The Evergreen State College Institutional Repository

Hanlon_E-MESthesis2013.pdf

Media

Part of Perceptions of Marine Protected Areas in Puget Sound

extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)

PERCEPTIONS OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
IN PUGET SOUND

by
Erin M. Hanlon

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
August 2013


 

©2013 by Erin M. Hanlon. All rights reserved.


 

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Erin M. Hanlon

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by

________________________
Dr. Edward Whitesell
Member of the Faculty

________________________
Date


 

ABSTRACT
Perceptions of Marine Protected Areas in Puget Sound
Erin M. Hanlon

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are used as a management tool to preserve and protect
marine and coastal ecosystems, manage fisheries and preserve sites with cultural
significance. When properly implemented and managed, MPAs can provide a multitude
of ecological, social and economic benefits. Comprehensive MPA planning requires
collaboration and buy-in from overlapping federal, tribal, state, and local jurisdictions, as
well as a multitude of stakeholder groups. Using surveys and informal interviews, I
examined whether marine protected areas in western Washington’s Puget Sound show
patterns of support, resistance, or the emergence of potential coalitions among resource
users and managers. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of responses revealed three
distinct coalitions that share common perceptions of Puget Sound MPAs. The analysis
also identified where respondents were in agreement or diverged regarding challenges
and proposed solutions pertaining to MPAs in Puget Sound. These findings will help to
inform the work of MPA managers and facilitate decision-making through awareness of
preferences, by revealing possible coalitions among key stakeholder groups, and by
integrating the perceptions of these advocacy coalitions into a broader marine and coastal
planning context.


 

Table of Contents
List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………

vi

List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………

vii

List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………….

viii

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………

x

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background…………………………………………….

1

Status of the Ecosystem in Puget Sound …………………………

2

Current Management Structure and Levels of Protection……………

8

A Network of Marine Reserves for Puget Sound…………………….

13

Overview of Thesis…………………………………………………..

17

Chapter 2: Literature Review………………………………………………………...

21

Overview……………………………………………………………..

21

Collaborative Management in the State of Washington……………..

26

Theoretical and Management Frameworks………………………….

29

Ocean and Coastal Management Frameworks………………………

32

Application of The Advocacy Coalition Framework………………..

36

Stakeholder Preferences in Marine and Coastal Planning…………… 40


 

iv

Measuring Success in Marine Protected Areas………………………

44

The Washington Dilemma: To Network or Not to Network………… 50
Chapter 3: Research Methods and Findings………………………………………….

55

Methodology…………………………………………………………

55

Data Collection………………………………………………………

58

Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis……………………………….

59

Results and Discussion……………………………………………….

61

Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Puget Sound MPAs……...

64

Causes of Problems with Puget Sound MPAs……………….

66

Potential Solutions for MPAs in the Puget Sound…………… 69
Identifying Potential Coalitions……………………………… 70
Chapter 4: Conclusions………………………………………………………………

82

References……………………………………………………………………………

91

Appendix A: Inventory of MPAs in Washington State
Appendix B: Survey


 

v

List of Figures

Figure 1

Map of the Puget Sound watershed

Figure 2

Map of the Salish Sea

24

Figure 3

Goals of ecosystem-based marine spatial planning

35

Figure 4

Diagram of the advocacy coalition framework

37

Figure 5

Knowledge and attitudes toward Puget Sound MPAs

66

Figure 6

Causes of problems with MPAs in Puget Sound

68

Figure 7

Potential solutions for MPAs in Puget Sound

70

Figure 8

Selection of responses from coalition 1 respondents

74

Figure 9

Selection of responses from coalition 2 respondents

76

Figure 10

Selection of responses from coalition 3 respondents

81


 

5

vi

List of Tables

Table 1

Washington MPAs by management authority

7

Table 2

Guidelines for determining suitable MPA sites

48

Table 3

Mean responses across stakeholder groups

62

Table 4

Mean responses across coalitions

72


 

vii

List of Abbreviations

ACF

Advocacy Coalition Framework

CAMP

Classification and Monitoring Planning Project

CMS

Conservation Management Status

COP

Conference of Parties

CZMA

Coastal Zone Management Act

EBM

Ecosystem-Based Management

FHL

Friday Harbor Labs

ICM

Integrated Coastal Management

IPC

Intergovernmental Policy Council

MLPA

Marine Life Protection Act

MPA

Marine Protected Area

MRC

Marine Resource Committee

MSA

Marine Stewardship Area

MSP

Marine Spatial Planning

NAP

Natural Areas Program


 

viii

NGO

Non-governmental Organization

NMSP

National Marine Sanctuaries Program

NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS

National Park Service

NRCA

Natural Resource Conservation Area

OCNMS

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

PSNERP

Puget Sound Nearshore Ecological Restoration Project

PSP

Puget Sound Partnership

SAT

Master Plan Science Advisory Team

SEPA

State Environmental Policy Act

UFWS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

UW

University of Washington

WDFW

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WDOE

Washington Department of Ecology

WDNR

Washington Department of Natural Resources

WRPC

Washington Parks and Recreation Commission


 

ix

Acknowledgements

This work would not have been possible without the valuable input from my
survey respondents. Thank you for taking the time to complete my survey,
respond to follow-up questions and discuss Puget Sound MPAs with me. Many
thanks to my environmental studies and public administration colleagues and
faculty; especially my reader, MES faculty member Dr. Edward Whitesell, as well
as MPA faculty member Dr. Larry Geri for their support and expertise throughout
this process. Very special thanks to my family and friends for their love and
patience throughout this process. I am forever grateful to all of you.

x

 

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are used as a management tool to
preserve and protect marine and coastal ecosystems, manage fisheries and
preserve sites with cultural significance. When properly implemented and
managed, MPAs can provide a multitude of ecological, social and economic
benefits. There are 127 MPAs in the state of Washington offering varying levels
of protection to the resources therein and managed across 10 agencies, and in
collaboration with one non-governmental organization (NGO) (Van Cleave,
Bargmann, Culver, & the MPA Work Group, 2009). Previous research
determined that these sites were created without overarching policy, design, or
plan for coordination among management agencies (Van Cleave et al., 2009).
There has been a significant effort in the past decade for a more coordinated
approach to marine conservation. Comprehensive reports produced by Murray
(1998) and Van Cleave et al. (2009) examined MPAs in the state of Washington
and identified a need for consistency among MPAs and MPA managers to obtain
coordinated objectives, consistent terminology, establishment criteria and a clear
plan for future management and monitoring of the sites.
The legal, political, and socioeconomic context in which environmental
planning and decision-making occurs is immensely important to its success
(UNEP, 2011). A favorable socioeconomic context is particularly important for
MPA planning. This requires collaboration and buy-in from overlapping federal,
tribal, state, and local jurisdictions, as well as a multitude of stakeholder groups.
This thesis seeks to understand, through surveys and informal interviews, whether
1

 

Marine Protected Areas in Puget Sound show patterns of support, resistance or
potential coalitions among resource users and managers. This research proposes
that stakeholder affiliations will emerge through qualitative and quantitative
analysis of responses. Identification of potential affiliations will help to inform the
work of MPA managers and facilitate decision-making through awareness of
preferences and possible coalitions among resource users and managers.

Status of the Ecosystem in Puget Sound
The Puget Sound is a semi-enclosed glacial fjord system of inlets and sills
dividing a vast estuarine ecosystem in northwest Washington State. The Puget
Sound watershed includes 2,800 square miles of water, 2,500 miles of shoreline
and is home to over 4 million people, a population that is expected to grow by 1.5
million people by 2025 (Puget Sound Partnership, 2008; Puget Sound Partnership,
2012b). With this growth, increased pressures to the Puget Sound ecosystem can
be expected.
A healthy Puget Sound is imperative to a thriving local economy. The
average annual value of commercial crab, mussel, shrimp, oyster, geoduck and
other clam fisheries is $44 million, with recreational shellfish harvest valued at
roughly $42 million. Annual revenue from recreational fishing is estimated at $57
million a year, with commercial fishing valued at approximately $4 million a year
(PSP, 2012b). The value in protecting marine and coastal resources in the Puget
Sound holds ecological, social and economic benefits.
2

 

Puget Sound hosts more than 100 species of seabirds, more than 200
species of fish, 15 marine mammal species, hundreds of plant species, and
thousands of invertebrate species (Armstrong, Staude, Thom & Chew, 1976;
Canning & Shipman, 1995; Thom, 1980). Several species are listed as threatened
or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The iconic Southern Resident
killer whale (Orcinus orca) was listed as endangered as of 2005 (National Marine
Fisheries Service, 2008). Of the estimated 211 marine fish species in the Puget
Sound ecosystem, rockfish make up a significant portion, at 28 species (Palsson et
al., 2009; Williams, Levin & Palsson, 2010). In 2010, three species of Puget
Sound rockfish were listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) and canary rockfish (Sebastes
pinniger) were listed as threatened, while bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes
paucispinis) were listed as endangered (Drake et al., 2010). In the Puget Sound
region, 73 marine bird species have been identified as highly dependent upon our
marine and coastal ecosystems (Gaydos & Brown, 2011). Overall, species of
concern within the Salish Sea, a body of water that includes Puget Sound,
increased by 43% from 2008 to 2011. This increase from 64 species to 113 is
concerning and may indicate poor ecosystem health (Gaydos & Brown, 2011).
The 2013 “Health of the Salish Sea Ecosystem Report,” prepared jointly by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada, documents
declining trends for Chinook salmon (Onchorhychus tshawytscha), marine water
quality, and marine species at risk (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013).

3

 

These listings and dependencies are among the many reasons to continue
improving marine and coastal ecosystem conservation and management.
Many federal and state natural resource agencies, tribes, city and county
governments are mandated to conserve and protect marine resources in the state
of Washington (Van Cleave et al., 2009). Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are one
approach to meeting this mandate. MPAs are a management tool grounded in
ecosystem-based management (EBM), used to control the effects of human use on
marine ecosystems. EBM is defined in the literature as “an integrated approach to
management that considers the entire ecosystem, including humans” (McCloud,
Lubchenco, Palumbi & Rosenberg 2005, p. 1). Like MPAs, EBM differs from
single-sector management approaches by considering the cumulative impacts of
many sectors on the marine environment, to maintain a healthy, productive and
resilient ecosystem (Lester et al., 2010; McCloud et al., 2005; Rosenberg &
McCloud, 2005). When properly implemented and managed as part of a broader
EBM management plan, MPAs can provide a multitude of ecological, social and
economic benefits.
The purposes of the majority of marine reserves are marine conservation
and the sustainable management of human activities, such as fishing, recreation,
research, education, aesthetics, and cultural heritage (Roberts et al., 2003a). A
crucial benefit of MPAs is that they can serve as ecological baselines, providing
control variables for long-term ecological monitoring (Arcese & Sinclair, 1997).
A gap analysis of 155 public and privately owned marine protected areas in the
state of Washington found that only 20% offer high to medium protection for all
4

 

species, habitat and ecological processes. The remaining 80% of MPAs were
assessed as offering low levels of protection, indicating that access, take and
seabed alteration was allowed but restricted. The study also found MPAs offering
the lowest level of protection to be the largest, with protected areas offering
medium and high protection encompassing only 4% of state waters. In Puget
Sound, only 7 MPAs offer the highest level of protection (no-take, no access) and
encompass 0.1% only of the marine waters protected by MPAs (Smith, Bailey,
White & Udelhoven, 2012).

Figure 1: The Puget Sound Watershed
(http://geography.wr.usgs.gov/pugetSound/)
5

 

A growing body of evidence suggests that fully protected marine reserves
that prohibit all fishing and other disruptive activities are not only beneficial in
protecting species and habitat, but can help to improve fishery management
practices as well (Allison, Lubchenco & Carr, 1998; Bohnsack, 1998; Gaines,
White, Carr & Palumbi, 2010; Roberts, 1997; Roberts, Halpern, Palumbi &
Warner, 2001; Roberts, Hakins & Gell, 2005). As a result, sustaining fisheries is a
goal of many no-take reserves, and there is evidence that reserves are effective in
increasing yields of adjacent fisheries (Alcala, 1988; Gell & Roberts, 2003;
Halpern, Lester & Kellner, 2010; Russ & Alcala, 2011).
The combined benefit of conservation and fisheries management has
helped to advance the establishment of marine reserves worldwide (National
Research Council, 2001). In many instances, marine reserve sites have been
procured opportunistically or with protective measures implemented by different
management agencies with a difference in desired outcomes (Roberts, 2000;
Roberts et al., 2003a; Van Cleave et. al., 2009). This lack of coordination hinders
efficacy as it obscures management and enforcement priorities and is likely to
create confusion among stakeholder groups, managers, and end users.
A 2009 inventory of MPAs in the State of Washington identified a total of
127 sites, encompassing 644,000 acres and over 6 million feet of shoreline. This
area is approximately 26% of the state’s marine waters and 27% of the shoreline
(Van Cleave et al., 2009). These sites are managed across twelve agencies and
organizations (Table 1), with 8% falling under local jurisdiction in Clallam
County, and the cities of Edmonds, Seattle and Tacoma; 83% under state
6

 

jurisdiction and 9% under federal authority. This thesis addresses MPAs that fall
within the Puget Sound watershed (Figure 1). Of the 127 MPAs in Washington,
109 fall within the Puget Sound watershed area. As shown in Figure 1, this area
is framed by the Olympic mountain range on the west and the Cascade mountain
range to the east, including the San Juan Archipelago. The remaining 18 MPAs
are along Washington’s outer coast and were not included within the scope of this
study.
Table 1. Washington MPAs by management authority and level of government
(adapted from Van Cleave et al., 2009).
Agency

Government
Level

MPAs

Size
(Acres)

Shoreline
(Thousands of Feet)

Clallam County

Local

1

25

9

Edmonds

Local

1

47

2

NOAA

Federal

1

309,113

1,310

NPS

Federal

2

1,752

370

Seattle

Local

6

108

11

Tacoma

Local

2

13

1

USFWS

Federal

9

1,531

1,215

UW

State

1

292,414

2,251

WDFW

State

22

1,942

128

WDNR

State

14

16,008

382

WDOE

State

1

12,075

151

WPRC

State

67

9,075

860

7

 

The first MPAs in Washington were the Flattery Rocks, Quillayute
Needles, and Copalis National Wildlife Refuges. These sites were granted
protection in 1907 under a federal seabird protection program created by
President Theodore Roosevelt through Executive Orders No. 703, 704 and 705
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 2007). Among the first MPAs to be established within
the Puget Sound watershed were Larrabee State Park and Dungeness National
Wildlife Refuge in 1915 (Van Cleave et al., 2009). The most recent MPA
established in the study area is the Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve, which is
managed by the Department of National Resources and was established in 2011
(Washington Department of Natural Resources, 2011).

