule establishing marine reserves within certain city parks,” under Title
18 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

91
Planning
All three sites scored poorly for planning indicators (Table 29). However, Emma
Schmitz park and Richey Viewpoint had higher proportions (79.49%) of their total
planning scores marked as negligible than did Discovery Park (69.23%).
Table 29
Planning Scores for Each Seattle Site
Emma Schmitz 12.82 10.26 79.49
Discovery Park is the only Seattle site with site-specific management plans. The
Discovery Park Wildlife Management Plan (1982) and the Discovery Park Development
Plan (1986) both cover management of the area, but given their datedness and general
lack of evaluative components (except the inclusion of goal statements), these plans
cannot be considered operational.
The 2000 Seattle Urban Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan covers the
management of all Seattle MPAs. This plan contains “seven broad, somewhat
overlapping goals” for the protection of Seattle’s natural resources and the education of
its citizens (Seattle, 2000, p. 19). Each goal statement includes more specific objectives,
but these objectives cannot be considered resource management, social/cultural studies,
or interpretive plans. Objectives pertaining to the protection of biodiversity include:
continued public access and enjoyment while protecting wildlife habitat through the use
of access routes and viewing areas; protection of existing habitats through protected areas
designation; maintenance and preservation of wildlife habitat corridors; promotion of

92
native plant communities; enhanced enforcement of existing regulations pertaining to
harvesting of intertidal plants and animals, and increased public education on the
ecological rationale behind such regulations.
The plan is largely missing all other management plan elements used for this
evaluation, except the inclusion of a map illustrating park locations and a discussion of
the public input process in developing this plan. Ultimately, this plan is more of a
description of Seattle’s natural resources and the threats and pressures exerted on them.
Inputs
All three sites performed poorly in the evaluation of inputs indicators (Table 30).
Discovery Park, however, had more of its total inputs score in the considerable and
moderate categories (14.29% and 42.86%, respectively) than did Emma Schmitz Park
and Richey Viewpoint. Emma Schmitz Park and Richey Viewpoint had the highest
proportion of their inputs scores in the negligible category (both 64.29%).
Table 30
Inputs Scores for Each Seattle Site
Emma Schmitz 21.43 14.29 64.29
All management decisions (not necessarily MPA-related) go through the Seattle
Parks and Recreation Executive team, and are often based on staff recommendations.
This team is comprised of all division directors and other key managers. Staffing for
managing MPAs is low, with no one defined person or group of people responsible for
their management. However, a Strategic Advisor staff is responsible for taking on

93
management issues on an “as needed” basis; consequently, zero percent of their time is
devoted to MPA management. Additionally, this staff member is not necessarily trained
in wildlife biology or resource management, but is more educated and experienced in
policy analysis and implementation. Due to the presence of an on-site Environmental
Education center, Discovery Park has more staff at its disposal; however, such staff are
not necessarily strictly for the management of Discovery Park. Staff meetings are the
main means for increasing staff knowledge of pertinent management issues; however,
staff are encouraged to increase their knowledge of natural resource issues through
external trainings (K. Griggs, personal communication, May 24, 2011). There is no
defined staff for patrolling these areas. Seattle relies on signage and the authoritative
presence provided by the Seattle Aquarium’s weekend beach naturalists to enforce
regulations (P. Hoff, personal communication, March 22, 2011).
Seattle receives funding from the State General Fund, taxes, user fees, levies, and
grants for particular projects. These funding sources are considered to be dwindling, and
Seattle has recently been making some dramatic employment cuts (P. Hoff, personal
Seattle does not have a formal research plan, but relies on the Seattle Aquarium’s
Citizen Science program to collect data. Limited baseline data on habitat and intertidal
communities has been collected since 2007 through this program (M. Plunkett, personal
communication, March 30, 2011). Because Seattle does not directly collect any biological
or social/cultural data, there is little need for field equipment or facilities/computer
systems to process such data. However, agency vehicles and a general facilities building

94
are available to staff, should such a need arise (K. Griggs, personal communication, May
24, 2011).
Process
All three sites had nearly identical process scores. All had identically high
proportions of their total process scores marked as negligible (41.67%), with Discovery
Park just slightly outperforming Emma Schmitz Park and Richey Viewpoint, with 25% of
its total process score marked as considerable (Table 31).
Table 31
Process Scores for Each Seattle Site
Emma Schmitz 16.67 41.67 41.67
All legislative decisions made by Seattle are initiated with the public three-
meeting process as described above. Additionally, the Seattle Parks and Recreation
Executive Team (as described above) collaboratively makes management decisions.
Management decisions are relayed to the public in a number of ways, including an e-
newsletter, email, press releases and Facebook and Twitter updates (K. Griggs, personal
communication, May 24, 2001).
Seattle worked with WDFW to establish their marine reserves, but no longer
collaborates with any agencies for the management of MPAs (P. Hoff, personal
Socioeconomic, cultural, and governance issues are not monitored or evaluated at
Seattle’s MPAs. As mentioned above, only limited baseline data is collected by the

95
Seattle Aquarium’s Citizen Science program (M. Plunkett, personal communication,
March 30, 2011). There is no defined system of dealing with threats and pressures to
Seattle MPAs. On-site problems are dealt with on an “as needed” basis, and can be
handled by Seattle security staff or the Seattle Police Department (K. Griggs, personal
communication, May 24, 2011).
There is no clear authority for the enforcement of Seattle’s regulations on marine
reserves; consequently, the reserves are never patrolled. Violation of Seattle’s marine
reserve rules is considered a civil infraction, and upon first incident of non-compliance, a
$100 fine is assessed. However, because there is no clear enforcement authority, violators
seldom receive monetary penalties, and are usually instructed by beach naturalists or
members of the public on proper behavior within reserve boundaries (P. Hoff, personal
Seattle relies heavily on signage to educate the public on resource protection and
expected behavior. The Seattle Aquarium provides interpretation through their Beach
Naturalist program on weekends during the summer months. Discovery Park has its own
environmental education center on site, where more specialized interpretation programs
occur year round (P. Hoff, personal communication, March 22, 2011).
Comparison of Intertidal Community Composition and Management Evaluation Scores
Using the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient (corrected for tied pairs),
intertidal community composition and management evaluation scores were statistically
compared. No significant relationship was found between similarity coefficients and
management scores, or between management inputs or process indicators and any
intertidal community parameters (p > 0.10).

96
Invertebrate diversity at the -1 foot tidal height was positively correlated with
planning regimes that were scored as considerable (p = 0.0441, Figure 6) and was
negatively correlated with context scores that were deemed as moderate (p = 0.0958,
Figure 7).
Figure 6. Invertebrate diversity at the -1’ tidal height correlation with
proportion of site planning scores evaluated as “considerable”, p = 0.0441.
Invertebrate diversity at both the 0 and -1 foot tidal heights responded positively to total average m
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
0.90
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00
Index
Context Scores - % Moderate
Figure 7. Invertebrate diversity at the -1’ tidal height correlation with
proportion of site context scores evaluated as “moderate”, p = 0.0958.

97
Invertebrate diversity at the 0 foot tidal heights was positively correlated with
planning regimes that were scored as moderate (p = 0.0441, Figure 8) and was
negatively correlated with planning regimes that were scored as negligible (p = 0.0853,
Figure 9).
Figure 8. Invertebrate diversity at the 0’ tidal height correlation with
proportion of site planning scores evaluated as “moderate”. p = 0.0441.
Figure 9. Invertebrate diversity at the 0’ tidal height correlation with
proportion of site planning scores evaluated as “negligible”. p = 0.0853.
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Index
Planning Scores - % Moderate
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
Index
Planning Scores - % Negligible

98
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
Simspon'sInvertebrateDiversity
Index
Average Management Scores - % Considerable
0'
-1'
Invertebrate diversity at both the 0 and -1 foot tidal heights responded positively
to total average management scores that were deemed considerable (p = 0.0584 and p =
0.0756, respectively, Figure 10).
Vegetation diversity at the -1 foot tidal heights was negatively correlated with
considerable planning regimes (p = 0.0853, Figure 11) and positively correlated with
negligible planning regimes (p = 0.0756, Figure 12). Additionally, vegetation diversity at
the -1 foot tidal heights was negatively correlated with total average management scores
that were deemed considerable (p = 0.0756, Figure 13). These results indicate that low
elevation vegetation communities respond negatively to well developed management
regimes, especially those with highly developed planning strategies.
Figure 10. Invertebrate diversity at the 0 and -1 foot tidal heights
correlation with proportion of site average management scores evaluated
as “considerable”, p = 0.0584 and P = 0.0756, respectively.