Current Management Structure and Levels of Protection
Marine and coastal resources in the state of Washington are managed by
federal and state natural resource agencies, tribal governments, and city and
county governments. These entities are mandated to promote the conservation of
marine resources ranging from species, habitat, and shoreline protection to human
and environmental health (Van Cleave et al., 2009). Myriad agencies are involved
in creating and managing MPAs in Washington (see Appendix A: Washington
State Marine Protected Area Inventory). MPAs designated under different
management authorities have been designed, implemented and managed for a
variety of reasons, to offer differing levels of species protection, and to allow for a
multitude of uses.

8

 

The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) regulates the
harvest of geoduck clams and seaweed. WDNR manages publically owned
intertidal and subtidal habitat and uses three terminologies for MPAs within their
jurisdiction: natural area preserves (NAPs), aquatic reserves, and natural resource
conservation areas (NRCAs) (Van Cleave et al., 2009). The NAP aims to protect
the best remaining examples of Washington’s native ecosystems, plants, and
animals. MPAs managed through WDNR’s NAP program serve as ecological
baselines and many of these sites have limited or guided access to protect these
fragile ecosystems. WDNR’s NRCAs are different from NAPs in that they often
include unique geologic features, archeological resources and scenic attributes.
Many NRCAs have developed public access facilities (Washington Department of
Natural Resources, 2010).
Aquatic reserves are established by WDNR when a site is educationally,
scientifically or environmentally important. The Aquatic Reserves Program aims
to promote preservation, restoration and enhancement of state-owned aquatic
lands. Aquatic reserves, NAPs and NRCAs all require management plans. Goals
for aquatic reserves must be specific to the type of reserve (educational, scientific
or conservation) and be consistent throughout the site-specific management plan.
Management plans for NRCAs follow guidelines outlined in the 1992 NRCA
Statewide Management Plan and address protection, enhancement, and restoration
of resources as well as low impact public use provisions. NAPs are managed to
allow natural processes to occur with minimal human intervention (Washington
Department of Natural Resources, 2013).
9

 

The treaty tribes co-manage salmon, shellfish and steelhead with the
Department of Fish and Wildlife. This unique government-to-government
relationship is the outcome of the 1974 federal court case referred to as the Boldt
Decision (United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash., 1974)).
The decision upheld tribal fishing rights as guaranteed by treaties between tribes
and Territorial Governor Isaac Stevens in 1854, whereby the tribes ceded vast
quantities of land to maintain their right to fish. The Stevens treaties provided that
“…the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations is
further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory…”
(Treaty of Medicine Creek, 1854). Boldt had ruled treaty fishing of Northwest
Indian tribes to be a right, not merely a privilege. Additionally, the decision ruled
that “in common with” meant that the tribes were entitled to 50 percent of the
harvestable run, and “usual and accustomed” allowed tribes to fish off
reservation. For the state, this decision meant that fishing in Puget Sound and the
ocean would have to be regulated so that 50 percent of the catch could make its
way back to the rivers where tribes traditionally fished (Cohen, 1986). In the
same decision, Judge Boldt also ruled that the tribes would regulate their share of
the fishery and that the state can regulate off-reservation Indian fishing, but the
state cannot discriminate against Indians and must meet due process standards for
regulation. Through his decision, Boldt had made the tribes co-managers of the
fishery and equally responsible for implementing quotas and conservation
measures.

10

 

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) manages
several MPAs in Puget Sound. Of the MPAs within WDFW jurisdiction, 9 are notake conservation areas, 16 are marine preserves allowing limited take, and two
are sea cucumber and sea urchin commercial harvest exclusion zones. These
exclusion zones prohibit non-tribal commercial fishers from harvesting sea
urchins and sea cucumbers. By agreement, treaty tribes also do not harvest
urchins and cucumbers in these areas (Van Cleave et al., 2009).
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manages
MPAs within the National Marine Sanctuaries Program (NMSP) and the National
Estuarine Research Reserve System. Marine sanctuaries seek to protect natural
and cultural features while allowing public use and access that do not impede
conservation efforts. The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) is
managed by NOAA and was designated in 1994. The management plan for the
OCNMS was recently revised in 2011 and focuses on achieving collaborative and
coordinated management; informing ecosystem-based management through
collaborative research, assessments and monitoring; improving ocean literacy;
conserving natural resources within the sanctuary; and understanding the cultural,
historical and socioeconomic significance of the site (NOAA, 2011).
The National Estuarine Research Reserve System is a network of 28 areas
representing different biogeographic regions of the United States that are
protected for long-term research, water-quality monitoring, education and coastal
stewardship. The reserve system was established by the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 and is a partnership program between the
11

 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the coastal states. The
Washington State Department of Ecology and NOAA cooperatively manage the
Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, one of the largest continuous
beds of eelgrass in the United States. Every reserve within the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System is required by federal regulation to have a management
plan. The Padilla Bay management plan provides information about the reserve,
describes current and planned programs, and establishes the goals and policies for
management of the reserve (National Estuarine Research Reserve System, 2013).
Several of Washington’s MPAs fall under the jurisdiction of the
Washington Parks and Recreation Commission (WPRC). WPRC manages state
parks for conservation and public use. Most state parks with marine shoreline
prohibit the removal of seaweed and all state parks prohibit the removal of
unclassified marine invertebrates such as moon snails, nudibranchs, shore crabs,
starfish and sand dollars (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2013).
Management plans are in place for some Washington state parks, and a procedure
for developing management plans is in place. The Classification and Monitoring
Planning Project (CAMP) was implemented in 1996 and is a four-stage process
for park planning that encourages citizen involvement and input in the planning
and development of Washington State Parks. The four stages of CAMP are to
identify issues and concerns of park stakeholders, explore alternative approaches
to issues identified, prepare preliminary recommendations to address or
compromise on issues raised, and propose final recommendations for formal
agency and commission adoption. Each park planning project will go through
12

 

these four stages or a similar iteration, depending on the park. The four stages
reflect the standards of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and
information collected through CAMP planning are used to support SEPA
reporting requirements (Washington State Parks, 2013).
MPAs managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), referred
to as wildlife refuges, are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, whose
mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and as necessary, restoration of the fish, wildlife,
plans and habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations. These refuges provide habitat for more than 700 species of birds, 220
species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species and over 1000 species of
fish. The refuge system provides critical habitat for more than 280 threatened or
endangered flora and fauna in marine and terrestrial environments across the U.S.
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013).

A Network of Marine Reserves for Puget Sound
While protection of marine resources under this multitude of agencies
does offer protection for species and habitat from commercial harvest and
pressures from development, many argue for a more coordinated, networkedbased approach. An ecological network of MPAs promotes larval dispersal and
movement of juveniles and adults across sites. A network of MPAs can also aid
in regional coordination by encouraging managing agencies to work beyond their
13

 

own interests and mandates to consider regional ecosystem-based outcomes of a
network of protected areas (NOAA, 2008). The 2008 Puget Sound Partnership
Action Agenda included the following near-term recommendation: “implement a
strategic network of Marine Managed Areas and Aquatic Reserves that
contributes to conserving the biological diversity and ecosystem health in the
marine areas of Puget Sound” (Puget Sound Partnership, 2008). Despite efforts of
federal, state, and tribal agencies and stakeholders to develop such a strategic
network, progress toward this goal remains at a standstill.
There would be benefits and challenges to creating a network of MPAs in
the state of Washington. Managing MPAs as a well-designed network would
allow for increased connectivity across sites through dispersal of reproductive
stages and movement of juveniles and adults; as well as fisheries and ecosystem
benefits such as sustained fisheries through species recovery, spillover from
reserve sites, conservation and habitat protection (Gell & Roberts, 2003; Gaines et
al., 2010; Harrison et al., 2012; Lester et al., 2009; NOAA, 2008; Russ & Alcala,
2011). Linking smaller marine reserves into a larger, more cohesive network of
reserves could also offer benefits to migratory species, support larval dispersal,
recover biodiversity within their boundaries, and enhance stocks beyond their
boundaries (Russ & Alcala, 2011). However, implementing a network of MPAs at
the size and scale recommended by the literature is challenging due, in part, to the
perceived socioeconomic impacts and resistance from marine resource users
(Agardy et al., 2003). Among the challenges of creating a network is uncertainty

14

 

about whether a network of reserves—no-take or otherwise—would be the best
tool to help Washington achieve conservation and management objectives.
Recently, Oregon and California established a science-based network of
marine reserves and there has been some momentum for Washington to
implement a similar network. As California and Oregon grow into their new MPA
networks, there may be some opportunity to follow their lead and make educated
decisions based on common experiences.
Oregon addressed uncertainties by making one of the short-term goals of
its network a study of the effectiveness of networked marine reserves as a
management tool. Long-term goals for Oregon’s network include conservation of
biodiversity and habitats, providing a framework for scientific research, and
avoiding significant social and economic impacts (PSP, 2012a). Implementing
short and long term goals similar to Oregon, could ease concerns regarding the
efficacy and impact of a network of MPAs.
California’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) of 1999 sought to
redesign California’s system of MPAs to function as a network; to better and
more coherently protect the state’s marine life, habitats, ecosystems and marine
heritage; and to enhance the educational, recreational, and research opportunities
provided by marine ecosystems subject to limited human disturbance (California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2013). At the time that the MLPA was enacted,
only 2.7% of California’s state waters were protected to some extent in 63 MPAs
covering approximately 368 square miles (Gleason et al., 2013). These sites were

15

 

located near the shore, offered limited protection to species and ecological
habitats, and were not established or managed as a network, resulting in often
confusing regulations (Gleason et al., 2006). The network of MPAs established
under the MLPA in 2013 includes approximately 16% of state waters within 124
interconnected MPAs that represent or replicate nearly all of California’s marine
and estuarine habitats (Gleason et al., 2013).
California’s redesigned network of MPAs did not come without
substantial costs. The project required a significant investment of $19.5 million in
funding from private foundations and nearly seven years of public planning
(Gleason et al., 2013). Much of the planning was completed between 2004 and
2011 through regional group processes in the Central Coast, South Coast and
North Central Coast. The initiative planning process was carefully designed to
bring capacity and resources to the planning effort, conduct planning regionally in
a phased approach, allow scientists to participate in an advisory capacity, and
involve stakeholders in developing alternative MPA proposals (Gleason et al.,
2010; Kirlin et al., 2013). Saarman and others (2013) note that there were four
key conditions that allowed for the integration of science into California’s MPA
planning process: (1) a strong legal mandate and consistent support for a sciencebased network of MPAs; (2) a planning process designed to integrate the best
available science into the decision-making process; (3) clear, science-based MPA
design guidelines consistent with the goals of the MPLA initiative; and (4)
consistent involvement from scientists throughout the planning process.

16

 

Washington’s 2009 MPA Work Group report acknowledges the
importance of consistency in expectations of the role of science and scientists in
MPA decision-making. Bernstein, Iudicello and Stringer (2004) interviewed MPA
managers around the country and recommended that specific roles for scientists
and a clear explanation of the role of science in the planning process be used in
MPA planning. The authors also recommended integrating the work of scientists
and stakeholders at all phases of the project, rather than assigning separate roles
for each at different stages. California’s success in integrating objective science
and scientists into all phases of the planning process is consistent with the
recommendations of Bernstein and others, and could be utilized by Washington in
future efforts to plan a cohesive network of MPAs.

Overview of Thesis
There are many critical components of MPA planning and management:
marine reserve size, ecological criteria, restrictions on fishing and other uses,
planning for monitoring and assessment of reserve sites, and potential placement
within a broader ocean management framework. Stakeholder buy-in and
involvement are integral to the planning and implementation process as well.
While efforts have been made to work toward a more cohesive network of MPAs
in the state of Washington, there is still a lack of consensus on whether or not a
network is needed; if it would contribute to the health of Puget Sound; what
protected area definitions and terminology should be used; what the goals and

17

 

objectives should be; and which agencies should have management authority
(PSP, 2012a).
Through survey research and in-depth follow-up questions, this thesis
informs this dialog and facilitates decision making by examining perceptions of
MPAs through a public policy framework—the Advocacy Coalition Framework
(ACF, Sabatier, 1988)— that enables the identification of areas where managers
and resource users might find common ground and form coalitions. Examining
Puget Sound MPAs through an environmental studies lens and public policy
framework is a unique and valuable addition to the existing literature and aids in
the MPA planning process by integrating science and policy. From an ecological
standpoint, survey questions approached valid concerns about existing MPAs
regarding their size, placement and monitoring practices. The research also
addresses public policy and planning needs through questions related to the
definition of MPAs in the state of Washington; the perceived utility of MPAs as a
management tool; MPA goals, objectives, and monitoring practices; the benefit of
a network of MPAs; and beliefs about where management authority for MPAs
should reside.
This thesis utilizes a purposive (non-random) sampling methodology,
specifically targeting an attentive public with existing awareness of Puget Sound
MPAs, including federal, state and tribal resource managers, local governments,
Marine Resource Committee members, commercial and recreational fishermen,
scuba divers, businesses, non-profit organizations, and universities. This thesis
does not intend to generalize stakeholder perceptions throughout the Puget Sound
18

 

region, but rather offers suggestions to resource managers looking to engage with
stakeholder groups to move MPA planning efforts forward. Future research
efforts may choose to employ a similar study regionally, to gain a representative
sample of stakeholders throughout Puget Sound.
A k-means cluster analysis of survey data identified three potential
stakeholder coalitions whose perceptions about Puget Sound MPAs, and the
challenges and potential solutions associated with them were similar. Results
supported one of the hypotheses of the ACF, that coalition members do not
necessarily share demographics or preferences (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1994).
Coalitions were labeled after further analysis of follow-up questions and openended survey responses, revealing policy core beliefs found within each coalition.
Although there was some variation among respondents in each coalition, the
labels represent common themes that emerged through analysis of survey data and
qualitative responses. Further statistical analysis revealed topic areas in which the
coalitions and stakeholder groups diverge, highlighting potential focus areas for
future MPA planning, education, and outreach efforts.
This thesis addresses an important gap in the literature with regard to
stakeholder preferences as they pertain to MPAs in the Puget Sound, presents the
application of a public policy framework that may help to move MPA planning
efforts forward, and contributes to the growing body of work on MPAs in the
state of Washington. Findings align with previous efforts in MPA planning in the
state of Washington, indicating a need for complementary goals and management
objectives; establishment of clear criteria, management practices, and
19

 

terminology; and monitoring practices that allow for site evaluation. Divergence
among stakeholder groups with respect to knowledge and perceptions of Puget
Sound MPAs and problems with Puget Sound MPAs demonstrates important
areas for consensus building. The ACF predicts shared values among perceptions,
problems and solutions to be likely to shift over time in response to new
information and experiences. Findings indicate that there is substantial work to be
done to make the case for a network of MPAs in the state of Washington.

20

 

Chapter 2: Literature Review
Studying marine protected areas (MPAs) requires an understanding of
marine ecology, social science, and administrative frameworks. This literature
review explores the peer-reviewed literature spanning overfishing and the decline
of coastal ecosystems, ecosystem-based management (EBM) as an ocean
management framework, the use of marine protected areas as a management tool
to conserve and restore marine and coastal ecosystems, and factors contributing to
the success of marine protected area planning. The purpose of this literature
review is to contextualize the challenges in marine resource management;
understand EBM as an emerging framework; comprehend the benefits and
challenges of MPAs as management tools; and to identify opportunities to
advance MPA decision making in the state of Washington.

Overview
Terrestrial environments were prioritized over marine environments for
conservation status throughout the past century. Recently, marine protection has
been quickly gaining momentum as coastal and marine ecosystems are becoming
less resilient, due to human impacts such as fishing, oil extraction, wind and wave
energy, offshore aquaculture, and recreation, coupled with pollution, habitat
degradation and climate change (Lester et al., 2010). A 2008 study of
anthropogenic stressors on marine ecosystems finds that virtually no areas are
untouched, and that 41% of marine areas are suffering effects from multiple
21

 

stressors such as climate change, pollution, shipping and fishing pressures. These
estimates are believed to be conservative, as comprehensive global data on
recreational fishing, point-source pollution, aquaculture, disease and coastal
development were not available (Halpern, McCloud, Rosenberg & Crowder,
2008).
Pauly and Christiansen (1995) report that we are using a quarter to a third
of the primary production of marine ecosystems. Since the 1980s, global fish
landings have declined by about 700,000 metric tons per year, indicating that
landings are increasingly composed of lower trophic level species as populations
of larger, predatory fish populations have declined (Pauly, Christensen,
Dalsgaard, Froese & Torres, 1998; Pauly & Watson, 2003; Pauly & Palomares,
2005; Pauly, Watson & Alder, 2005). This decline of large predator fish from the
marine food web threatens megafauna and disrupts the balance of marine
ecosystems and communities. This global degradation of marine and coastal
ecosystems is impairing the ocean’s ability to provide sustenance, maintain water
quality, and recover from damaging practices (Worm et al., 2006).
In October 2010 at the Conference of Parties (COP) for the Convention on
Biological Diversity held in Nagoya, Japan, the COP reaffirmed and extended
global targets for marine and terrestrial protected areas. The COP Strategic Plan
for Biodiversity calls for “at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water and 10% of
coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity
and ecosystem services, [to be] conserved through effectively and equitably
managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected
22

 

areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into
the wider landscape and seascapes” (CBD, 2010, p. 6). As of 2010, global MPA
coverage was roughly 1.17% of the ocean surface (CBD, 2010). Following the
addition of some recently established MPAs, the global ocean surface area
estimate was adjusted to 2.3% (Spalding et al., 2012).
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are used to control the effects of human
use on marine ecosystems and to provide myriad ecological, social and economic
benefits. The drivers for the majority of marine reserves are marine conservation
and the sustainable management of human use activities. Sustaining fisheries is a
goal of many no-take reserves and there is evidence that reserves are effective in
increasing yields both within and outside of reserve boundaries (Alcala, 1988;
Castilla, 1999; Russ & Alcala, 2011; Sponaugle et al. 2012). No-take MPAs
provide critical protection to animals and habitat within their boundaries, and
contribute to surrounding fisheries through emigration and dissemination of
offspring (Murray et al., 1999; Roberts & Hawkins, 2000; Roberts et al., 2005;
Russ, 2002). Other human use objectives satisfied by MPAs may include
recreation, education, research, aesthetics and cultural heritage (Roberts et al.,
2003). If the goal of the protected areas is to conserve biodiversity, representative
and unique marine habitats within the biogeographic region should be included
within the MPA boundaries (Roberts et al., 2003b).

23

 

Figure 2: Map of the Salish Sea and Surrounding Basin
(Stefan Freelan, Western Washington University, 2009).

Washington’s coasts and marine environments are home to a number of
species, many of which are threatened or endangered. A 2011 study by Gaydos
and Brown of species of concern in the Salish Sea identified 113 native species,
sub-species, or ecologically significant units dependent upon the Salish Sea
ecosystem. The Salish Sea spans the jurisdictions of Washington State, British
Columbia, the US federal government, and the Canadian federal government (see
24

 

Figure 2). Gaydos and Brown’s 2011 study is the only comprehensive, baseline
study of species within the Salish Sea ecosystem. Washington is currently
working toward a complete assessment of species and habitat data for marine and
coastal ecosystems within state waters. The WDNR has been engaged in surveys
at select sites in the San Juan Islands and Central Puget Sound since 1992 to
determine whether rockfish, lingcod and other rockfish respond to protection from
harvest through MPAs. Preliminary results indicate that rockfish and lingcod
increase in abundance and size even in smaller protected areas (Palsson, 2001a).
A statewide biogeographic survey of marine and coastal areas is crucial to future
marine reserve planning efforts as species and habitat is an important
consideration for site selection.
In addition to increasing size, diversity, and abundance of marine fishes,
conservation objectives achieved by MPAs may include preservation of
biodiversity, critical species protection, maintaining genetic diversity, ecosystem
health and services, and protection of vital nursery grounds (Alcala, 1988; Alcala
& Russ, 1990; Castilla & Bustamante, 1989; Lester et al., 2009; Roberts, 1995;
Russ & Alcala, 2011; Sponaugle et al., 2012). Furthermore, no-take MPAs can
serve as ecological baselines, providing control variables for long-term
monitoring and research (Arcese & Sinclair, 1997). Given that virtually no area
of the marine environment is untouched and 41% of global marine environments
are suffering from multiple anthropogenic stressors (Halpern et al., 2008) there is
a sense of urgency among many scholars to protect ecological integrity where we
still can (Dayton, Sala, Tenger & Thrust, 2000).
25

 

Pauly (1995) suggested that the decline of marine ecosystems has resulted
in “shifting baselines,” a social phenomenon in which generations set their
expectations on their own experience, unaware of the experience of those who
came before them (p. 430). Bohnsack (2003) proposes no-take MPAs as an
opportunity to reset expectations and provide a common foundation for
conservation.
Despite the importance of site selection to meet conservation objectives, in
many instances marine reserve sites have been procured opportunistically or with
protective measures implemented by different management agencies with
differences in desired outcomes (Roberts et al., 2003a; Van Cleave et al., 2009).
In Puget Sound, where only 0.1% of the total area included in MPAs is offered
the highest level of protection from anthropogenic stressors (CMS level 1, Smith
et al., 2012), there are limited existing areas that could serve as ecological
baselines for the region. This highlights the importance of clear, regionally
appropriate conservation objectives and ecological criteria for future site
selection.

Collaborative Management in the State of Washington
Federal, tribal, state and local governments are key decision-makers in
marine resource management, particularly in the state of Washington, due to the
co-management authority of the treaty tribes. Collaborative management can be
used to overcome obstacles in management frameworks, and to improve
26

 

outcomes of natural resource planning among different entities. There are welldocumented examples of how collaborative management has been used in the
Puget Sound region. The Nisqually Watershed Stewardship Plan, which covers
the entire Nisqually watershed as defined by the Washington State Department of
Ecology, and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, which covers 2,408
square nautical miles of marine waters off the Olympic Peninsula coastline, are
two prominent examples of management plans that have evolved from
collaborative efforts (Nisqually River Council, 2010; NOAA, 2011).
The Washington State Legislature tasked the Department of Ecology with
creating a comprehensive management plan for the Nisqually River and
watershed in 1985. Working together collaboratively, the Nisqually River Task
Force, made up of representatives from federal, state, and local governments, the
Nisqually Indian tribe, businesses, and interest groups, cooperatively created the
Nisqually Watershed Stewardship Plan. In 2005, the task force was recognized by
the US Department of the Interior for creating a “blueprint for cooperative
conservation” projects of the future (Nisqually River Council, 2010).
The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) was designated
in 1994 and spans over 3,000 square miles of marine waters off the Olympic
Peninsula on Washington’s outer coast. The sanctuary is home to marine
mammals, seabirds, an array of kelp and algae species and invertebrate
communities. Additionally, the sanctuary is entirely comprised of the traditional
harvest areas of four coastal treaty tribes—the Makah, Hoh, Quileute and
Quinault Indian Nations (NOAA, 2011).
27

 

In 2007, these tribes, the state of Washington, and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) formed the Intergovernmental Policy
Council (IPC), a regional forum for resource managers from varying entities to
exchange information, coordinate policies, and develop recommendations for
resource management within the sanctuary (NOAA, 2013).
The primary activities of the IPC are participation in the review of the
OCNMS management plan, developing a five-year Ocean Ecosystem Monitoring
and Research Initiative, identifying research priorities, establishing a plan for
transitioning to ecosystem-based management, and securing long-term funding to
sustain the work of the IPC (NOAA, 2013). The contribution of the IPC to the
management plan for the OCNMS provides a prime example of government-togovernment consensus building and decision making for natural resource
management in the state of Washington.
The management plan developed for the OCNMS was the result of a
collaborative effort driven by public participation. It involved the
Intergovernmental Policy Council and the Sanctuary Advisory Council; a group
of representatives from tribes, state and local governments, and federal agencies;
the maritime and fishing industries; plus education, tourism, and conservation
organizations, and other members of the public. The OCNMS management plan
works with the treaty tribes to frame the significance of the sanctuary’s treaty
trust responsibility (NOAA, 2011). Integrating treaty tribes into management
decisions for MPA planning is crucial to the success of the planning process, as
well as the sustainability of the protected area.
28

 

The significance of collaboration across governments is echoed in the
Puget Sound Action Agenda, the official policy statement for Puget Sound
recovery. The Action Agenda states that: “collaboration with the many
governments and interests in Puget Sound will be essential in implementing
solutions and sustaining actions that support a healthy ecosystem while moving
forward with a vibrant economy” (Puget Sound Partnership, 2008, p. 2). While
coordinating interests across governments and management entities can be
challenging at times, there are myriad benefits to be realized from such
collaboration, and the collaborative frameworks utilized in the Nisqually
Watershed Stewardship Plan and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
management plan set important precedents for this work.