99
Figure 11. Vegetation diversity at the -1’ tidal heights correlation with
proportion of total planning score evaluated as “considerable”, p = 0.0853.
proportion of total planning score evaluated as “negligible”, p = 0.0756.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Simpson'sVegetationDiversity
Index
Planning Scores - % Considerable
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Index
Planning Scores - % Negligible

100
proportion of total average management score evaluated as “considerable”,
p = 0.0756.
In summary, intertidal community responses to the protection given by MPA
designation and the management strategies that aim to protect them was variable.
Intertidal community composition is similar between MPAs and unprotected control
sites. Only a few species showed positive responses to MPA protection–Pacific blue
mussel, aggregating anemone, red velvet mite and dogwinkle snail. More often than not,
ZNL sites outperformed NTL sites in terms of these individual species’ frequency.
Pacific blue mussel and red velvet mite were significantly more frequent in MPAs than
control sites. Low elevation invertebrate diversity was significantly higher at MPAs than
at control sites. These low elevation invertebrate communities, as well as those
invertebrate communities found at the 0 foot tidal height also positively correlated with
well developed planning strategies and management regimes as a whole. Invertebrate
communities at the 0 foot tidal height also negatively correlated with poorly developed
planning strategies. Low elevation vegetation communities responded negatively to well-
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
Index
Average Management Scores - % Considerable

101
developed planning strategies and positively to poorly developed planning strategies, and
responded negatively to well-developed management regimes as a whole.

102
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION, MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this research was to understand the current composition of
intertidal communities at MPAs in the Puget Sound, WA, and how, if at all, management
strategy and level of protection contributed to the composition of these communities. It is
important to reiterate that this study only focused on MPAs of semi-protected exposure
and mixed coarse substrate that were given MPA-designation between 1998 and 2005.
Additionally, this study only focused on UML, ZNL, and NTL MPAs – many MPAs in
the Puget Sound are of more stringent protection (five are No Impact and 14 are No
Access, as of 2009) and more variable environmental conditions. This study was limited
due to sampling being restricted to low tide events and the need to control for external
factors (i.e., substrate, fetch and age) to ensure comparability across sites, thus reducing
the number of sites that could be surveyed in a single season.
Intertidal Community Response to Protection
When statistically comparing intertidal communities with similarity
coefficients, one could expect that an NTL site, representing more stringent protection
levels, would be the least similar to its control site, and an UML site to be more similar to
its control site. However, no significant relationship was found between level of
protection and the different similarity coefficients, indicating that intertidal communities
are similar between protected and non-protected sites, and that higher levels of protection
do not necessarily enhance intertidal community richness. Past studies have come to
similar conclusions. Smith, Fong and Ambrose (2008) showed that mussel communities
exhibit similar diversity and density patterns inside and outside of No Take reserves in

103
California. Concurrently, Ceccherelli et al. (2006) showed that intertidal communities are
similar between protected and non-protected sites in Italy.
Most intertidal invertebrates and all intertidal vegetation populations did not
positively respond to the additional protection afforded by MPAs. However, a significant
relationship was found between level of protection and the proportions of Pacific blue
mussel, red velvet mite, aggregating anemone and dogwinkle snails. The comparison of
mean ranks showed variable results. In only one case (Pacific blue mussel) did the more
highly protected NTL MPAs show the highest mean rank over the other types of sites.
More often, the NTL sites showed similar or even lower mean ranks to low-protection
and control sites. These results could indicate that higher levels of protection do not
necessarily enhance individual species abundance, or could be suggestive of naturally
low abundances of these organisms at the more highly protected sites, possibly due to
some variable beyond the scope of this study, such as the impact of human foot traffic.
However, external factors such as substrate, fetch, age, surrounding landuse/landcover,
eelgrass distribution, slope and slope stability were controlled for in this study and were
not significantly different between MPAs and control sites, nor between differing levels
of protection. It is also important to reiterate here that the “levels of protection” used in
this analysis were taken from the 2009 Washington MPA Work Group document, in
which the levels of protection were adapted from the National MPA Center descriptions,
and were described as “imperfect and somewhat inadequate, [but] sufficient for the
completion of this inventory” (Van Cleve et al., 2009, p. 15).
The Pacific blue mussel and red velvet mite also showed significantly higher
proportions at MPAs than at control sites. Mussels have been found to be particularly

104
vulnerable to human-induced losses as they are used as a food source, collected for fish
bait and are easily trampled. Indirectly, these activities further reduce mussel populations
by weakening their attachment strengths to other individuals in the population, as well as
to their substrate, making them more sensitive to wave activity and further human
disturbance (Smith & Murray, 2005). Red velvet mites occur in the upper intertidal zone
among rock crevices, drift wood and washed-up algae. These mites have been known to
respond negatively to the approach of a human finger (Kozloff, 1993). This suggests that
humans may more frequently comply with MPA regulations regarding the disturbance
and taking of intertidal organisms in the upper intertidal zone.
Invertebrate biodiversity was found to be significantly higher at the -1 foot tidal
height quadrats of MPAs than at control sites. These low elevation areas are only exposed
during extreme low tide events, and often host the richest intertidal communities. In an
assessment of non-game marine invertebrates in Washington State, Carney and Kvitek
(1991) found that harvest pressure generally increased with decreasing tidal height and
during extreme low tide events. Given that these communities were sampled at equal tidal
heights, these results suggest that human compliance with MPA regulations, not less
exposure due to tidal variations, is responsible for higher invertebrate diversity at lower
tidal elevations.
Comparison of Intertidal Community Composition and Management Evaluation Scores
In general, intertidal communities did not show any significant correlations with
management scores, with a few exceptions. Invertebrate community diversity at the 0
foot tidal heights increased with moderately developed planning strategies, and decreased
with poorly developed planning strategies. Invertebrate community diversity at the -1

105
foot tidal heights increased with more well-developed planning strategies, and decreased
when the context indicators were only moderately considered. Invertebrate diversity at
both the 0 and -1 foot tidal heights increased with highly scoring management regimes as
a whole (average of context, planning, inputs and process scores). Thus, low elevation
invertebrate communities positively respond to management strategies in which planning
documents are thoroughly developed and include goals, objectives, natural resource
management plans, boundary maps, regulations, enforcement strategy and a plan for
adaptive management and monitoring, among other elements. These results also suggest
that when all four components of management (i.e., context, planning, inputs and
process) are highly functioning and are given adequate consideration, low elevation
invertebrate communities respond positively.
Vegetation diversity at the -1 foot tidal heights responded negatively to highly
scoring management regimes−those with more developed planning strategies
especially−and responded positively to underdeveloped planning strategies. While
seemingly contrary to expectation, these results could be caused by the high invertebrate
diversity at these same tidal elevations. Many of the invertebrates in these lower tidal
elevations, such as chink snails (Lacuna spp.), are herbivorous grazers and feed on
intertidal plant matter (Island County/WSU Beachwatchers, 2007). It should also be
noted that properly functioning eelgrass communities are monocultures, so low
vegetation diversity in these areas may not necessarily be indicative of inadequate
protection (C. Donoghue, personal communication, August 11, 2011).
No significant correlation was found between similarity coefficients and
management scores. One might expect that site pairings of low similarity (i.e., MPA and

106
control site do not have similar intertidal communities) would correlate with high
management scores. Lack of such findings suggests that intertidal communities as a
whole do not respond to management strategies in any right, and may be more a function
of external conditions like the proximity to creosote-soaked overwater structures or the
impact of human foot traffic or rock turning. Other studies have also found that biological
communities are often similar inside and outside of marine reserves. Intertidal
communities in Italy (Ceccherelli et al., 2006), seagrass populations in the Mediterranean
(Montefalcone et al., 2009), benthic habitat complexity in Mexico (Rioja-Nieto &
Sheppard, 2008) and red urchin, scallops, rockfish and lingcod size and abundance in the
San Juan Islands of the Puget Sound have shown similar assemblages inside and outside
reserves (Tuya et al., 2000).
Given the variability in intertidal community response to the protection afforded
to them by MPAs, a discussion of notable and/or concerning management strategy
evaluation responses is warranted. Firstly, WPRC and Seattle managing agencies were
both unfamiliar with the term “marine protected area.” This stems from common top-
down legislation in which a mandate is regulated, but without supporting funding or
personnel, as seems to be the case with MPA legislation. It should also be noted that there
was significant difficulty in retrieving all the necessary information for conducting this
management evaluation, indicating a lack of clearly defined responsibility or authority
among some of the managing agencies. Secondly, more focus seems to be paid to
subtidal communities, and not the intertidal habitats which largely support them. For
example, Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi), Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes
hexapterus) and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) all use these areas as spawning habitat

107
(WDFW, n.d.f-h). One staff member expressed a lack of interest in the intertidal
community, not necessarily discrediting the importance of intertidal areas, but
underscoring a lack of funding and personnel for the proper management of these
communities. In 1989, Kyte found a similar sentiment among WDFW staff, citing
“personnel in the past actively disclaimed any knowledge or interest in NGMI,” (Kyte,
1989, p. 24). Consequently, over 20 years of sub-par conservation sentiment has been
linked with these communities.
There were many common threads among all three agencies included in this
study. No agency used any formal designation criteria to establish their sites as MPAs,
nor performed initial intertidal inventories to determine what was being protected. Only
three sites had site-specific management plans, while most agency-wide management
plans were lacking clearly measurable objectives and resource management strategies.
However, as depicted by the results of this research, proper development of planning
documents may be one way to actively enhance the diversity of low elevation intertidal
invertebrate populations. Any protected area that suffers from fundamental planning
flaws is less likely to be effective, in spite of other seemingly well developed
management strategies (Hockings, Stolton, Leverington, Dudley & Courrau, 2000).
Variable and declining funding sources were common among all the agencies, as
were a lack of enough staff to manage the area. The top-down legislation used to create
MPAs did not provide for the funding to properly manage the areas. As funding will
likely continue to be variable in the future, the creation of new MPAs with the
expectation that they will be efficient seems short-sighted. Many MPAs were created
simply to reduce the impact of non-traditional harvest, and have not been actively