Theoretical and Management Frameworks
Marine protected areas are supported by ecological theory and research
(Airamé et al., 2003; Murray et al., 1999; Roberts et al., 2003a). Much of the
literature on site selection and reserve design emphasizes the importance of
ecological criteria. Roberts and others (2003b) outline important ecological
considerations for marine reserve design: biogeographical representation; habitat
representation; vulnerable habitats; species of concern and in critical life stages;
exploited species; ecosystem function, processes and services; human threats and
natural catastrophes; as well as size and connectivity. Utilizing these ecological
criteria as a theoretical framework for site selection, Airamé and others (2003)

29

 

present an approach to marine reserve design utilized in the Channel Islands,
California, that meets goals set by agencies, organizations and individuals for
conservation of ecological biodiversity, sustainable fisheries, economic vitality,
natural and cultural heritage and education.
Often, human use data are incorporated into marine reserve design; in
particular when protected areas are a part of a greater, strategic ocean and coastal
planning framework (Crowder & Norse, 2008; Kelleher & Kenchington, 1992).
However, there is broad agreement that socioeconomic criteria alone should not
drive the placement of a marine reserve (Kelleher & Kenchington, 1992; Roberts
et al., 2003a; Roberts et al., 2003b). In situations where one or more sites are
ecologically suitable, socioeconomic criteria may be used to make the final
selection (Kelleher & Kenchington, 1992).
MPAs are also supported to some extent by the theory of island
biogeography, developed by Robert H. MacArthur and Edward O. Wilson in 1967
(MacArthur & Wilson, 1967). The model was built to explain the species-area
relationship and was later applied to protected area design; since the number of
species generally increases with area, larger reserves tend to support more
species. Not only do larger areas allow for a greater variety of habitats, and
communities, they also provide greater geographic isolation. Greater geographic
isolation supports larger populations per species, and greater individual
populations. These factors increase the likelihood of speciation and decrease the
probability of local extinction of newly evolved and recently arrived species
(Primack, 2010). Brown and Lomolino (2000) point out that the fundamental idea
30

 

of island biogeography, that species diversity on an island is held in equilibrium
between immigration and extinction, has not kept pace with advances in
ecological theory and a greater understanding of the complexity of nature. The
debate as to whether a single large or several small (SLOSS; Soulé & Simberloff,
1986) reserves will support more species, has been thoroughly explored in the
past decade and is discussed in depth later in this chapter.
There is agreement that no-take MPAs are a key component of marine
conservation and resource management, but are most effective when grounded in
a broader ocean management framework, since many anthropogenic stressors on
marine environments such as pollution and climate change cannot be solved by
MPAs alone (Allison et al., 1998; Halpern et al., 2010; Roberts, 1997). Halpern
and others (2010) examined the connections between MPAs and EBM. The
authors stated that MPAs are most effective at mitigating adverse impacts when
there is coordination among the management entities responsible for fisheries,
coastal development, pollution control, oil and gas extraction, wave energy and
shipping (Halpern et al., 2010). Broader ocean management planning frameworks,
bring all of these interests to the table. Using MPAs as a tool within this
framework allows for consideration of all of the exogenous variables, increasing
the likelihood of MPA effectiveness.
Additionally, because no one government entity has executive authority
over all marine and coastal resources, management decisions are often hindered
by conflicting uses and interests among authorities. For this reason, embedding
MPAs into broader marine and coastal planning frameworks such as ecosystem
31

 

based management and integrated coastal management contributes to their
efficacy. Integrating MPAs within an EBM or ICM framework into regional
marine spatial planning efforts further amplifies their success by offering a
comprehensive, ecosystem-based, proactive approach to managing competing
uses to optimize ecological outcomes.

Ocean and Coastal Management Frameworks
Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is an ocean management
framework that differs from a single species management approach, or focusing
on a particular sector, activity or concern. Alternatively, EBM considers the
cumulative impacts of different activities and the benefits provided by our coasts
and oceans (Lester et al., 2010; McLeod et al., 2005). EBM drives us to consider
the tradeoffs associated with marine resource use and seeks to find balance in the
ecological, social and economic components of coastal resource management.
The objective of EBM is to ensure the long-term availability of ecosystem
services. Many of the tenets of EBM are rooted in integrated coastal management
(ICM) (Lester et al., 2010). Considering ICM in EBM planning efforts increases
the efficacy and sustainability of protected areas by considering their placement
within the broader context of marine and terrestrial uses.
ICM is defined in the literature as “a process by which rational decisions
are made concerning the conservation and sustainable use of coastal and ocean
resource space. The process is designed to overcome the fragmentation inherent in
32

 

single-sector management approaches…in the splits in jurisdiction among
different levels of government, and in the land-water interface” (Cicin-Sain &
Knecht, 1998, p. 1).
It is suggested that marine reserves are more successful when they exist as
part of a broader ICM plan, rather than as stand-alone protected areas (Keller &
Kenchington, 1992; NRC, 2001). The rationale behind this belief is that activities
that occur beyond the boundaries of protected areas (e.g., marine transportation,
fishing, and land-based sources of pollution) have substantial effects on resources
within the MPA (Cicin-Sain & Belfiore, 2005). Embedding marine reserves
within ICM reduces the potential for competing objectives by recognizing and
planning for the many interrelationships between marine and terrestrial
environments.
Building on EBM and ICM frameworks and quickly gaining global
attention is marine spatial planning (MSP). In 2010, President Obama signed
Executive Order 13547, which established the first comprehensive national policy
for the stewardship of our oceans, coasts, and the Great Lakes, per the
recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in 2004 (Executive
Order 13547, 2010). One of the primary objectives of the policy is an adaptable
framework for coastal and marine spatial planning that addresses conservation,
economic drivers, conflicting uses and sustainable use. MSP is defined in the
policy as a “comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, ecosystem-based and
transparent spatial planning process, based on sound science, for analyzing

33

 

current and anticipated uses of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes areas”
(Thorsteinson et al., 2011).
Agardy and others (2011) suggest that integrating MPAs into a greater
management context, such as MSP, can help address some of the challenges
inherent with MPAs; such as their tendency to be ecologically insufficient due to
small size or poor location, insufficient management and planning, failure due to
degradation of surrounding ecosystems, displacement and other unintended
consequences, and MPAs that offer an illusion of protection on paper when, in
reality, little protection is offered. Alongside challenges associated with MPAs as
a stand-alone management tool, human populations in coastal areas continue to
increase, and emerging uses such as large-scale aquaculture and renewable energy
continue to materialize, intensifying the already worrisome decline of ecosystem
health. Ecosystem-based MSP is believed to be a solution that addresses the need
for balancing the growing number, array and intensity of human activities with
the ability of the oceans to provide ecosystem services; incorporates ecological,
economic and social perspectives; and supports management efforts scaled to
support ecosystems and jurisdictions (Foley et al., 2010).
Ecosystem-based MSP achieves these objectives through an integrated
planning framework that informs the spatial distribution of activities in the marine
environment to support current and future uses and maintain ecosystem services
for future generations in a strategic way that supports ecological, economic and
social objectives (Douvere, 2008). Foley and others (2010) illustrate the guiding
principles for ecosystem-based MSP through a flowchart demonstrating how key
34

 

ecological principles can be used throughout the planning and implementation
process (Figure 3). This process has been designed for use in the MSP planning
process in conjunction with similar diagrams outlining the key economic,
governance and social components to a comprehensive marine spatial plan (Foley
et al., 2010).

&(#")'(A'-.()1)/-4B+#)-3'4#5%$-')!#/%#"'!"#$$%$&'
C8DE?F@'89G;@;?8H;'

38E:=8>@'GI'89G;@;?8H';8>=:98;'

)J;?D:KDLE8'J;8;'

!5%$.%!"-)'
-9GEGN:9DE'

-9GKGH:9'

.GKK89?:=:?@'

&G=8>KDK98'

CDL:?D?'<:=8>;:?@'

)G9:DE'

M8@';789:8;'

)789:8;'<:=8>;:?@'

!"#$$%$&'&(#")'*'(+,-./%0-)'
.GH7E8H8K?D>@'J;8'

.GKIE:9?'>8<J9?:GK'

-9G;@;?8H'IJK9?:GK'

58;:E:8K98'

3-A%$%$&'-2%)/%$&'*'A6/65-'.($3%/%($)'
.GK?8O?'

.JHJED?:=8':H7D9?;'

6K98>?D:K?@'

6;8B89G;@;?8H'9GKIE:9?;'

0JEK8>DL:E:?@'

)!#/%#""1'-2!"%.%/'3-.%)%($)'
#<PD98K?'J;8'

.GK?8O?'

.GKK89?:=:?@'

)789:8;'*'FDL:?D?'<:;?>:LJ?:GK'

6K98>?D:K?@'

4#5%$-')!#/%#"'!"#$'
%4!"-4-$/#/%($'
4($%/(5%$&'*'-0#"6#/%($'
-9GEGN:9DE':K<:9D?G>;'

58;7GK;8'=D>:DLE8;'

#3#!/%0-'4#$#&-4-$/'

Figure 3: Goals of Ecosystem-based Marine Spatial Planning
Figure 1. Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning (from Foley and others, 2010).
(Foley et al., 2010)


 

35

 

7

Application of The Advocacy Coalition Framework
Much work has been done to understand the role of stakeholder values and
preferences with regard to marine and coastal planning. The advocacy coalition
framework (ACF), a public policy framework developed by Sabatier (1988),
predicts that policy core policy beliefs of stakeholders influence their interactions
with other stakeholders, and these interactions will occur predominantly with
other actors of similar policy core beliefs (Weible & Sabatier, 2005). The ACF
examines policy change in policy subsystems, where actors from many public and
private institutions who are actively concerned with a public policy or issue, are
seeking to influence policies surrounding the issue (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier,
1994). Policy subsystems are defined by geographic scope, a substantive issue,
and a population of engaged stakeholders from all levels of government, research
institutions, and interest groups (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999). In the context
of this thesis, the policy subsystem of our analysis is MPAs in Puget Sound. The
ACF assumes that actors within a policy subsystem who share a set of normative
and causal beliefs can be grouped together into advocacy coalitions who often act
in unison (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1994; Sabatier, 1988).
The ACF proposes beliefs to be a causal driver for political behavior, and
places beliefs into three tiers; deep core beliefs, policy-core beliefs and secondary
beliefs (Weible, Sabatier & McQueen, 2009). The belief systems are organized
into a hierarchical structure with higher, broader levels containing more specific
beliefs (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1994). At the top are deep-core beliefs, the
broadest in scope and most stable. Deep-core beliefs are normative, exist across
36

 

all policy subsystems, and are, as the name suggests, deeply rooted. Examples of
deep-core beliefs are political ideologies, and attitudes toward individual freedom
versus social equity (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1994; Weible, Sabatier & Lubell,
2004; Weible, Sabatier & McQueen, 2009).
Weible/Sabatier/McQueen: The Advocacy Coalition Framework
RELATIVELY STABLE
PARAMETERS
1. Basic attributes of the
problem area (good)
2. Basic distribution of
natural resources
3. Fundamental
sociocultural values and
social structure
4. Basic constitutional
structure (rules)

LONG-TERM COALITION
OPPORTUNITY
STRUCTURES
1. Overlapping societal
cleavages
2. Degree of consensus
needed for major
policy change

POLICY SUBSYSTEM
Coalition A

Coalition B

Policy
brokers

a. Policy beliefs
b. Resources

a. Policy beliefs
b. Resources

Strategy

Strategy

regarding guidance
instruments

regarding guidance
instruments

Decisions by
governmental authorities

EXTERNAL (SYSTEM)
EVENTS
1. Changes in socioeconomic conditions
2. Changes in public
opinion
3. Changes in systemic
governing coalition
4. Policy decisions and
impacts from other subsystems

123

SHORT-TERM
CONSTRAINTS AND
RESOURCES OF
SUBSYSTEM ACTORS

Institutional rules, resource
allocations, and appointments
Policy outputs

Policy impacts

2007 Advocacy Coalition Framework Flow Diagram

Figure 4: Diagram
of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier, 2007)
Figure 1. 2007 Advocacy Coalition Framework Flow Diagram.
Policy-core
beliefs make
upcore
the second
tierresistant
of the hierarchy,
activities
among members.
Policy
beliefs are
to changeand
butare
are more
likely to adjust in response to verification and refutation from new experiences and
constrained
tothan
the scope
of thebeliefs.
policyAtsubsystem,
a
information
deep core
the bottomand
of are
the representative
belief system isofsecondary
beliefs. Compared to policy core beliefs, secondary beliefs are more substantively and
coalition’s
normative
values
and perceptions
pertainingbased.
to theThe
subsystem.
Theythat
geographically
narrow
in scope,
and more empirically
ACF predicts
secondary beliefs, compared to deep core and policy core beliefs, are the most likely
reveal
valueover
priorities
to change
time. such as the balance between economic development and
The 2007 flow diagram of the ACF is shown in Figure 1. One of the major
environmental
the
and principal
causespolicy
of a problem,
and
contributions protection,
of the ACF is
thegravity
posed distinction
between
subsystems
and the
broader political environment. The ACF specifies subsystems as the major unit of
strategies
for solving
a problem
within
a subsystem
(Jenkins-Smith
& Sabatier,
analysis because
political
systems
involve
many topics
over broad geographical
areas
that compel actors to specialize in a topic and locale to understand its complexity
and to
be effectivebeliefs
in producing
change.
immutable
external
1994).
Policy-core
are resistant
to Subsystems
change, but are
are not
more
likely to to
shift
over
effects, and Figure 1 shows that subsystems operate within a broader political environment defined by relatively stable parameters and external events, and constrained by long-term coalition opportunity structures, short-term constraints and
37

  resources of subsystem actors, and other policy subsystem events. Indeed, a rich area
of future research is to develop a deeper understanding of subsystem interdependencies (Fenger & Klok, 2001).

time in response to new information and experiences than deep-core beliefs
(Weible, Sabatier & McQueen, 2009).
In the final tier are secondary beliefs, which are the most limited in scope,
and are often empirically based. They may concern the magnitude of the problem,
policy preferences regarding regulations or budgetary allocations. Secondary
beliefs are the most likely to change in light of new data, experience, or a change
in strategic frameworks (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1994). This thesis utilizes the
ACF to examine policy-core and secondary beliefs within advocacy coalitions and
across stakeholder groups in reference to MPA planning and management in the
Puget Sound. Some work has been done to apply the ACF to marine and coastal
planning and management in the states of California and Washington (Lipsky &
Ryan, 2011; Weible, Sabatier & Lubell, 2004; Weible & Sabatier, 2005).
Weible, Sabatier and Lubell (2004) applied the ACF to stakeholder
perceptions of two environmental decision-making processes used in two phases
of implementation of California’s Marine Life Protection Act. The first attempt at
implementation was a top-town process driven by a master plan team of scientists
who created an implementation plan without public input. The second attempt
brought stakeholders and scientists together in a collaborative process to create a
range of recommendations (Weible, Sabatier & Lubell, 2004). The authors found
that stakeholders with strong preferences for scientific management support
evidence-based claims about the value of MPAs for preserving habitats and
protecting against the pressures of overfishing. Stakeholders with procollaborative beliefs were more supportive of local-knowledge and comfortable
38

 

with the analytic and deliberative approach that involved a diverse array of
stakeholders (Weible, Sabatier & Lubell, 2004). In this study of the ACF in
California’s Marine Life Protection Act, the authors measured beliefs at all three
levels of the ACF, including deep-core beliefs that placed stakeholders on the proscientific or pro-collaborative scale. While this thesis only measures policy-core
beliefs and secondary beliefs as they relate to perceptions of MPAs in Puget
Sound, further studies could incorporate a measure of deep-core beliefs, possibly
integrating the pro-scientific and pro-collaborative scales used by Weible,
Sabatier and Lubell (2004).
Lipsky and Ryan (2011) utilized the ACF framework to understand
stakeholder values and coalitions with respect to the Puget Sound Nearshore
Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP). In their study, the authors use the ACF
as a policy analysis tool in the early stages of policy implementation to
understand what coalitions may form in the policy subsystem, rather than the
more common application, which is to reflect on coalitions that had already
formed (Lipsky & Ryan, 2011). This analysis sought to understand both the
values and preferences of Puget Sound nearshore stakeholders, and asked under
which of these shared values might coalitions form? This study used a purposive
sampling technique and survey respondents were selected from 12 stakeholder
categories with a stake in Puget Sound nearshore restoration. The survey included
20 scaled questions on values that could become policy-core beliefs within the
PSNERP policy subsystem focusing on severity, causes, and potential solutions to
problems (Lipsky & Ryan, 2011). Sabatier and Weible (2007) identified severity,
39

 

causes, and potential solutions to be values around which advocacy coalitions
typically form.
Analysis of survey and interview data yielded five potential coalitions who
shared values regarding Puget Sound nearshore restoration (Lipsky & Ryan,
2011). One hypothesis of the ACF is that coalition members do not necessarily
share demographics or preferences (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1994). The
coalitions identified by Lipsky and Ryan (2011) support this hypothesis, as
individuals from the same organization often gave radically different answers and
were therefore placed into different coalitions. The potential coalitions identified
by Lipsky and Ryan (2011) are an important resource for PSNERP managers
looking to better understand the scope of value systems within their stakeholder
population, and to tailor stakeholder educational, outreach and involvement
activities more effectively. This is an immensely important next step for future
MPA planning efforts in the Puget Sound. As such, the methodology and
application of the ACF used by Lipsky and Ryan (2011) substantially informed
the research methodology for this thesis.

Stakeholder Preferences in Marine and Coastal Planning
Stakeholder involvement is crucial to the success of marine reserve
planning, and important work has been done globally and along the U.S. West
Coast with regard to stakeholder involvement in marine resource planning. This is
critical, as studies have demonstrated that efforts to create marine reserves
40

 

without the involvement of stakeholder groups are prone to failure (NRC 2001).
The National Research Council (2001) asserts “effective implementation of
marine reserves and protected areas depends on participation by the community of
stakeholders in developing a management plan (p. 4). Christie and others (2003)
found biological and social success of MPAs to be linked to the inclusion of
social science research in MPA decision making. The term stakeholder is defined
in this context as anyone who can directly or indirectly influence or be affected
by, the management process (Geoghegan & Renard, 2002). Stakeholder
involvement in the planning process often results in greater ownership of
management decisions, opportunities for empowerment and democratization
through a more collaborative policy making and implementation process, and
management decisions that integrate the needs, aspirations and knowledge of all
parties (Geoghegan & Renard, 2002, p. 18).
While there are valid concerns that public participation can conflict with
conservation objectives (McCloskey, 1999) and can be too resource intensive, as
it requires time, money and staff to coordinate the process, the risks associated
with excluding stakeholders from the planning process are too great. After the
public expressed anger at public meetings following exclusion from a yearlong
MPA planning process, California developed an open process to develop criteria
for MPAs (Bergen & Carr, 2003). The redesigned network of MPAs in California
required a significant investment of $19.5 million in funding from private
foundations and nearly seven years of public planning (Gleason et al., 2013).

41

 

Successes and challenges inherent to involving stakeholders in the
planning process have been well documented in the Puget Sound region. The
regional studies reviewed helped me to build a critical understanding of
stakeholder participation and perceptions of the marine resource planning process
in the state of Washington.
Evans and Klinger (2008) examined an example of bottom-up marine
EBM in San Juan County, Washington, where a citizen advisory group led the
effort to develop an ecosystem-based management plan for the San Juan County
Marine Stewardship Area. A key aspect of the planning process was the
incorporation of social dimensions through sociocultural and biodiversity targets
(Evans & Klinger, 2008). In reviewing the planning process, the authors identified
many challenges related to bottom-up conservation planning. Among the issues
identified were a lack of practical approaches for implementing EBM,
information deficits, uncertainty and the inability to make decisions under
uncertain circumstances, conflicting objectives, and the appropriate scale for
EBM (Evans & Klinger, 2008).
Hard, Hoelting, Christie and Pollnac (2012) conducted a social survey in
seven communities near Puget Sound MPAs to measure perceived collaboration
between government agencies and the public near MPA sites, identify factors
related to government agency/public collaboration, and test whether this
collaboration is related to an increase in process legitimacy. The authors found
significant correlation between MPA support and measures of perceived
collaboration and process legitimacy (Hard et al., 2012). This finding is important
42

 

to the work of MPA managers in securing public support for protected areas in
Puget Sound.
Building on the work of Hard et al. (2012), Hoelting, Hard, Christie and
Pollnac (2013) utilized the same dataset to examine relationships between
indicators of participatory democracy and process legitimacy, and general support
for MPAs. The goal of the analysis was to examine the degree to which variables
related to the participatory process influenced MPA support. The authors found
environmental beliefs, perceived ecological success of MPAs and demographic
variables to account for 70% of the variance in MPA support. Though these
studies did not inform the scope or design of my study, the results reported by
Hard and others (2012) and Hoelting and others (2013) are critical to informing
the ongoing collaborative governance process and socio-cultural dynamic dialog
around MPAs in the Puget Sound, and validate the need for public participation,
collaboration, and transparency.
Some work has been done to understand perspectives of treaty tribes in
relation to the use of MPAs as a management tool. Whitesell, Schroeder and
Hardison (2007) conducted interviews with tribal representatives and found tribes
to be accepting of MPAs under certain conditions. Among their recommendations
are to involve tribes in all aspects of MPA planning through government-togovernment relations; treaty rights and usual and accustomed grounds must not be
at stake; bureaucratic processes and regulation around MPA management and
design must become streamlined; and, to receive tribal support, prospective MPA
sites must have clear, site-specific scientific justifications for resource protection
43

 

(Whitesell et al., 2007, p .28). These findings are consistent with other
documentation of tribal perspectives toward MPAs in the state of Washington.
The MPA Tribal Policy Statement, clearly states that regulation of tribal
activity under an MPA is only appropriate when it is necessary as a conservation
measure, does not discriminate against a tribe’s reserved right to harvest
resources, if regulation of non-tribal activities alone will not meet the
conservation needs, and if the tribe’s own conservation measures prove
insufficient. The policy statement asserts that MPAs shall not be the goal in the
absence of a demonstrated need for conservation (NWIFC, 2003). However, a
key to successful conservation planning is to understand where extractive human
uses such as fishing occur, along with understanding the ecological characteristics
of a particular area in both habitat and populations of organisms. In the absence of
perfect information on habitat and species assemblages, a sound strategy in
marine planning is to take a precautionary approach and protect a variety of
representative habitats (Crowder & Norse, 2008).

Measuring Success in Marine Protected Areas
There are many factors that contribute to the success of marine reserves.
We’ve already discussed how considering MPAs within a broader ocean
management context can attribute to their success, but there are other factors
within MPA boundaries that are critical to their success as well, such as size and
location (Bergen & Carr, 2003). While size, location and other biological factors
44

 

may contribute to the performance of an MPA, the success of a protected area is
more accurately measured by comparing intended goals and outcomes.
The theory of island biogeography (MacArthur & Wilson, 1967) has
sparked an important debate with regard to whether a single large or several small
(SLOSS) reserves will support more species. Simberloff and Abele (1981)
reviewed published data addressing the SLOSS debate and found that, for a
variety of species and habitat types, there was no clear distinction between several
small sites or one large site in achieving conservation goals. A more recent study
by Halpern (2003) also addresses the SLOSS debate by exploring the effect that
reserve size may have on the biological factors of density, biomass, size and
diversity.
Halpern’s study finds that reserves generally have a significant positive
impact on all four of the biological factors analyzed (density, biomass, size,
diversity) of fish and invertebrates within protected areas. Halpern found that, on
average, marine reserves appeared to double density, almost triple biomass and
increase organism size and diversity by 20-30% relative to reported values for
unprotected areas (Halpern, 2003). Unsurprisingly, smaller reserves were found to
have some limited functionality compared to their larger counterparts. Halpern
(2003) states that equal relative differences in density, biomass, size and diversity
almost always translated to greater values for these measures in larger areas.
While the presence of MPAs, large or small, had a positive effect on biological
factors, larger reserves had a more significant impact.

45

 

In addition to increasing biomass, density, size and diversity of marine
organisms, larger reserves have been found to be superior at protecting fish
stocks, as they allow more space for habitat, larval dispersal and nursery grounds
for juvenile fish (Roberts, Bohnsack, Gell, Hawkins & Goodridge, 2001).
Kelleher and Kenchington (1992) note the value of large MPAs that cover entire
marine ecosystems. The size of larger marine reserves allows species within to be
more protected against edge effects and their large size is attributed to more
spillover benefit to fishers than their smaller equivalents (DeSanto, 2013;
Kelleher & Kenchington, 1992). Additionally, Lauck, Clark, Mangel and Munro
(1998) make a case for large reserves due to the inevitable uncertainty pertaining
to marine environments. The authors cite an array of fisheries management
failures and suggest that large, no-take MPAs may provide some insurance
against failed fisheries management practices (Lauck et al., 1998).
Recognizing the challenge of allocating large areas for MPAs, Gaines and
others (2010) suggest the applicability of marine reserve networks to increase the
benefits of many smaller reserves, especially for larger, predatory fish. The
authors note that, frequently, reserve size is minute compared with the geographic
extent of many species, particularly those that are overfished and in need of
refuge. Positive changes in biomass or density within a reserve offer limited
benefits to the species as a whole in smaller, isolated reserves. An alternative
approach is aggregating the benefits of small reserves through networks of MPAs
(Gaines et al., 2010).

46

 

Research suggests that marine reserves can also be an effective
conservation tool for megafauna such as cetaceans, pinnipeds, sea otters, polar
bears, sea birds, sharks and predatory fish (Hooker, Whitehead & Gowans, 1999;
Hooker & Gerber, 2004). They are particularly effective for these populations
when site selections are the result of a quantitative assessment of cetacean
behaviors most vulnerable to anthropogenic stressors; such as killer whale
(Orcinus orca) feeding behaviors in the north-east Pacific (Ashe, Noren &
Williams, 2010; Williams Lusseau & Hammond, 2006).
Determining the best location for MPAs is discussed thoroughly in the
literature (Airamé et al., 2003; Bergen & Carr, 2003; Hooker & Gerber, 2004;
Kelleher & Kenchington, 1991; Roberts et al., 2003a). Roberts and others (2003a)
have also contributed to the discussion on MPA site selection, outlining critical
ecological criteria for prioritizing MPA sites, including biogeographic
representation, habitat representation and heterogeneity, human threats, natural
catastrophes, size, connectivity, vulnerable habitats, critical life stages, species
and populations of special concern. Kelleher and Kenchinton (1991) outline key
considerations in determining a location for protected areas (Table 2), but
ultimately the success of the protected areas is measured against the goals set for
the area. Among the goals commonly used for protected areas are conservation of
biodiversity, ecosystem protection, restoration of ecosystem integrity, and
fisheries enhancement (Hooker & Gerber, 2004).