108
managed since. This clockmaker approach to MPA establishment is not sustainable, as
this study suggests that the lack of inputs to MPA management may play a role in their
insufficiency. However, a potential motivation for MPA funding is the link between a
highly diverse intertidal community and associated ecosystem services. As noted before,
many forage fish (i.e., Pacific herring, Pacific sand lance and surf smelt) rely on the
intertidal area for spawning habitat, and during early life stages prey upon copepods and
invertebrate eggs (Hart, 1973; WDFW, n.d.f-h). These species are then preyed upon by
seabirds and salmon alike (WDFW, n.d.f-h). Consequently, a properly functioning,
diverse intertidal community is the stepping stone for lucrative recreational activities that
could potentially provide funding for these areas, through fishing license taxes or park
entrance fees where bird watching is common.
Active management processes for most of these sites was cited as occurring on an
“as needed basis.” Enforcement authority was not clearly defined, with a majority of the
sites lacking a regular patrol schedule. Commonly, agencies rely on signage to educate
their citizens about the rules and expected behavior of MPA visitors. Improper boundary
demarcation makes writing citations difficult, so most violators are only met with
warnings.
Murray and Ferguson (1998) and Van Cleve et al. (2009) found 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. The outcome of this study suggests similar results. No
managing agency surveyed here had outlined site selection criteria for MPA
establishment. Many sites (particularly Des Moines Park, South 239th
Street Park, Emma

109
Schmitz and Richey Viewpoint) were established as MPAs, having little managerial
attention paid to them since. All sites lacked sufficient funding for implementing the
various goals and objectives outlined in their management plans. Only three WDFW sites
actually monitored biological communities within their MPAs, however, this monitoring
is focused on subtidal, not intertidal, populations. These inconsistencies and
shortcomings among the MPAs sampled here are congruent with the above-mentioned
findings.
Despite some concerning management conditions across all three agencies
involved in this study, some management practices are better developed (Table 32). All
three agencies go through a public meeting process prior to MPA establishment and the
MPAs of all three agencies have long term legal protection. Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife does collect biological data from subtidal populations at three of the
five WDFW sites studied here. Additionally, WDFW has the appropriate infrastructure to
monitor intertidal and subtidal communities at all of their MPAs, given sufficient
personnel and funding of the WDFW sites, Titlow Beach performed the best, with
33.01% and 34.74% of its average management score evaluated as considerable and
moderate, respectively. These higher scores are likely to Titlow Beach being the only
WDFW site with a site-specific management plan. Des Moines and South 239th
Street
parks performed the worst of all the WDFW sites, with 57.75% and 60.95% of their
average management scores evaluated as negligible. Seattle regularly collaborates with
the Seattle Aquarium to provide for intertidal community education through their citizen
science and Beach Naturalists programs. While scores for all three Seattle sites were
similar, Discovery Park performed the best, with 24.97% and 27.86% of its average

110
management score being evaluated as considerable and moderate, respectively.
Discovery Park’s higher scores are likely due to the presence of on-site staff and a site-
specific management plan. Washington Parks and Recreation Commission at Possession
Point State Park has clear internal organization among the management staff, where
individual responsibility is clearly defined. Additionally, WPRC has a well-developed
educational and interpretive program in place. These well-developed elements of
management gave Possession Point the lowest proportion of its average management
score evaluated as negligible, as compared to all the other sites. Possession Point had
29.28% and 41.52% of its total management score evaluated as considerable and
moderate, respectively.
Table 32
Average Management Scores for All Sites
Agency Site Considerable (%) Moderate (%) Negligible (%)
WDFW
Des Moines Park 26.10 16.15 57.75
South 239th
St. Park 23.53 15.51 60.95
Octopus Hole 22.20 34.26 43.54
Titlow Beach 33.01 34.74 32.25
Seattle
Emma Schmitz Park 18.98 25.93 55.73
WPRC Possession Point 29.28 41.52 29.20
Management Recommendations
As indicated by this research, MPAs are not efficient in maintaining or enhancing
intertidal communities, but may be suitable for the enhancement of a few species. The
types of MPAs studied here do not limit human visitation. As trampling may be a
significant source of loss for some species (e.g., Pacific blue mussel), the current system

111
in which these sites are managed is insufficient for their protection. Smith, Fong and
Ambrose (2008) noted that reserves where human access has been completely restricted
show a much more positive response to protection, as their regulations address both
harvest and trampling. The authors note that marine reserve “effectiveness depends on
the regulations matching the cause of the impacts” (p. 609). Though in most cases, MPAs
do not strive to protect any one species in particular; their main focus is harvest
management. Carney and Kvitek (1991) concluded that habitat protection as a whole
would be more effective in protecting intertidal communities than harvest regulations and
individual species management. They note that the importance of interrelationships
within the intertidal zone is often neglected, as depicted by a seeming lack of interest in
the intertidal zone by the very agencies responsible for their protection. One potential
solution to this problem could be to add guiding ropes to intertidal zones, similar to those
installed at Rosario Beach. Zoned or complete No Take MPAs with these sorts of guiding
mechanisms would concentrate foot traffic to only a few areas, thereby addressing both
harvest and trampling concerns and greatly reducing negative impacts on more sensitive
species (i.e., Pacific blue mussel) while still allowing public access. Habitat-focused,
rather than individual species-focused solutions such as this may be a more effective way
to manage MPAs.
Scientific descriptions of intertidal invertebrate species, especially their foraging
and reproductive behavior, as well as other factors of population dynamics, are poorly
documented by the scientific community. Kyte (1989) maintains that “usual wildlife and
fisheries management requires a knowledge of the population dynamics and life history
of the target species. However, little of this kind of information is available for any

112
NGMI species,” (p. ii). Consequently, for MPAs to be effective, a much better
understanding of the species they aim to protect will be necessary. This is especially true
for siting design. Certain species require a range of habitats of varying size for successful
spawning, rearing and population replenishment. These optimal conditions are still very
much unclear to the scientific community; ultimately leading to uninformed design, siting
and implementation of MPAs. For example, the South 239th
Street MPA is a thin strip of
land, 0.20 acres in size. This may be too small of an area for both population
replenishment and protection from external stressors. If marine reserves are to be
“biodiversity hotspots” than they need to be protected from outside influences such as
chemical contamination and fisheries exploitation (Allison, Lubchenco & Carr, 1998). A
commonly cited target for minimum reserve size is 20% of the habitat where protection is
required, although more recent studies suggest at least 35% (Hastings & Botsford, 2003;
Sale et al., 2005). Others suggest that marine reserve size should be maximized, in order
to hold larger populations of species and to allow each species to complete their life
cycles within the reserve boundaries (Sale et al., 2005). Marine reserves 1 to 5 square
kilometers have been cited as being effective for enhancing biomass of target sedentary
species, however, other factors such as target species mobility and even hydrodynamics
must also be considered (Agardy et al., 2003; Halpern, 2003; Sale et al., 2005).
Some studies suggest that broad-area integrated management, like the ZNL sites
observed in this study, do a better job of protecting marine resources than small, isolated
no-take reserves. Implementing a wide-ranging network of ZNL MPAs will also decrease
the need for infrastructure and administrative costs that are often associated with some
no-take reserves (Agardy et al., 2003). Additionally, scientific uncertainty surrounding

113
no-take reserves may make the further implementation of a broad network of ZNL MPAs
more politically and socioeconomically feasible (Sale et al. 2005).
With all the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of MPAs, the prediction
that MPAs will continue to be established in the future seems misguided. Frustrations
continue to mount among managers and decision-makers as they are continually faced
with a lack of indisputable data and specific management recommendations from the
scientific community (Agardy et al., 2003; Allison, Lubchenco & Carr, 1998). This study
showed that both invertebrate and vegetation communities of the intertidal zone show
variable results to the protection afforded by MPAs – low elevation invertebrate
communities respond positively to MPA designation, though only two species showed
significantly higher abundances inside rather than outside MPA boundaries, while
vegetation communities responded negatively to well-developed management strategies.
A continued blanket-assignment of MPA designations without supporting empirical
evidence potentially raises expectations of end results, ultimately risking full-out
abandonment of MPAs as an effective conservation tool by managers and the public alike
(Agardy et al., 2003; Allison, Lubchenco & Carr, 1998). These conclusions only further
highlight the need for managing agencies to have a complete management strategy that
includes: an agreeable context environment (i.e., appropriate considerations were taken
prior to designation); a fully developed management plan; adequate staffing, funding and
infrastructure for effective management; clearly defined roles among individual managers
and the agency as a whole, and operational enforcement and education/awareness
systems.