47

 

Table 2: Guidelines for determining suitable MPA sites (Kelleher & Kenchinton,
1991).
Naturalness
Biogeographic
importance
Ecological
importance

Economic
importance

Social
importance

Scientific
importance

International or
National
significance
Practicality/
feasibility

• The extent to which the area has been protected from, or
has not been subject to human-induced change
• Either contains rare biogeographic qualities or is
representative of a biogeographic “type” or types
• Contains unique or unusual geological features
• Contributes to maintenance of essential ecological
processes or life-support systems e.g. source for larvae
for downstream areas integrity
• The degree to which the area either by itself or in
association with other protected areas, encompasses a
complete ecosystem
• Contains a variety of habitats contains habitat for rare or
endangered species contains nursery or juvenile areas
contains feeding, breeding or rest areas contains rare
or unique habitat for any species preserves genetic
diversity i.e. is diverse or abundant in species terms
• Existing or potential contribution to economic value by
virtue of its protection e.g. protection of an area for
recreation, subsistence, use by traditional inhabitants,
appreciation by tourists and others or as a refuge
nursery area or source of supply for economically
important species
• Existing or potential value to the local, national or
international communities because of its heritage,
historical, cultural, traditional aesthetic, educational or
recreational qualities
• Value for research and monitoring
• Is or has the potential to be listed on the World or a
national Heritage List or declared as a Biosphere Reserve or included on a list of areas of international or
national importance or is the subject of an
international or national conservation agreement.
• Degree of insulation from external destructive
influences social and political acceptability, degree of
community support
•

Accessibility for education, tourism, recreation
compatibility with existing uses, particularly by locals
ease of management, compatibility with existing
management regimes

48

 

While much of the scholarly work on MPA success can be attributed to
work in the global South, biological benefits of MPAs in temperate zones are
becoming more apparent (Roberts, Hawkins & Gell 2005). Benefits in temperate
regions are realized, even within smaller reserve boundaries, when reserves are
strategically placed to benefit migratory species, through carefully selected sites
where species aggregate or there are migration bottlenecks characterized by
quality habitat and plentiful feeding opportunities (Hawkins & Gell, 2005). In
Puget Sound, success is typically measured with biophysical indicators such as
density, fishery catch rates, size of individuals, and fecundity. Spawning grounds,
nursery areas, feeding areas and migration corridors are prioritized for no-take
areas (Palsson, 2001b; Van Cleave et al., 2009).
Efforts have been made to improve the conservation and management of
rockfish in the Puget Sound. Currently, three species of Puget Sound rockfish are
listed as either threatened or endangered; yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes
ruberrimus) and canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) have been listed as
threatened, while bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes paucispinis) is listed as endangered
(Drake et al., 2010). Numbers of other rocky reef fishes have responded
positively to protection from harvest (Palsson, 2001a; Palsson, 2001b; Palsson et
al., 2009). In the past decade, rockfish harvest has been reduced by 90% (Palsson
et al., 2009). However, there are many factors influencing the fate of rockfish in
the Puget Sound outside of fishing pressures. Palsson and others (2009) report
that fishery removals, derelict gear, hypoxia and food web interactions are among
the top stressors of rockfish populations. MPAs in the Puget Sound provide refuge
49

 

from harvest and a baseline for population monitoring (Palsson et al., 2009) and
will continue to be an important component to rockfish recovery.

The Washington Dilemma: To Network or Not to Network
The idea of creating a network of marine reserves is not new to
Washington State. In 1995, the Washington MPA Work Group convened to
develop a strategy to design and implement a network of MPAs in the state. This
multi-agency group worked collaboratively and envisioned a new process for
establishing MPAs cohesively, departing from the uncoordinated approach
historically in place. The work group produced a draft strategy in 1998, but never
a full report. Their strategy called for a draft policy for MPAs; evaluation of sites
by a policy and technical committee; significant involvement by tribes, local
governments and the public; integration of the precautionary principle; adaptive
management; and evaluation of outcomes at individual sites (Mills, 1998 as cited
in Van Cleave et al., 2009).
In 2009, the challenge of MPA planning was revisited by a new multiagency group, by a similar name, the MPA Work Group. Considering past efforts
by the Washington MPA Work Group, the MPA Work Group agreed that the
efficacy of MPAs in Washington would be greatly increased through the
implementation of a coordinated strategy to implement an ecologically significant
network of MPAs (Van Cleave et al., 2009).

50

 

The MPA Work Group contributed to this effort by making a series of
recommendations to the Legislature to support the development of a strategy
building toward the implementation of a network of MPAs. Among these
recommendations were suggestions to improve coordination and consistency,
boost integration, and enhance effectiveness of protected areas in the state (Van
Cleave et al., 2009).
To increase coordination and consistency, the MPA work group suggested
complementary goals and management objectives; establishment of clear criteria,
management practices, and terminology; and monitoring practices that allow for
site evaluation. To improve integration in MPAs, the work group suggested a role
for scientists and consideration of the implementation of additional marine
stewardship areas (MSAs), which offer roles for diverse stakeholders to
participate in carrying out the stewardship mission and goals of protected areas.
To improve effectiveness, the work group agreed that there should be a
coordinated strategy to create an ecologically meaningful network of MPAs, as
well as evaluation of existing sites to determine if they are providing sufficient
ecological benefit and being managed efficiently, given current agency resources
(Van Cleave et al., 2009).
In the fall of 2012, the Puget Sound Partnership hosted an MPA planning
workshop. All agencies that took part in the MPA Work Group were invited to
attend. There were 27 workshop participants who were marine managers and
technical experts from federal, state and local agencies, tribal governments, and
The Nature Conservancy. The intent was to bring together Puget Sound marine
51

 

managers to increase collaboration; discuss ecosystem protections afforded under
current MPAs; discuss ecosystem threats, conservation concerns and other goals
that an integrated network of MPAs may address; and identify information needs
and next steps for improving marine protection in Puget Sound (PSP, 2012a). The
group requested that the Puget Sound Partnership continue the conversation by
leading a collaborative process to (1) assess the need for and ability of an MPA
network to meet Puget Sound conservation priorities; (2) agree to definitions of a
network, as well as a scientific basis for such a network that includes socioecological factors; and (3) assure that this collaborative and exploratory process
includes all MPA managers – both tribal and non-tribal. The group outlined a
multi-staged process of next steps, the first of which included conducting a needs
assessment and matching MPA needs to conservation priorities (PSP, 2012a).
Oregon and California have been successful in establishing a sciencebased network of marine reserves, and examining their planning process may be
of some benefit to MPA managers in Washington. Biological success of MPAs
has been linked to compliance with reserve rules (McClanahan, Marnane, Cinner
& Kiene, 2006), and compliance with reserve rules has been significantly
attributed to clearly defined MPA boundaries, robust ecological monitoring,
education, and formal consultation with the local community (Pollnac et al.,
2010). A key component of California’s success was the integration of science
into the regional planning process. This was accomplished through the assignment
of a master plan science advisory team (SAT) to the planning group for each of
the four regions. The role of the SATs was clearly articulated to be advisory to the
52

 

planning process, not to be responsible for the design of MPAs. This distinction
allowed scientific information to be used objectively in the MPA planning process
by distancing it from political and social considerations. The SAT included 17-21
members who were publicly nominated and appointed by the director of the
California Department of Fish and Game, and who had been selected from state
agencies as well as public and private institutions with expertise in marine
biology, oceanography, fisheries, social science and economics (Kirlin et al.,
2013). Saarman and others (2013) note that there were four key conditions that
allowed for the integration of science into California’s MPA planning process: (1)
a strong legal mandate and consistent support for a science-based network of
MPAs; (2) a planning process designed to integrate the best available science into
the decision making process; (3) clear science-based MPA design guidelines
consistent with the goals of the MPLA initiative; and (4) consistent involvement
from scientists throughout the planning process.
Washington’s MPA Work Group acknowledges the importance of
consistency in expectations of the role of science and scientists in MPA decisionmaking (Van Cleave et al., 2009). Bernstein and others (2004) interviewed MPA
managers around the country and recommended that specific roles for scientists
and a clear explanation of the role of science in the planning process be used in
MPA planning. The authors also recommended integrating the work of scientists
and stakeholders at all phases of the project, rather than assigning separate roles
for each at different stages. California’s success in integrating objective science
and scientists into all phases of the planning process is consistent with the
53

 

recommendations of Bernstein and others, and could be utilized by Washington in
future MPA planning efforts.
A network of MPAs provides even greater ecosystem support through
linking protected areas ecologically and administratively by streamlining
establishment criteria, goals and objectives, and monitoring practices. Embedding
MPAs into a broader ocean and coastal planning context further boosts their
resiliency by planning for the confounding uses outside of MPA boundaries. This
thesis seeks to integrate perspectives toward MPAs by developing an
understanding of the beliefs, problems and solutions through the analysis of
responses from managers and stakeholders, and identifying advocacy coalitions
that emerge in this policy subsystem. This thesis contributes to the dialog,
planning process and growing body of work on Puget Sound MPAs, and identifies
opportunities to advance decision-making around MPAs in the state of
Washington.

54

 

Chapter 3: Research Methods and Findings
Methodology
This study focuses on two research questions: do MPAs in Puget Sound
show patterns of support or resistance among stakeholder groups and do potential
coalitions of stakeholders emerge based on shared beliefs? This research seeks to
identify policy-core beliefs of key stakeholders and decision makers concerning
MPAs in Puget Sound and to understand knowledge and awareness, and
perceptions of problems and solutions for Puget Sound MPAs across groups using
surveys and structured follow-up questions.
This study is exploratory, and utilizes a purposive (non-random) sampling
methodology of an attentive public, most of which have participated in MPA
planning or are affected by the outcomes. The scope of this research is limited to
marine and coastal resource managers and key stakeholders at local, state, federal
and tribal agencies; commercial and recreational fishermen; recreational scuba
divers and scuba businesses; universities; and conservation and research nongovernmental organizations. Individuals were identified through a review of
public documents and Internet research. Recreational fishermen and scuba divers
were approached at random in Seattle and Olympia, Washington. A thorough
review of peer reviewed literature, reports, and other documents pertaining to
MPAs in Washington, as well as informal discussions with staff from state
agencies helped to inform the objectives of this study.

55

 

Survey responses and open ended follow-up questions were solicited from
representatives from the agencies currently managing protected areas (i. e., the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service, US
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington
Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Washington Parks and Recreation Commission, The Nature Conservancy, and the
University of Washington). Federally recognized tribes and key stakeholder
groups were also solicited including the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
and tribes in the Puget Sound region, environmental non-profits, commercial and
recreational fishing groups and recreational scuba divers and diving organizations.
The purpose of this research is not to generalize perceptions of a
representative sample of stakeholders with regard to MPAs in Puget Sound, but to
identify potential coalitions based on an exploratory sample of individuals
engaged in MPA planning or resource users, so as to guide future efforts in MPA
management, implementation and enforcement, and to understand where these
stakeholder groups agree and diverge with regard to perceptions, problems, and
proposed solutions. These findings will allow MPA managers to focus efforts on
distinct perceptions, problems and solutions, and to address potential coalitions in
a more targeted and productive way. If these findings prove useful to MPA
managers, this research could be scaled up and questions revised to include a
representative sample population.
The methodology of this research was informed by the advocacy coalition
framework (Sabatier, 1988) and by a study by Lipsy and Ryan (2011) about
56

 

stakeholder values and preferences as they pertain to Puget Sound nearshore
restoration efforts. The survey titled “Perceptions of Marine Protected Areas in
the Puget Sound” had 24 questions and three parts, and sought to determine
knowledge and attitudes toward Puget Sound MPAs, causes of problems with
MPAs in the Puget Sound, and potential solutions for Puget Sound MPAs (see
Appendix B). The questions were informed by previous efforts in MPA planning
in the state of Washington, such as the 2009 MPA Work Group report, the 2012
Puget Sound Partnership MPA Workshop, and the ACF, as causes of problems
and potential solutions are areas in which advocacy coalitions typically form
(Sabatier, 2007).
Understanding respondent’s knowledge and attitudes about MPAs is
important to understanding the characteristics of the survey population, as well as
for the consideration of agencies and organizations involved with MPA planning
efforts. In addition to being predictors to potential coalitions, determining
agreement on causes of problems and potential solutions is broadly relevant to
MPA planning efforts in Puget Sound.
The questions were primarily close-ended, asking respondents to indicate
their level of agreement with a statement about Puget Sound MPAs (strongly
agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree). In addition, there were two
open-ended questions, asking participants to identify challenges or solutions not
addressed in previous questions, and a final portion of the survey, which asked the
respondent to identify the stakeholder group with which they were affiliated.
Respondents were given the opportunity to select an affiliation from the following
57

 

options: federal agency, state agency, tribal government agency, local government
(municipal, county, etc.), university or college, non-governmental organization,
conservation non-profit organization, recreational non-profit organization, other
non-profit public interest organization, or “other.”

Data Collection
Survey data collection began on April 1st 2013 and ended on May 2nd
2013. Respondents were sent an email message explaining the research objective
with a unique link to the survey. A selection of respondents also received the
survey via postal mail with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Recreational
fishermen and divers were approached at random in Seattle and Olympia,
Washington, and given a paper copy of the survey, which was collected at the
time it was completed. Respondents who elected to be contacted for follow-up
questions were contacted via email on May 1st 2013 and asked to respond before
May 10th 2013. The follow-up questions included preliminary findings from the
initial survey and contained six open-ended questions exploring problems and
solutions for Puget Sound MPAs. While 18 individuals indicated interest in
participating in follow-up questions, only 7 individuals participated. Stakeholder
groups represented in follow-up responses are state government, tribal
government, conservation non-profit organizations, and scuba diving businesses.

58

 

Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis
The survey dataset provided an opportunity to report on common
perceptions across stakeholder groups, but was primarily analyzed to identify
potential stakeholder coalitions based on similar responses. The 21 scaled survey
questions were assigned numerical values for analysis (1 = strongly agree – 5 =
strongly disagree). First, a preliminary analysis of survey responses across
stakeholder groups was completed to determine mean response, standard
deviation and the percentage of respondents by level of agreement for each of the
three categories of questions: knowledge and attitudes about Puget Sound MPAs,
causes of problems with MPAs in Puget Sound, and potential solutions for MPAs
in Puget Sound.
Cluster analysis was used to analyze survey responses to the scaled
questions and to assign cluster membership based on commonalities in responses
across stakeholder groups. Cluster analysis is an exploratory data analysis
procedure used to find groups of similar entities in a sample of data (Alenderfer &
Blashfield, 1984) and is commonly used when a researcher is not testing a
hypothesis, as was the case in this study. Cluster analysis is well suited for small
sample sizes, and is appropriate for a perception survey because it can be used to
find structures in data, without providing explanation or interpretation (Lipsky &
Ryan, 2011).
A k-means or iterative partitioning approach was used because of the
small sample size (57 respondents and 21 variables). Although p-levels are

59

 

reported in k-means clustering, they are not appropriate, as this study is not
testing a hypothesis but conducting an exploratory phase of research. Clusters are
defined based on Euclidean distances so as to reduce the variability of individuals
within a cluster, while maximizing variability between clusters (Kintigh &
Ammerman, 1982). Clustering algorithms produce several groupings, which can
then be validated using qualitative responses from open-ended and follow-up
questions.
K-means clustering requires selecting the optimal number of clusters. To
correctly determine the appropriate number of clusters, a hierarchical cluster
analysis was run on the dataset using Ward’s method to first determine the
number of clusters. After the optimal number of clusters was selected, k-means
cluster analysis was run, and cluster membership was assigned to each respondent
for further analysis.
Descriptive statistical analysis was performed on the dataset to determine
if the data were normally distributed. As the data were not normally distributed,
Kruskall-Wallis and Tukey-Kramer analyses were run to test differences in means
among assigned coalitions and stakeholder groups with respect to the 21 scaled
survey questions. The Tukey-Kramer test is an exact alpha-level test if the sample
sizes are the same, and conservative if the sample sizes are different (Hayter,
1984). Though the purpose of this analysis was not to test a hypothesis, reported
p-values help to identify significant differences among responses. A p-value
greater than 0.05 denotes a less significant difference between coalitions.

60

 

Qualitative data from follow-up and open-ended questions were analyzed
and coded. A framework for coding responses was developed and used to sort
responses into thematic groups (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Qualitative data allowed
an additional layer of examination for potential coalitions based on shared values,
and were crucial to understanding and identifying shared values among coalition
members outside of quantitative survey responses.

Results and Discussion
There were 57 survey participants. Respondents were categorized for the
purpose of stakeholder analysis under the ACF framework, and for anonymity.
Stakeholder groups and respondents used for the analysis include federal
government agency (n = 3), tribal government agency (n = 5), state government
agency (n = 14), local government and county marine resource committees (n =
10), conservation or research non-governmental organizations (n = 9),
commercial and recreational fishermen (n = 7), recreational scuba divers, dive
shop owners and diving organizations (n = 7), and universities (n = 2). Analysis
of responses to each question in the three-part survey was completed to
understand mean response, standard deviation, and the make-up of responses
regardless of stakeholder affiliation. These global perceptions of the survey
population are shown in Table 3 and discussed in the following sections.

61

 

Table 3: Mean responses across stakeholder groups to scaled survey questions
(1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree)
Part I: Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Puget Sound MPAs
Mean

Standard
Strongly Agree
Neutral Disagree Strongly
Deviation
Agree
Disagree
Washington State law defines a marine protected area as: A geographical marine or estuarine area designated by a state, federal, tribal or
local government in order to provide long-term protection for part or all of the resources within that area. (Substitute Senate Bill 6231, effective
June 12, 2008).
Does this definition fit the goals and objectives of MPAs in
2.19
0.83
14%
63.2%
14%
7%
1.8%
the Puget Sound? (n = 57)
I am aware of Puget Sound MPAs and their history (n =57)
2.21
0.72
14%
54.4%
28.1%
3.5%
0%
I believe that MPAs in the Puget Sound are effective in their
current state (n = 57)
Puget Sound MPAs should share common goals and
objectives (n = 57)
Utilized properly, MPAs could be an effective tool to
conserve and manage marine resources in the Puget Sound
(n = 57)
I believe that a network of no-take MPAs can and should be
implemented in the State of Washington (n = 57)

3.44

0.90

0%

14%

42.1%

29.8%

14%

2.35

1.02

22.8%

36.8%

22.8%

17.5%

0%

1.60

0.70

50.9%

40.4%

7%

1.8%

0%

1.93

1.07

45.6%

21.1%

24.6%

7%

1.8%

!
Part II: Causes of Problems with MPAs in the Puget Sound
Mean

Standard
Strongly Agree
Neutral Disagree Strongly
Deviation
Agree
Disagree
Research has identified a number of factors important to the efficacy of MPAs. For the questions below, please indicate the extent of your
agreement that the problem is one that limits the effectiveness of Puget Sound MPAs.
Puget Sound MPAs are arbitrarily placed (n = 56)
2.77
1.10
10.7%
23.2%
39.3%
26.8%
0%
There are not enough MPAs in the Puget Sound (n = 56)
2.16
0.99
26.8%
35.7%
30.4%
5.4%
1.8%
Puget Sound MPAs are too small (n = 56)
2.23
1.08
32.1%
21.4%
33.9%
12.5%
0%
Fishing and gear restrictions in Puget Sound MPAs are
2.33
1.11
23.6%
29.1%
29.1%
18.2%
0%
too lenient (n = 55)
Puget Sound MPAS fail to include the types of habitat
2.51
1.01
10.9%
36.4%
34.5%
18.2%
0%
necessary for species protection (n = 55)
We do not know enough about species and habitat in the
3.23
1.15
5.4%
23.2%
17.9%
44.6%
8.9%
Puget Sound to identify the best location for MPAs (n = 56)
Puget Sound MPAs are not regularly monitored (n = 56)
2.12
0.90
25%
39.3%
30.4%
5.4%
0%

!

62

 

Part III: Potential Solutions for MPAs in the Puget Sound
Mean
Coordinating and clarifying establishment criteria will help
MPAs in the Puget Sound be more effective (n = 55)
Creating a coordinated network of MPAs in the Puget Sound
is necessary to improving the efficacy of protected areas
(n = 55)
Designating authority to one agency or the legislature is part
of the solution to creating a successful network of MPAs
(n = 56)
Designating authority to a group of representatives from
many management entities is part of the solution to creating a
successful network of MPAs (n = 56)
Finding common terminology for MPAs in the Puget Sound
is important to their success (n = 55)
Goals and objectives for MPAs should be consistent across
managing entities (n = 56)
A consistent monitoring plan across MPAs is crucial to their
success (n = 56)
Habitat mapping and species diversity and abundance studies
and reports are necessary for the success of MPAs so that
sites can be prioritized (n = 56)

Strongly
Agree
27.3%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

1.79

Standard
Deviation
0.72

61.8%

9.1%

1.8%

Strongly
Disagree
0%

1.93

0.93

32.7%

40%

21.8%

5.5%

0%

2.95

1.03

7.1%

21.4%

39.3%

28.6%

3.6%

2.53

1.14

14.3%

41.1%

25%

12.5%

7.1%

2.07

0.91

21.8%

49.1%

21.8%

7.3%

0%

2.19

1.02

21.4%

50%

14.3%

12.5%

1.8%

1.77

0.88

42.9%

39.3%

12.5%

5.4%

0%

1.61

0.64

42.9%

50%

7.1%

0%

0%

!

63

 

Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Puget Sound MPAs
The first part of the survey asked questions to determine respondents’
knowledge and attitudes toward MPAs in the state of Washington, including
whether or not MPAs are perceived to be an effective management tool, and
opinions about the potential of MPAs in Washington. Most survey respondents
identified themselves as being knowledgeable about Puget Sound MPAs, with
14% strongly agreeing with this statement and 54.4% agreeing. Only 3.5% of
respondents felt that they were not knowledgeable about Puget Sound MPAs
and their history.
There is agreement among survey respondents that MPAs are
appropriately defined by Washington State law as “a geographical marine or
estuarine area designated by a state, federal, tribal or local government in order
to provide long-term protection for part or all of the resources within that area”
(Substitute Senate Bill 6231, effective June 12, 2008). Survey respondents
largely (77.2%) agreed that this definition fit the goals and objectives for Puget
Sound MPAs.
Analysis of mean responses across stakeholder groups using the TukeyKramer test found significant differences between stakeholder groups for several
of the questions about knowledge and attitudes. With respect to the state of
Washington’s definition of MPAs, there was a significant difference between
mean responses from state agencies and tribal resource managers. Responding to
a question about knowledge of MPAs and their history, there was a significant

64

 

difference between tribal resource managers—who reported a high level of
knowledge—and fishermen, whose mean response was neutral. With regard to
whether or not they believed MPAs to be effective in their current state, there
were significant differences across several stakeholder groups (i.e., state
agencies, local governments, conservation groups, tribes and fishermen).
Conservation groups, fishermen, and scuba divers all diverged significantly with
regard to the potential for MPAs as a conservation and management tool in
Puget Sound. With regard to the final question in this section, “I believe that a
network of no-take MPAs can and should be implemented in Washington State,”
there were significant differences among fishing, conservation and scuba
stakeholders, as well as between local and conservation groups. There were no
significant differences found with regard to goals and objectives, where there
was agreement among all stakeholder groups that Puget Sound MPAs should
share common goals and objectives.

65

 

5
4.5
4

Agree --> Disagreee

3.5

Federal
State

3

Tribal
2.5

Local
Conservation

2

Scuba
1.5

Fishermen
University

1
0.5
0
Definition

Awareness

Efficacy

Goals +
Objectives

Potential

Network
Viability

Figure 5: Mean responses across stakeholder groups to questions about
knowledge and attitudes toward Puget Sound MPAs.

Causes of Problems with Puget Sound MPAs
Research has identified a number of factors important to the efficacy of
MPAs, such as size, restrictions on use, monitoring, and placement. Most
(62.5%) respondents agreed that there were not enough MPAs in the Puget
Sound, and only 7.2% felt as though the number of MPAs in the sound was
sufficient. Despite the limited availability of seafloor mapping data, only 28.6%
of respondents felt that we didn’t know enough about species and habitat to
identify the best location for MPAs. The other 53.5% of respondents felt that we
do know enough about species and habitat in the Puget Sound to identify the
best location for MPAs. Despite this agreement about our knowledge of the best

66

 

sites, only 26.8% of respondents disagree that Puget Sound MPAs are arbitrarily
placed, with 39.3% neither disagreeing nor agreeing, and 33.9% agreeing with
this statement. These findings may incentivize MPA managers to provide further
clarity around site selection when creating or updating management plans for
MPAs.
Just over half (52.7%) of survey participants agreed that fishing and gear
restrictions in Puget Sound MPAs are too lenient. Almost a third of respondents
felt neutral about fishing and gear restrictions, and 18.2% disagreed. There is
agreement that a lack of monitoring is one of the problems with Puget Sound
MPAs, with 64.3% of respondents agreeing that Puget Sound MPAs are not
regularly monitored, 30.4% taking a neutral position, and only 5.4% disagreeing
with this statement.
Many of those surveyed responded to open-ended question about the
kinds of problems facing MPAs in the Puget Sound, citing concerns about lack
of enforcement in monitoring, especially in no-take areas. One respondent added
that the question is not whether or not MPAs are being monitored, but rather if
they are being monitored for the right things. Figure 6 shows survey
respondents’ answers to questions about the kinds of problems facing MPAs in
Puget Sound (they are arbitrarily placed, there are not enough, they are too small
in size, fishing and gear restrictions are too lenient, they are not regularly
monitored, they do not include the right kinds of habitat needed for species
protection, or we do not know enough about species and habitat). Since a
response of 1 is equal to “strongly agree” and 5 is equal to “strongly disagree,”
67

 

there was general agreement about the kinds of problems, with only a few
individuals disagreeing with problem statements.
Analysis of mean responses across stakeholder groups using the TukeyKramer test found no significant differences in mean responses across
stakeholder groups for questions pertaining to the placement, size and habitat
coverage of MPAs in Puget Sound, The same is true regarding knowledge of
species and habitat, and potential concerns about regular monitoring. Significant
differences were reported between fishing and conservation groups with respect
to the leniency of fishing and gear restrictions and the number of MPAs in the
Puget Sound.

5"
4.5"
4"
3.5"

Federal
State

Agree --> Disagree

3"

Tribal
Local

2.5"

Conservation
2"

Scuba
Fishermen

1.5"

University

1"
0.5"
0"
Placement

Quantity

Size

Restrictions

Habitat

Knowledge Monitoring

Figure 6: Mean responses across stakeholder groups to questions about causes of
problems with MPAs in the Puget Sound

68

 

Potential Solutions for MPAs in Puget Sound

Efforts to date in MPA planning and management in Washington have
identified a number of potential solutions to address the lack of coordination and
uncertainty surrounding Puget Sound MPAs. The MPA Work Group noted that
the coordination of objectives, establishment criteria, management, monitoring
practices, and terminology by agencies managing MPAs are among the first
steps to be taken in creating a network of MPAs (Van Cleave et al., 2009). The
results of the survey (shown in Figure 7) reinforce this belief, with agreement
among 89.1% of respondents that coordinating and clarifying establishment
criteria will help MPAs be more effective; agreement among 71.4% that goals
and objectives should be consistent across management agencies; and 82.2%
agreement that a consistent monitoring plan is crucial to the success of MPAs in
Puget Sound. Nearly all (92.9%) respondents felt that habitat mapping and
species abundance and diversity studies and reports were necessary for
prioritization of MPA sites.
Analysis of mean responses across stakeholder groups using the TukeyKramer test did not indicate any significant differences across stakeholder
groups indicating that there is broad agreement on perceptions of solutions to
problems with MPAs in the Puget Sound.