114
Thus, MPA effectiveness may be improved in the following ways:
1) The MPAs 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.
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:

115
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?
Conclusions
The results of this study largely support previous findings that MPAs in the Puget
Sound are ineffective for the protection of intertidal biodiversity, with inconsistencies and
shortcomings in management style being prevalent among the agencies responsible for
their protection. Only a few species and intertidal communities of certain tidal elevations
responded positively to MPA designation, and only low elevation invertebrates
responded positively to managerial components that were more well-developed. 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. Consequently, if the protection of these areas can be enhanced through more
comprehensive, goal-oriented management, these communities may respond more
positively to MPA protection, validating the need to set aside protected areas in the
marine and estuarine environments of the Puget Sound.

116
REFERENCES
Adams, M. & Holmes, J. (2007). EZ ID Seaweeds and Seagrasses featuring seaweeds
and seagrasses of the Salish Sea and the Pacific Northwest Coast. Oak Harbor,
WA: Periwinkle Press.
Adams, M. & Holmes, J. (2009). EZ ID Intertidal Invertebrates featuring marine life of
the Salish Sea and the Pacific Northwest Coast. Oak Harbor, WA: Periwinkle
Press.
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.
Beatley, T., Brower, D. J., & Schwab, A. K. (2002). An introduction to coastal zone
management, 2nd
Ed. Washington DC: Island Press.
Botsford, L. W., Castilla, J. C. & Peterson, C. H. (1997). The management of fisheries
and marine ecosystems. Science, 277, 509-515.
Brown, N. A. & J. K. Gaydos. (n.d.) Species of concern within the Georgia Basin Puget
Sound marine ecosystem: Changes from 2002 to 2006. Eastsound, WA: SeaDoc
Society.
Burak, S., Dogan, E., & Gazioglub, C. (2004). Impact of urbanization and tourism on
coastal environments. Ocean and Coastal Management, 47, 515-527.
Carney, D. & Kvitek, R.G. (1991). Assessment of nongame marine invertebrate harvest
in Washington. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Ceccherelli, G., Casu, D., Pala, D., Pinna, S., & Sechi, N. (2006). Evaluating the effects
of protection on two benthic habitats at Tavolara-Punta Coda Cavallo MPA
(North-East Sardina, Italy). Marine Environmental Research, 61, 171-185.
City of Edmonds. (2010). Edmonds City Municipal Code (Chapter 5.32 Park
Regulations). Edmonds, WA: Author.
City of Tacoma. (2009). Environmental stewardship project site management plan.
Tacoma, WA: Author.
City Park Marine Reserves Rule, Seattle Municipal Code §18-12 (1990).

117
Clallam County. (1980). Clallam County Code 23.03.140 Preservation of Public
Property.
Clancy, M., Logan, I., Loew, J., Johannessen, J., MacLennan A., Van Cleve, B., et al.
(2009). Management measures for protecting Puget Sound nearshore. (Puget
Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Report 2009-01). Olympia,
Washington: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Claudet, J., Pelletier, D., Jouvenel, J.Y., Bachet, F., & Galzin, R. (2006). Assessing the
effects of marine protected area (MPA) on a reef fish assemblage in a
northwestern Mediterranean marine reserve: Identifying community-based
indicators. Biological Conservation, 130, 349-369.
Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA], 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq. (1972).
Connel, J. H. (1970). A predator-prey system in the marine intertidal region: Balanus
glandula and several predatory species of Thais. Ecological Monographs, 40(1),
49-78.
Determan, T. A. (1999). Temporal and spatial distribution of paralytic shellfish
poisoning in Puget Sound. Washington State Department of Health. Office of
Shellfish Programs. Olympia, WA.
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.
Ehler, C. N. (2003). Indicators to measure governance performance in integrated coastal
management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 46, 335-345.
Enforcement, 232 Wash. Admin. Code § 13.110 (1976).
Ervin, J. (2003). WWF rapid assessment and prioritization of protected area management
(RAPPAM) methodology. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.
ESRI (Environmental Systems Resource Institute). (2010). ArcGIS (Version 10.0)
[Computer Software].
Exec. Order No. 13158, 3 C.F.R. 34909 (2000).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States. (2009). The state of world
fisheries and aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Rome, Italy.
Frankenstein, G. (2000). Blooms of ulvoids in the Puget Sound. Olympia, WA: Puget
Sound Water Quality Action Team.

118
Friedlander, A. M., Brown, E. K., & Monaco, M. E. (2007). Coupling ecology and GIS to
evaluate efficacy of marine protected areas in Hawaii. Ecological Applications,
17(3), 715-730.
Garthe, S., Camphuysen, K., & Furness, R. (1996). Amounts of discards by commercial
fisheries and their significance as food for seabirds in the north sea. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 136, 1-11.
Gaston, K. J. (1996). Biodiversity: A biology of numbers and difference. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell Science Ltd.
Gelfenbaum, G., Mumford, T., Brennan, J., Case, H., Dethier, M., Fresh, K., et al. (2006).
Coastal Habitats in Puget Sound: A research plan in support of the Puget Sound
Nearshore Partnership. (Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project
Technical Report 2009-01). Seattle, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey.
Gray, J. S. (1997). Marine biodiversity: Patterns, threats and conservation needs.
Biodiversity and Conservation, 6, 153-175.
Griffiths, J., Dethier, M. N., Newsom, A., Byers, J. E., Meyer, J. J., Oyarzun, F., et al.
(2006). Invertebrate community responses to recreational clam digging. Marine
Biology, 149, 1489-1497.
Grober-Dunsmore, R., Woonick, L., Field, J., Ainsworth, C., Beets, J., Berkely, S., et al.
(2008). Vertical zoning in Marine Protected Areas: Ecological considerations for
balancing pelagic fishing with conservation of benthic communities. Fisheries,
33(12), 598-610.
Gutzwiler, J. & Koenings, J. (2008). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Strategic Plan 2009-2015. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
Hall, C. M. (2001). Trends in ocean and coastal tourism: the end of the last frontier?
Ocean and Coastal Management, 44, 601-618.
Halpern, B. S. (2003). The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does reserve
size matter? Ecological Applications, 13(1) Supplement, S117-S137.
Hart, J. L. (1973). Pacific fishes of Canada. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada, 180, 740 pp.
Hastings, A. & Botsford, L. W. (2003). Comparing designs of marine reserves for
fisheries and for biodiversity. Ecological Applications, 13(1) Supplement, S65-
S70.

119
Heltshe, J. F. & Forrester, N. E. (1985). Statistical evaluation of the jackknife estimate of
diversity when using quadrat samples. Ecology, 66, 107-111.
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.
Hopper, M. (2007). WXTide32 (Version 4.7) [Computer software].
Island County/WSU Beach Watchers. (2003). Training manual for Island
County/Washington State University Beach Watchers: Beach monitoring
procedures. Coupeville, WA: Author.
Island County/WSU Beach Watchers. (2007). Lacuna spp. (Chink shell). Retrieved
August 15, 2011, from http://beachwatchers.wsu.edu/ezidweb/animals/
Lacuna.htm.
Island County/WSU Beach Watchers. (2008). Rosario Beach educators reflections. Beach
Log, October 2008.
Jamieson, G. S., Chew, L., Gillespie, G. E., Robinson, A., Bendell-Young, L., Heath, W.,
et al. (2001). Phase 0 review on the environmental impacts of intertidal shellfish
aquaculture in Baynes Sound. Ottowa, Canada: Canadian Science Advisory
Secretariat.
Jenkins, C., Haas, M. E., Olsen, A. & Ruesink, J. L. (2002). Impacts of trampling on a
rocky shoreline of San Juan Island, Washington, USA. Natural Areas Journal,
22(4), 260-269.
Jones & Stokes. (2002). Final Vegetation Management Plan: Discovery Park. Bellevue,
WA: Author.
King County Department of Natural Resources. (2001). Reconnaissance assessment of
the state of the nearshore ecosystem: Eastern shore of Central Puget Sound,
including Vashon and Maury Islands. Seattle, Washington: Author.
Kozloff, E. N. (1993). Seashore life of the Pacific Northwest: An illustrated guide to
Northern California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
Krebs, C.J. (1999). Ecological Methodology. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Welsey
Educational Publishers, Inc.
Kruckeberg, A. R. (1991). The natural history of Puget Sound Country. Seattle:
University of Washington Press.

120
Kyte, M. A. (1989). The nongame marine invertebrates of Washington: An inventory of
species and sources of loss with a status evaluation and management and
conservation guidelines. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Wildlife.
Lamb, A. & Hanby, B. P. (2005). Marine life of the Pacific Northwest: A photographic
encyclopedia of invertebrates, seaweeds and selected fishes. Madeira Park, BC:
Harbour Publishing.
Lubchenco, J., Allison, G. W., Nararrete, S. A., Menge, B. A., Castilla, J. C., Defeco, O.,
et al. (1995). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (United Nations
Environment Programme, Global Diversity Assessment). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Lubchenco, J., Palumbi, S. R., Gaines, S. D., & Andelman, S. (2003). Plugging a hole in
the ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications,
13(1) Supplement, S3-S7.
MacDonald, K., Simpson, D., Paulsen, B., Cox, J., & Gendron, J. (1994). Shoreline
armoring effects on physical coastal processes in Puget Sound, Washington.
Washington Department of Ecology. Shorelands Program. (Coastal Erosion
Management Studies Volume 5, DOE Report 94-78). Olympia, Washington.
Marine Biological Materials, 28B Revised Code of Washington § 20.320 (1969).
McDonald, J. H. (2009). Handbook of Biological Statistics (2nd
ed.). Baltimore: Sparky
House Publishing.
McGrew, J. C., Jr. & Monroe, C. B. (1993). An introduction to statistical problem solving
in geography. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
Metro Parks Tacoma. (2010). Master Plan for Titlow Park. Tacoma, WA: Author.
Milazzo, M., Badalamenti, F., Ceccherelli, G., & Chemello, R. (2004). Boat anchoring on
Posidonia oceanica beds in a marine protected area (Italy, western
Mediterranean): effect of anchor types in different anchoring stages. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 299, 51-62.
Milazzo, M., Badalamenti, F., Vega-Fernandez, T., & Chemello, R. Effects of fish
feeding by snorkelers on the density and size distribution of fishes in a
Mediterranean marine protected area. Marine Biology, 146, 1213-1222.
Miller, G. (2000). Urban Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan. Seattle: Seattle
Department of Parks and Recreation.

121
Montefalcone, M., Albertelli, G., Morri, C., Parravicini, V. & Bianchi, C.N. (2009).
Legal protection is not enough: Posidonia oceanica meadows in marine protected
areas are not healthier than those in unprotected areas of the northwest
Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58, 515-519.
Murray, M. R. & Ferguson, L. (1998). The status of marine protected areas in Puget
Sound. Proceedings of the 1998 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research
Conference, Seattle, WA.
Muthiga, N. A. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of management of the Malindi-
Watamu marine protected area complex in Kenya. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 52, 417-423.
National MPA Center. (2006). A functional classification system for marine protected
areas in the United States. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
National Marine Sanctuaries Act [NMSA], 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq. (1972).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. (n.d.a.). Marine debris
research, prevention, and reduction act of 2006. Retrieved July 14, 2011, from
http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/about/act.html.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. (n.d.b). Restoration
economics: Habitat equivalency analysis. Retrieved February 14, 2011, from
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/coastal/economics/habitatequ.htm.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. (n.d.c). Water level tidal
predictions. Retrieved June 4, 2010, from http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/
tide_pred.html.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. (n.d.d). Marine mammal
protection act (MMPA) of 1972. Retrieved July 26, 2011, from
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. (2011). Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary draft management plan and draft environmental
assessment. Port Angeles, WA: Author.
National Park Service [NPS]. (1999). Natural resource challenge: The National Park
Service’s action plan for preserving natural resources. Washington DC: Author.
National Research Council. (2001). Marine protected areas: Tools for sustaining ocean
ecosystems. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

122
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act [NWRSAA], 16 U.S.C. § 668dd-
668ee (1966).
Nelson, T. A. & Lee, A. (2001). A manipulative experiment shows that blooms of the
macroalga Ulvaria obscura can reduce eelgrass shoot density. Aquatic Botany,
71, 149-154.
Ojeda-Martínez, C., Casalduero, F. G., Bayle-Sempere, J. T., Cebrián, C. B., Valle, C.,
Sanchez-Lizaso, J., et al. (2009). A conceptual framework for the integral
management of marine protected areas. Ocean and Coastal Management, 52, 89-
101.
OTA (US Congress Office of Technology Assessment). (1987). Technologies to maintain
biological diversity. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
Parnell, P. E., Lennert-Cody, C. E., Geelen, L., Stanley, L. D., & Dayton, P. K. (2005).
Effectiveness of a small marine reserve in southern California. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 296, 39-52.
Pentec Environmental. (2003). Final long-term monitoring and reporting plan (Work
Order DC 1098, U.S. EPA Docket No. CERCLA 10-2001-0069). Tacoma, WA:
Author.
Peterson, C. H. & Lubchenco, J. (1997). Marine ecosystem services. In G. Daily (Ed.),
Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems (pp. 177-194).
Washington DC: Island Press.
Pileou, E. C. (1966). The measurement of diversity in different types of biological
collections. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 13, 131-144.
Police powers vested in commission and employees, 79A Revised Code of Washington §
.05.160 (1999).
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.
Puget Sound Action Team [PSAT]. (2000). Puget Sound water quality management plan.
Olympia: Author.
Puget Sound Action Team [PSAT]. (2001). 2001-2003 Puget Sound water quality work
plan. Olympia: Author.

123
Puget Sound Action Team [PSAT]. (2003). 2003-2005 Puget Sound water quality work
plan. Olympia: Author.
Puget Sound Partnership. (2008). Puget Sound action agenda: Protecting and restoring
the Puget Sound ecosystem by 2020. Olympia, WA: Author.
Raven, J. A. & Taylor, R. (2003). Macroalgal growth in nutrient-enriched estuaries: a
biogeochemical and evolutionary perspective. Water, Air & Soil Pollution, 3, 7-
26.
Resource Protection, Public Use and Recreation, 36 C.F.R. pt. 2 (1983).
Rioja-Nieto, R. & Sheppard, C. (2008). Effects of management strategies on the
landscape ecology of a Marine Protected Area. Ocean & Coastal Management,
15, 397-404.
Rouphael, T. & Inglis, G. (1995). The effects of qualified recreational SCUBA divers on
coral reefs. CRC Reef Research Centre Technical Report No. 4. Townsville,
Australia.
Sale, P. F., Cowen, R. K., Danilowicz, B. S., Jones, G. P., Kritzer, J. P., Lindeman, K. C.
et al. (2005). Critical science gaps impede the use of no-take fishery reserves.
TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 20(2), 74-80.
Samoilys, M. A., Martin-Smith, K. M., Giles, B. G., Cabrera, B., Anticamara, J. A.,
Brunio, E. O., & Vincent, A. C. J. (2007). Effectiveness of five small Philippines’
coral reef reserves for fish populations depend on site-specific factors, particularly
enforcement history. Biological Conservation, 136, 584-601.
Sánchez, F. & Olaso, I. (2004). Effects of fisheries on the Cantabrian sea shelf
ecosystem. Ecological Modeling, 172, 151-174.
Schiel, D. R. & Taylor, D. I. (1999). Effects of trampling on a rocky intertidal algal
assemblage in southern New Zealand. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology
and Ecology, 235, 213-235.
Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation [Seattle]. (1982). Discovery Park wildlife
management plan. Seattle: Author.
Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation [Seattle]. (1986). Discovery Park
development plan. Seattle: Author.

124
Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation [Seattle]. (2000). Urban wildlife and habitat
management plan 2000 update. Seattle: Author.
Sept, J. D. (1999). The beachcomber’s guide to seashore life in the Pacific Northwest.
Madeira Park, BC: Harbour Publishing.
Shoreline Management Act [SMA], 90 Revised Code of Washington § 58 (1971).
Smith, H. K. (2010). Factors affecting the abundance and size of Pisaster ochraceus in
the rocky intertidal zone of southern British Columbia. Bioscience Horizons, 3(2),
179-187.
Smith, R. L. (1990). Student resource manual to accompany ecology and field biology.
New York: Harper Collins.
Smith, J. R. & Murray, S. N. (2005). The effects of bait collection and trampling on
Mytilus californianus communities in the southern California intertidal zone.
Marine Biology, 146, 699-706.
Smith, J. R., Fong, P. & Ambrose, R. F. (2008). The impacts of human visitation on
mussel bed communities along the California coast: Are regulatory marine
reserves effective in protecting these communities? Environmental Management,
41, 599-612.
Staub, F. & Hatziolos, M. E. (2004). Scorecard to assess progress in achieving
management effectiveness goals for marine protected areas. Washington DC: The
World Bank.
Sumaila, U. R., Guénette, S., Alder, J., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2000). Addressing
ecosystem effects of fishing using marine protected areas. ICES Journal of
Marine Science, 57, 752-760.
Tognelli, M. F., Fernández, M., & Marquest, P. A. (2009). Assessing the performance of
the existing and proposed network of marine protected areas to conserve marine
biodiversity in Chile. Biological Conservation, 142, 3147-3153.
Tuya, F. C., Soboil, M. L., & Kido, J. (2000). An assessment of the effectiveness of
Marine Protected Areas in the San Juan Islands, Washington, USA. ICES Journal
of Marine Science, 57, 1218-1226.
TWC Economics. (2008). Economic analysis of the non-treaty commercial and
recreational fisheries in Washington state. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

125
United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. (2005). Nisqually National Wildlife
Refuge comprehensive conservation plan. Olympia, WA: Author.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. (2007). Washington Islands National
Wildlife Refuges comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment.
Port Angeles, WA: Author.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. (2010). Protection Island and San
Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuges draft comprehensive conservation
plan/wilderness stewardship plan/environmental assessment. Sequim, WA:
Author.
University of Washington. (1974). Discovery Park inventory and natural history report.
Seattle: Author.
Valiela, I., McClelland, Hauxwell, J., Behr, P. J., Hersh, D. & K. Forman. (1997).
Macroalgal blooms in shallow estuaries: controls and ecophysical and ecosystem
consequences. Limnology and Oceanography, 45(5), 1105-1118.
Van Alstyne, K. L., Flanagan, J. C. & S. Gifford. (2011). Recreational clam harvesting
affects sediment nutrient remineralization and the growth of the green macroalga
Ulva lactuca. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 401, 57-62.
Van Alstyne, K. L., Nelson, A. V., Vyvyan, J. & Cancilla, D. (2006). Dopamine
functions as an antiherbivore defense in the temperate green alga Ulvaria
obscura. Oecologia, 148, 404-311.
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.
Wallace, S. S. (1999). Evaluating the effects of three forms of marine reserve on northern
abalone populations in British Columbia, Canada. Conservation Biology, 13(4),
882-887.
Walmsley, S. F. & White, A. T. (2003). Influence of social, management and
enforcement factors on the long-term ecological effects of marine sanctuaries.
Ecological Conservation, 30(4), 388-407.
Washington Department of Ecology [WDOE]. (2001). Managing Washington’s coast:
Washington’s coastal zone management program (Pub. No. 00-06-029). Olympia,
WA: Author.

126
Washington Department of Ecology [WDOE]. (2008). Padilla Bay National Marine
Estuarine Research Reserve management plan (Pub. No. 09-06-016). Olympia,
WA: Author.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]. (n.d.a). Marine Protected Areas
within Puget Sound: City of Des Moines Park Conservation Area. Olympia, WA:
Author.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]. (n.d.b). Marine Protected Areas
within Puget Sound: Colvos Passage Marine Preserve. Olympia, WA: Author.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]. (n.d.c). Marine Protected Areas
within Puget Sound: Octopus Hole Conservation Area. Olympia, WA: Author.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]. (n.d.d). Marine Protected Areas
within Puget Sound: South 239th
Street Park Conservation Area. Olympia, WA:
Author.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]. (n.d.e). Marine Protected Areas
within Puget Sound: Titlow Beach Marine Preserve. Olympia, WA: Author.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]. (n.d.f). Puget Sound herring fact
sheet. Olympia, WA: Author.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]. (n.d.g). Washington State sand
lance fact sheet. Olympia, WA: Author.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]. (n.d.h). Washington State surf
smelt fact sheet. Olympia, WA: Author.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]. (2005). Comprehensive wildlife
conservation strategy. Olympia, WA: Author.
Washington Department of Natural Resources [WDFW]. (1989). Interagency Agreement
No. 20-012526. Olympia, WA: Author.
Washington Department of Natural Resources [WDFW]. (2005). Aquatic Reserve
Program implementation and designation guidance. Olympia, WA: Author.
Washington Department of Natural Resources [WDFW]. (2006). Aquatic Lands
Commercial Lease (Agreement No. 20-B10282). Edmonds, WA: Author.
Washington Parks and Recreation Commission [WPRC]. (2001). Possession Point
interim operating plan. Olympia, WA: Author.

127
Washington Parks and Recreation Commission [WPRC]. (2008). Washington State Parks
and Recreation Commission: 2009-2015 Strategic Plan. Olympia, WA: Author.
Washington Parks and Recreation Commission [WPRC]. (2010). Protecting Washington
State Park’s natural resources: A comprehensive natural resource management
policy. Olympia, WA: Author.
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. (1998). Fish and Wildlife Commission Policy
Decision (Marine Protected Areas, Policy No. POL-C3013). Olympia, WA:
Author.
Wilson, W. H. (1990). Competition and predation in marine soft-sediment communities.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 21, 221-241.
Wolda, H. (1981). Similarity indices, sample size and diversity. Oecologica, 50, 296-302.

128
APPENDIX A
SPECIES PROPORTIONS FOR EACH SITE
Table A1
Species proportions observed at Colvos Passage MPA.
Common Name Scientific Classification Proportion
Beach hopper Traskorchestia traskiana 20.00
Crenate or acorn barnacle Balanus spp. 90.00
Haystack barnacle Semibalanus cariosus 20.00
Little brown barnacle Chthamalus dalli 50.00
Black-clawed crab Lophopanopeus bellus 0
Flat top porcelain crab Petrolisthes eriomerus 0
Graceful kelp crab Pugettia gracilis 0
Hairy shore crab Hemigrapsus oregonensis 80.00
Purple shore crab Hemigrapsus nudus 0
Red rock crab Cancer productus 0
Hermit crab Pagurus spp. 30.00
Pill bug isopod Gnorimosphaeroma oregonense 0
Other isopod spp. Idotea spp. 0
Broken-back shrimp Heptacarpus spp. 0
Red velvet mite Neomolgus littoralis 0
Hairy or mossy chiton Mopalia spp. 20.00
Lined chiton Tonicella lineata 0
Unidentified clam spp. Bivalvia 30.00
Green-false jingle Pododesmus macrochisma 20.00
Heart cockle Clinocardium nuttallii 0
Unidentified limpet spp. Gastropoda 80.00
Pacific blue mussel Mytilus trossulus 50.00
Opalescent nudibranch Hermissenda crassicornis 0
Barnacle-eating nudibranch Onchidoris bilamellata 0
Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas 0
Checkered periwinkle snail Littorina scutulata 60.00
Smooth/frilled dogwinkle snail Nucella lamellosa 50.00
Blue topsnail Calliostoma ligatum 0
Sitka snail Littorina sitkana 0
Chink snail Lacuna spp. 0
Lewis’ moonsnail Euspira lewisii 0
Red sea cucumber Cucumaria miniata 0
Mottled sea star Evasterias troschelii 0
Sunflower sea star Pycnopodia helianthoides 0
Purple sea star Pisaster ochraceus 0
Long-armed brittle star Amphiodia occidentalis 0
Green sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis 0

129
Table A1 (continued)
Species proportions observed at Colvos Passage MPA.
Common Name Scientific Name Proportion
Aggregating anemone Anthopluera elegantissima 20.00
Moonglow anemone Anthopluera artemisia 0
Lined anemone Haliplanella lineata 0
Stubby rose anemone Urticina coriacea 0
Christmas anemone Urticina crassicornis 0
Ribbon worm Phylum Nemertea 10.00
Saddleback flatworm Notoplana sanguinea 0
Polychaete worm Phylum Annelida 20.00
Calcareous tube worm Serpulidae spp. 0
Spaghetti worm Thelepus spp. 0
Black prickleback Xiphister atropurpureus 0
Northern clingfish Gobiesox maeandricus 0
Green algae Phylum Chlorophyta 50.00
Red algae Phylum Rhodophyta 80.00
Brown algae Phylum Ochrophyta 60.00
Eelgrass Zostera spp. 0
Table A2
Species proportions observed at Colvos Passage Control.
Haystack barnacle Semibalanus cariosus 0
Pill bug isopod Gnorimosphaeroma oregonense 18.18
Hairy or mossy chiton Mopalia spp. 0

130
Species proportions observed at Colvos Passage Control.
Green-false jingle Pododesmus macrochisma 0
Pacific blue mussel Mytilus trossulus 0
Chink snail Lacuna spp. 18.18
Ribbon worm Phylum Nemertea 0
Saddleback flatworm Notoplana sanguinea 9.09

131
Table A3
Species proportions observed at Des Moines Park MPA.
Smooth/frilled dogwinkle snail Nucella lamellosa 0
Blue topsnail Calliostoma ligatum 1.52

132
Species proportions observed at Des Moines Park MPA.
Aggregating anemone Anthopluera elegantissima 0
Lined anemone Haliplanella lineata 1.52
Eelgrass Zostera spp. 43.94
Table A4
Species proportions observed at Des Moines Park Control.
Red rock crab Cancer productus 2.78
Hermit crab Pagurus spp. 0
Red velvet mite Neomolgus littoralis 2.78

133
Species proportions observed at Des Moines Park Control.
Brown algae Phylum Ochrophyta 0

134
Table A5
Species proportions observed at Discovery Park MPA.
Black-clawed crab Lophopanopeus bellus 29.41
Flat top porcelain crab Petrolisthes eriomerus 11.76
Other isopod spp. Idotea spp. 23.53
Broken-back shrimp Heptacarpus spp. 23.53
Sitka snail Littorina sitkana 5.88
Mottled sea star Evasterias troschelii 58.82
Purple sea star Pisaster ochraceus 5.88

135
Species proportions observed at Discovery Park MPA.
Spaghetti worm Thelepus spp. 29.41
Black prickleback Xiphister atropurpureus 17.65
Table A6
Species proportions observed at Discovery Park Control.
Graceful kelp crab Pugettia gracilis 8.70
Purple shore crab Hemigrapsus nudus 4.35
Lined chiton Tonicella lineata 4.35

136
Species proportions observed at Discovery Park Control.
Red sea cucumber Cucumaria miniata 17.39
Christmas anemone Urticina crassicornis 4.35
Calcareous tube worm Serpulidae spp. 21.74
Spaghetti worm Thelepus spp. 17.39
Northern clingfish Gobiesox maeandricus 13.04

137
Table A7
Species proportions observed at Emma Schmitz Memorial Park MPA.

138
Species proportions observed at Emma Schmitz Memorial Park MPA.
Table A8
Species proportions observed at Emma Schmitz Memorial Park Control.

139
Species proportions observed at Emma Schmitz Memorial Park Control.

140
Table A9
Species proportions observed at Octopus Hole MPA.
Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas 100.00
Sunflower sea star Pycnopodia helianthoides 12.50

141
Species proportions observed at Octopus Hole MPA.
Aggregating anemone Anthopluera elegantissima 0
Table A10
Species proportions observed at Octopus Hole Control.
Hermit crab Pagurus spp. 0

142
Species proportions observed at Octopus Hole Control.
Heart cockle Clinocardium nuttallii 10.00
Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas 80.00
Polychaete worm Phylum Annelida 0

143
Table A11
Species proportions observed at Possession Point MPA.
Barnacle-eating nudibranch Onchidoris bilamellata 4.76

144
Species proportions observed at Possession Point MPA.
Polychaete worm Phylum Annelida 0
Table A12
Species proportions observed at Possession Point Control.

145
Species proportions observed at Possession Point Control.
Opalescent nudibranch Hermissenda crassicornis 3.70
Barnacle-eating nudibranch Onchidoris bilamellata 3.70
Green sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis 3.70
Stubby rose anemone Urticina coriacea 25.93

146
Table A13
Species proportions observed at Richey Viewpoint MPA.

147
Species proportions observed at Richey Viewpoint MPA.
Table A14
Species proportions observed at Richey Viewpoint Control.

148
Species proportions observed at Richey Viewpoint Control.

149
Table A15
Species proportions observed at South 239th
Street Park MPA.
Lewis’ moonsnail Euspira lewisii 2.78
Long-armed brittle star Amphiodia occidentalis 5.56

150
Street Park MPA.
Table A16
Street Park Control.

151
Street Park Control.

152
Table A17
Species proportions observed at Titlow Beach MPA.

153
Species proportions observed at Titlow Beach MPA.
Stubby rose anemone Urticina coriacea 14.29
Table A18
Species proportions observed at Titlow Beach Control.

154
Species proportions observed at Titlow Beach Control.

155
APPENDIX B
MANAGEMENT EVALUATION SCORES FOR EACH SITE
Table B1
Indicators scores for management context for Colvos Passage.
Subcategory Indicators C M N
Justification
1. A resource inventory was conducted prior to designation. X
2. Designation criteria were used to establish the area as an MPA. X
X
Vulnerability
1. Surrounding land use is favorable for protected area establishment. X
2. There has been an analysis of the area’s threats and pressures. X
Long-term
Viability
1. Climate change and sea level rise were taken into consideration prior
to designation.
X
2. Projected development in the surrounding area will not be a detriment
to the mission of the protected area.
X
3. The MPA has long term, legally bound protection. X
Table B2
Indicators scores for management planning for Colvos Passage.
Management
Plan (Site
Specific)
1. There exists a management plan for the area. X
2. The management plan is relatively recently written. X
clearly defined:
i. Goals X
ii. Objectives X
a. Advisory committees X
b. Interagency agreements X
c. Boundaries X
d. Zoning Plan X
e. Regulations X
f. Social, cultural, and resource studies plan X
g. Resource management plan X
h. Interpretive plan X
i. Public Input X
iv. Administration
a. Staffing X
b. Training X
c. Facilities and equipment X
d. Budget and business plans, finance sources X
v. Surveillance and enforcement X
vi. Monitoring and evaluating of plan effectiveness. X
Security 1. MPA boundaries are properly demarcated on site. X

156
Table B3
Indicator scores for management inputs for Colvos Passage.
Staffing
1. A decision-making and management body is in existence. X
2. The level of staffing is sufficient to effectively manage the area. X
activities.
X
4. Training and development opportunities are appropriate to the needs of the
staff.
X
regulations.
X
Infrastructure
1. Transportation infrastructure is adequate to perform critical management
activities.
X
2. Field equipment is adequate to perform critical management activities. X
3. Staff facilities are adequate to perform critical management activities. X
4. There are adequate means of collecting new data. X
5. There are adequate systems for processing and analyzing data. X
Finances
1. Funding in the past five years has been adequate to perform critical
X
X
3. Funding is not entirely dependent on government funding; instead, funding
also comes from NGOs, taxes, fees, etc.
X
Research
1. A program of management-oriented survey and research work is in
operation.
X
Table B4
Indicator scores for management process for Colvos Passage.
Sub-category Indicators C M N
Management
Planning
1. There is a strategy for addressing the area’s threats and pressures. X
X
3. The results of research and monitoring are routinely incorporated into
planning.
X
Management
Decision-
Making
1. There is clear internal organization. X
2. Management decision-making in transparent. X
3. Staff regularly collaborates with partners, local communities, and other
organizations.
X
Research,
Monitoring and
Evaluation
1. Critical research and monitoring needs are identified and prioritized. X
2. Key biophysical, socioeconomic, and governance issues are monitored
and evaluated.
X
Enforcement
1. Clear authority is provided to enforce regulations. X
2. Appropriate penalties are assessed (and collected, if applicable) for
non-compliance.
X
Education and
Awareness
1. Educational material is accessible to the public. X
2. Public outreach program has been created and is operational. X

157
Table B5
Indicators scores for management context for Des Moines Beach Park.
Justification
X
Vulnerability
Long-term
Viability
to designation.
X
X
Table B6
Indicator scores for management planning for Des Moines Beach Park.
Management
Plan (Site
Specific)
clearly defined:
i. Goals X
ii. Objectives X
c. Boundaries X
d. Zoning Plan X
e. Regulations X
i. Public Input X
iv. Administration
a. Staffing X
b. Training X

158
Table B7
Indicator scores for management inputs for Des Moines Beach Park.
Staffing
activities.
X
staff.
X
regulations.
X
Infrastructure
activities.
X
Finances
X
X
X
Research
operation.
X
Table B8
Indicator scores for management process for Des Moines Beach Park.
Management
Planning
X
planning. X
Management
Decision-
Making
organizations.
X
Research,
Monitoring and
Evaluation
and evaluated.
X
Enforcement
non-compliance.
X
Education and
Awareness

159
Table B9
Indicators scores for management context for Discovery Park.
Justification
X
Vulnerability
Long-term
Viability
to designation.
X
X
Table B10
Indicator scores for management planning for Discovery Park.
Management
Plan (Site
Specific)
clearly defined:
i. Goals X
ii. Objectives X
c. Boundaries X
d. Zoning Plan X
e. Regulations X
i. Public Input X
iv. Administration
a. Staffing X
b. Training X

160
Table B11
Indicator scores for management inputs for Discovery Park.
Staffing
activities.
X
staff.
X
regulations.
X
Infrastructure
activities.
X
X
Finances
X
X
X
Research
operation.
X
Table B12
Indicator scores for management process for Discovery Park.
Management
Planning
X
planning. X
Management
Decision-
Making
organizations.
X
Research,
Monitoring and
Evaluation
and evaluated.
X
Enforcement
non-compliance.
X
Education and
Awareness

161
Table B13
Indicators scores for management context for Emma Schmitz Memorial Park.
Justification
X
Vulnerability
Long-term
Viability
to designation.
X
X
Table B14
Indicator scores for management planning for Emma Schmitz Memorial Park.
Management
Plan (Site
Specific)
clearly defined:
i. Goals X
ii. Objectives X
c. Boundaries X
d. Zoning Plan X
e. Regulations X
i. Public Input X
iv. Administration
a. Staffing X
b. Training X

162
Table B15
Indicator scores for management inputs for Emma Schmitz Memorial Park.
Staffing
activities.
X
staff.
X
regulations.
X
Infrastructure
activities.
X
Finances
X
X
X
Research
operation.
X
Table B16
Indicator scores for management process for Emma Schmitz Memorial Marine Park.
Management
Planning
X
planning. X
Management
Decision-
Making
organizations.
X
Research,
Monitoring and
Evaluation
and evaluated.
X
Enforcement
non-compliance.
X
Education and
Awareness

163
Table B17
Indicators scores for management context for Octopus Hole.
Justification
X
Vulnerability
Long-term
Viability
to designation.
X
X
Table B18
Indicator scores for management planning for Octopus Hole.
Management
Plan (Site
Specific)
clearly defined:
i. Goals X
ii. Objectives X
c. Boundaries X
d. Zoning Plan X
e. Regulations X
i. Public Input X
iv. Administration
a. Staffing X
b. Training X

164
Table B19
Indicator scores for management inputs for Octopus Hole.
Staffing
activities.
X
staff.
X
regulations.
X
Infrastructure
activities.
X
Finances
X
X
X
Research
operation.
X
Table B20
Indicator scores for management process for Octopus Hole.
Management
Planning
X
planning.
X
Management
Decision-
Making
organizations.
X
Research,
Monitoring and
Evaluation
and evaluated.
X
Enforcement
non-compliance.
X
Education and
Awareness

165
Table B21
Indicators scores for management context for Possession Point State Park.
Justification
X
Vulnerability
Long-term
Viability
to designation.
X
X
Table B22
Indicator scores for management planning for Possession Point State Park.
Management
Plan (Site
Specific)
clearly defined:
i. Goals X
ii. Objectives X
c. Boundaries X
d. Zoning Plan X
e. Regulations X
i. Public Input X
iv. Administration
a. Staffing X
b. Training X

166
Table B23
Indicator scores for management inputs for Possession Point State Park.
Staffing
activities.
X
staff.
X
regulations.
X
Infrastructure
activities.
X
Finances
X
X
X
Research
operation.
X
Table B24
Indicator scores for management process for Possession Point State Park.
Management
Planning
X
planning.
X
Management
Decision-
Making
organizations.
X
Research,
Monitoring and
Evaluation
and evaluated.
X
Enforcement
non-compliance.
X
Education and
Awareness

167
Table B25
Indicators scores for management context for Richey Viewpoint.
Justification
X
Vulnerability
Long-term
Viability
to designation.
X
X
Table B26
Indicator scores for management planning for Richey Viewpoint.
Management
Plan (Site
Specific)
clearly defined:
i. Goals X
ii. Objectives X
c. Boundaries X
d. Zoning Plan X
e. Regulations X
i. Public Input X
iv. Administration
a. Staffing X
b. Training X

168
Table B27
Indicator scores for management inputs for Richey Viewpoint.
Staffing
activities.
X
staff.
X
regulations.
X
Infrastructure
activities.
X
Finances
X
X
X
Research
operation.
X
Table B28
Indicator scores for management process for Richey Viewpoint.
Management
Planning
X
planning. X
Management
Decision-
Making
organizations.
X
Research,
Monitoring and
Evaluation
and evaluated.
X
Enforcement
non-compliance.
X
Education and
Awareness

169
Table B29
Indicators scores for management context for South 239th
Street Park.
Justification
X
Vulnerability
Long-term
Viability
to designation.
X
X
Table B30
Indicator scores for management planning for South 239th
Street Park.
Management
Plan (Site
Specific)
clearly defined:
i. Goals X
ii. Objectives X
c. Boundaries X
d. Zoning Plan X
e. Regulations X
i. Public Input X
iv. Administration
a. Staffing X
b. Training X

170
Table B31
Indicator scores for management inputs for South 239th
Street Park.
Staffing 1. A decision-making and management body is in existence. X
activities.
X
staff.
X
regulations.
X
Infrastructure 1. Transportation infrastructure is adequate to perform critical management
activities.
X
Finances 1. Funding in the past five years has been adequate to perform critical
X
X
X
Research 1. A program of management-oriented survey and research work is in
operation.
X
Table B32
Indicator scores for management process for South 239th
Street Park.
Management
Planning
X
planning.
X
Management
Decision-
Making
organizations.
X
Research,
Monitoring and
Evaluation
and evaluated.
X
Enforcement
non-compliance.
X
Education and
Awareness

171
Table B33
Indicators scores for management context for Titlow Beach.
Justification
X
Vulnerability
Long-term
Viability
to designation.
X
X
Table B34
Indicator scores for management planning for Titlow Beach.
Management
Plan (Site
Specific)
clearly defined:
i. Goals X
ii. Objectives X
c. Boundaries X
d. Zoning Plan X
e. Regulations X
i. Public Input X
iv. Administration
a. Staffing X
b. Training X

172
Table B35
Indicator scores for management inputs for Titlow Beach.
Staffing
activities.
X
staff.
X
regulations.
X
Infrastructure
activities.
X
4. There are adequate means for collecting new data. X
Finances
X
X
X
Research
operation.
X
Table B36
Indicator scores for management process for Titlow Beach.
Management
Planning
X
planning.
X
Management
Decision-
Making
organizations.
X
Research,
Monitoring and
Evaluation
and evaluated.
X
Enforcement
non-compliance.
X
Education and
Awareness

173
Table B37
Indicator scores for WDFW agency-wide management plan.
Management
Plan (Agency-
wide)
clearly defined:
i. Goals X
ii. Objectives X
c. Boundaries X
d. Zoning Plan X
e. Regulations X
i. Public Input X
iv. Administration
a. Staffing X
b. Training X
vi. Monitoring and evaluating of plan effectiveness X
Note. Scores applicable to CPMPA, OHMPA, and SSMPA.

174
Table B38
Indicator scores for WDFW and Des Moines Parks and Recreation agency-wide management plans.
Management
Plan (Agency-
wide)
1. There exists a management plan for the area. *
2. The management plan is relatively recently written. *
clearly defined:
i. Goals *
ii. Objectives *
iii. Management Strategy X
c. Boundaries *
d. Zoning Plan ~
e. Regulations ~
f. Social, cultural, and resource studies plan ~
i. Public Input *
iv. Administration
a. Staffing *
b. Training ~
c. Facilities and equipment *
d. Budget and business plans, finance sources *
Note. Scores apply to City of Des Moines Beach Park Conservation Area only. Scores derived from a
combination of the WDFW CWCS and Des Moines Parks Plan. X = element scored using CWCS. * =
element scored using DM Parks Plan. # = Neither plan included this element.

175
Table B39
Indicator scores for WDFW agency-wide management plans.
Management
Plan (Agency-
wide)
1. There exists a management plan for the area. *
2. The management plan is relatively recently written. *
clearly defined:
i. Goals *
ii. Objectives *
iii. Management Strategy X
c. Boundaries *
d. Zoning Plan *
e. Regulations ~
f. Social, cultural, and resource studies plan ~
h. Interpretive plan *
i. Public Input ~
iv. Administration
a. Staffing ~
b. Training ~
c. Facilities and equipment *
d. Budget and business plans, finance sources *
vi. Monitoring and evaluating of plan effectiveness. *
Note. Scores apply to Titlow Beach Marine Preserve only. Scores derived from a combination of the
WDFW CWCS and Tacoma Metro Parks plan. X = element scored using CWCS. * = element scored using
Tacoma MetroParks plan. ~ = Neither plan included this element.

176
Table B40
Indicator scores for WPRC agency-wide management plan.
Management
Plan (Agency-
wide)
clearly defined:
i. Goals X
ii. Objectives X
c. Boundaries X
d. Zoning Plan X
e. Regulations X
i. Public Input X
iv. Administration
a. Staffing X
b. Training X
Note. Scores applicable to PPMPA.

177
Table B41
Indicator scores for Seattle Parks and Recreation Commission agency-wide management plan.
Management
Plan (Agency-
wide)
clearly defined:
i. Goals X
ii. Objectives X
c. Boundaries X
d. Zoning Plan X
e. Regulations X
i. Public Input X
iv. Administration
a. Staffing X
b. Training X
Note. Scores applicable to DPMPA, ESMPA, and RVMPA.

178
APPENDIX C
DATA SHEETS FOR INTERTIDAL SURVEY

181
APPENDIX D
SITE GPS COORDINATES (UTM)
Site Easting Northing
PPMPA
PPC
DPC
DPMPA
RVMPA
RVC
ESMPA
ESC
DMC
DMMPA
SSMPA
SSC
TLMPA
TLC
CPMPA
CPC
OHC
OHMPA
1179760.267
1178118.233
1168320.053
1167296.534
1167179.187
1168223.085
1169613.656
1170106.395
1185546.851
1187053.722
1188031.066
1188072.146
1130658.015
1131196.119
1130729.990
1131049.218
993159.852
993635.572
943729.809
943449.308
858021.192
857364.805
822913.721
822047.244
819195.894
818282.933
762604.092
760525.649
754534.979
753487.444
706373.083
707486.260
741366.981
742373.310
780588.036
781439.534

182
APPENDIX E
AERIAL PHOTOS FOR EACH SITE
Figure E1. Aerial photograph of Colvos Passage MPA and control sites.

183
Figure E2. Aerial photograph of Des Moines Park MPA and control sites.

184
Figure E1. Aerial photograph of Discovery Park MPA and control sites.

185
Figure E1. Aerial photograph of Emma Schmitz Memorial Park MPA and control
sites.

186
Figure E1. Aerial photograph of Octopus Hole MPA and control sites.

187
Figure E1. Aerial photograph of Possession Point MPA and control sites.

188
Figure E1. Aerial photograph of Richey Viewpoint MPA and control sites.

189
Figure E1. Aerial photograph of South 239th
Street Park MPA and control sites.

190
Figure E1. Aerial photograph of Titlow Beach MPA and control sites.

Dilworth_Thesis_Final

More Related Content

Similar to Dilworth_Thesis_Final

Recently uploaded

Dilworth_Thesis_Final