69

 

5"
4.5"
4"

Agree%&&>%Disagree%

3.5"
3"
2.5"
2"
1.5"

Federal""
State"
Tribal"
Local"
Conserva0on"

1"

Scuba""
Fishermen"

0"

University""

Co

or
di

na

0n

g"E

st

ab

lis

hm
en
t

"C
rit
er
Ne
ia
tw
"
or
k"o
f "M
PA
Au
s"
th
or
ity
"to
"O
Au
ne
th
"
or
i ty
"
t
Co
o"
M
m
an
m
Co
on
y"
ns
"
t
er
i ts
m
te
in
nt
ol
"G
og
oa
y"
l s"
+"
Ob
je
c0
ve
s"
M
on
Sp
i to
ec
rin
ie
s"+
g""
"H
ab
i ta
t"D
at
a""

0.5"

Figure 7: Means responses across stakeholder groups in response to possible
solutions to problems with MPAs in the Puget Sound

Identifying Potential Coalitions
The first step to identifying potential stakeholder coalitions was through
a preliminary exploration of qualitative and quantitative data. K-means cluster
analysis requires a pre-determined number of clusters, so a hierarchical cluster
analysis using Ward’s method and applying squared Euclidian distance as the
similarity measure was used to determine the optimal number of clusters. This
analysis of the survey dataset revealed two groups of respondents whose shared
values differentiated them from the other group. K-means cluster analysis was

70

 

performed on the dataset for two clusters, and respondents were coded by cluster
for further analysis.
Thematic coding of the qualitative responses to open-ended survey questions
and follow-up interview questions yielded three possible groups. Thus, the kmeans cluster analysis was run again for three clusters, and cluster membership
was assigned to survey respondents. The three potential coalitions were
identified through analysis and review of mean responses to the survey
questions, and qualitative data. The three coalitions were thematically named as
follows:
1. No-take MPAs are crucial to conservation and biological diversity.
2. Education, trust and awareness will help build support for a network of
no-take MPAs.
3. MPAs are one of many tools to manage marine resources.
Table 4 demonstrates mean responses by coalition to the survey
questions, and identifies questions where the coalitions diverge. Less significant
differences between groups are demonstrated by higher p-values. While there
was some variation among respondents in each potential coalition, the labels
created represent the mean responses for each group and are supported by
responses to open-ended interview questions.

71

 

Table 4: Mean response across coalitions.
(Bold text indicates significant difference in mean responses.)
Knowledge)and)Attitudes)Toward)Puget)Sound)MPAs))
!

Coalition! Coalition!
Coalition! P"
1!Mean!
2!Mean!
3!Mean!
value"
Response! Response! Response!!
Washington"State"law"defines"a"marine"protected"area"as:"A"geographical"marine"or"estuarine"area"
designated"by"a"state,"federal,"tribal"or"local"government"in"order"to"provide"long=term"protection"for"part"
or"all"of"the"resources"within"that"area."(Substitute"Senate"Bill"6231,"effective"June"12,"2008).!
Does!this!definition!fit!the!goals!and!objectives!of!
2.27!
2.23!
2.14!
0.8004!
MPAs!in!the!Puget!Sound?!!
!
I)am)aware)of)Puget)Sound)MPAs)and)their)history))
2.20)
1.69)
2.45)
0.0082)
I)believe)that)MPAs)in)the)Puget)Sound)are)effective) 3.67)
4.08)
3.03)
0.0015)
in)their)current)state))
Puget)Sound)MPAs)should)share)common)goals)and) 2.07)
1.85)
2.72)
0.0132)
objectives))
Utilized)properly,)MPAs)could)be)an)effective)tool)to) 1.20)
1)
2.07)
<0.001)
conserve)and)manage)marine)resources)in)the)Puget)
Sound))
I)believe)that)a)network)of)noOtake)MPAs)can)and)
1.33)
1.08)
2.72)
<0.001)
should)be)implemented)in)the)State)of)Washington))
!

Causes&of&Problems&with&MPAs&in&the&Puget&Sound&
!

Coalition! Coalition!
Coalition! P"
1!Mean!
2!Mean!
3!Mean!
value"
Response! Response! Response!!
Research"has"identified"a"number"of"factors"important"to"the"efficacy"of"MPAs."For"the"questions"below,"
please"indicate"the"extent"of"your"agreement"that"the"problem"is"one"that"limits"the"effectiveness"of"Puget"
Sound"MPAs.!
Puget&Sound&MPAs&are&arbitrarily&placed&&
3.13&
1.92&
2.97&
0.0020&
There&are&not&enough&MPAs&in&the&Puget&Sound&&
1.73&
1.08&
2.86&
<0.001&
Puget&Sound&MPAs&are&too&small&
1.73&
1.08&
3&
<0.001&
Fishing&and&gear&restrictions&in&Puget&Sound&MPAs&are&
2&
1.23&
3&
<0.001&
too&lenient&
Puget&Sound&MPAs&fail&to&include&the&types&of&habitat&
2.80&
1.69&
2.72&
0.0022&
necessary&for&species&protection&
We!do!not!know!enough!about!species!and!habitat!in!
3.73!
3.08!
3.03!
0.0546!
the!Puget!Sound!to!identify!the!best!location!for!MPAs!
Puget&Sound&MPAs&are&not&regularly&monitored&
2.07&
1.46&
2.45&
0.0025&
!

!
Potential)Solutions)for)MPAs)in)the)Puget)Sound))
!

Coordinating)and)clarifying)establishment)criteria)will)
help)MPAs)in)the)Puget)Sound)be)more)effective)
Creating)a)coordinated)network)of)MPAs)in)the)Puget)
Sound)is)necessary)to)improving)the)efficacy)of)
protected)areas))
Designating)authority)to)one)agency)or)the)legislature)
is)part)of)the)solution)to)creating)a)successful)network)
of)MPAs)
Designating)authority)to)a)group)of)representatives)
from)many)management)entities)is)part)of)the)solution)
to)creating)a)successful)network)of)MPAs)
Finding!common!terminology!for!MPAs!in!the!Puget!
Sound!is!important!to!their!success!
Goals!and!objectives!for!MPAs!should!be!consistent!
across!managing!entities!
A)consistent)monitoring)plan)across)MPAs)is)crucial)to)
their)success)
Habitat)mapping)and)species)diversity)and)abundance)
studies)and)reports)are)necessary)for)the)success)of)
MPAs)so)that)sites)can)be)prioritized)

Coalition!
1!Mean!
Response!
1.27)

Coalition!
2!Mean!
Response!
1.54)

Coalition! P"
3!Mean!
value"
Response!!
2.17)
<0.001)

1.20)

1.23)

2.62)

<0.001)

3.13)

2.23)

3.17)

0.0218)

1.80)

2.69)

2.83)

0.0117)

1.53!

2.08!

2.34!

0.0629!

1.73!

2.31!

2.38!

0.0854!

1.27)

1.23)

2.28)

<0.001)

1.33)

1.08)

2)

<0.001)

!

72

 

Potential Coalition 1:
No-take MPAs are crucial to conservation and biological diversity.
Coalition 1 is made up of 15 individuals from federal, state and tribal
agencies, local governments, conservation non-profits, scuba divers and dive
shop owners. Concerns about biodiversity, conservation, and a lack of no-take
zones were among the top emergent themes, along with an emphasis on the need
for enforcement of existing regulations in MPAs. Themes of secondary
importance for this group were a need for increased collaboration and
coordination among managing entities, as well as the involvement of
stakeholder groups and public education. These themes are evident in the
sampling of responses provided in Figure 8.
Mean responses to questions about knowledge and attitudes toward
Puget Sound MPAs for this group indicated a strong belief that MPAs could be
an effective tool to conserve and manage marine resources in Puget Sound, and
that a no-take network can and should be implemented in the state of
Washington. Overall, the group is aware of Puget Sound MPAs and their
history, and agrees that they are not effective in their current state (Table 4).
In response to questions about problems with MPAs in Puget Sound,
mean responses for Coalition 1 indicated strong agreement that there are not
enough MPAs in Puget Sound, and that Puget Sound MPAs are too small. This
group agrees that fishing and gear restrictions are too lenient and that one of the
problems with Puget Sound MPAs is that they are not regularly monitored.
73

 

“Biologically, the most important outcome will be a series of habitats in which
native species can flourish with minimal directed human impact. Politically, the
most important outcome will be Sound-wide cooperation and collaboration
among the many regulatory entities and stakeholders.” – State
“Political will is crucial to making any effort to create an MPA network
successful. Tribes and agencies need to come to the table and ALL will need to
make sacrifices.” – State
“People always take fright of the idea of "no-take" reserves — I suggest that
they should be called "recovery zones" rather than no-take zones because the
ultimate goal is to find out what an ecological community would be like if we
left it alone to recover. People are more willing to let environments recover from
human-caused disturbances — and people are less willing to have something
taken away from them.” –Tribal
“I don't think you need perfect science before establishing MPAs. Many other
locations have created a network of MPAs and have standards/criteria based on
science that Washington could build upon.” – Conservation

“Many people are not aware of MPAs in Puget Sound. There are many different
types of MPAs with different purposes and restrictions, so it is difficult to
educate people about MPAs.” –Federal

“It is not a question of arbitrary placement, or too little monitoring; it’s a
question of developing a network based on a defined set of regional goals and
objectives, and focusing monitoring on answering specific research questions.
MPAs are monitored, but are they being monitored for the right things?” –State
Figure 8: Selection of responses from Coalition 1 respondents by stakeholder
group

Regarding solutions to MPAs in Puget Sound, Coalition 1 agrees that
creating a coordinated network of MPAs in Puget Sound is necessary to
improving the efficacy of protected areas. As a whole, they do not agree nor
disagree that designating authority to the Legislature is part of the solution, but
74

 

do agree that designating authority to a group of representatives from many
management entities will aid in the efficacy of a potential network of MPAs.
Coalition 1 agrees that consistency of terminology, monitoring, goals and
objectives across MPAs is crucial to the success of MPAs. Coalition 1 also
agrees that habitat mapping, as well as species and abundance studies, are
necessary for the success of MPAs so that sites can be prioritized. Open-ended
responses from this coalition reinforce this finding, emphasizing a need for
baseline data for conservation purposes.

Potential Coalition 2:
Education, trust and awareness will help build support for a network of notake MPAs.
Coalition 2 is comprised of 13 representatives of federal and tribal
agencies, local governments, universities, conservation non-profits, scuba
divers, and dive shop owners. Among the top emergent themes for coalition 2
were concerns about ecosystem protection and biodiversity, a need for
additional no-take areas, and a necessity for education and communication with
the public about the benefits and need for protected areas. A secondary theme
from coalition 2 was a call for coordinated goals and objectives from
management agencies. Representatives from coalition 2 were also concerned
with tribal mistrust and treaty rights, connectivity among sites, and a need for
additional research. Several respondents from this group also felt strongly that
75

 

we have enough knowledge about species and habitats to take action now, rather
than wait for “perfect science” to designate optimal sites.

“This isn't an environmental problem, it is a political and economic problem.”
–Local
“Education is important—share results from elsewhere—but also listen to their
input and try to compromise. Don't compromise to the point where the MPA in
question wouldn't work.” –Conservation
“MPAs should be designed to benefit all species, but in some cases certain sites
may be spawning aggregates for a particular species, which is worth protecting.”
–Conservation
“Monitoring should not depend on agency funding (of which there never is any).
Involving the public in monitoring helps engage others and contributes to “buyin.” REEF is a great example of a Citizen Science program for monitoring.”
–Scuba
“MPAs have been very successful in different parts of the world. Tying in local
benefits (e.g., diving tourism to replace lost local community fishing access) is a
good way to gather support.” –Conservation
Start small. Be patient. Develop secondary economies for fishing destinations
like Neah Bay (scuba diving). Show that the world doesn't end if we add marine
parks that limit fishing; the Sound is large. Enlist the help of a progressive tribe
that is willing to embrace the science of conservation ecology. Open channels
with California and Oregon, where recent MPA successes have been won.”
–Conservation
“Engage NGOs. Need large outreach and education campaign to reach
progressive Puget Sound residents and overcome the small but vocal anti-MPA
recreational fishing community.” –Conservation
Figure 9: Selection of responses from Coalition 2 respondents

76

 

Mean responses to questions about knowledge and attitudes toward
Puget Sound MPAs for this group indicated agreement with the Washington’s
definition of MPAs and a strong awareness of MPAs and their history. As a
whole, coalition 2 disagrees that MPAs are effective in their current state, but
feels strongly that, if utilized properly, they could be an effective tool to
conserve and manage marine resources in Puget Sound, and that a no-take
network of MPAs can and should be implemented in the state of Washington.
The group agrees that goals and objectives should be consistent among MPAs in
Puget Sound, and that this consistency would help them to be more effective.
Responding to problems with MPAs in Puget Sound, coalition 2 strongly
agreed that there are not enough MPAs in Puget Sound and that Puget Sound
MPAs are too small. Mean responses from coalition 2 indicate agreement that
fishing and gear restrictions in Puget Sound MPAs are too lenient, and that a
lack of regular monitoring is also a problem. Qualitative responses (Figure 9)
indicate that this may be attributed to a lack of funding, and that a Citizen
Science monitoring program may be a solution that could increase monitoring of
MPA sites without immensely increasing the need for public funding.
Coalition 2 agrees that creating a coordinated network of MPAs in Puget
Sound is necessary to improve their efficacy, and that coordinating and
clarifying establishment criteria would also aid in their efficacy. The group
equally agrees that designating authority to a group of representatives from
many management entities or to one agency or the Legislature is part of creating
a successful network of MPAs. Coalition 2 also agrees that common
77

 

terminology, monitoring, and goals and objectives would help MPAs be more
beneficial. More so than the other two groups, coalition 2 feels strongly that
continued habitat mapping, as well as species diversity and abundance studies
and reports, are necessary so that potential MPA sites can be prioritized.

Potential Coalition 3:
MPAs are one of many tools to manage marine resources.
The largest of the three groups, Coalition 3 consists of 29 individuals.
The majority of coalition 3 is made up of representatives from state and local
government, tribal agencies, and fishermen. There is also some representation
from conservation groups, scuba divers, and federal agencies. Among the top
emergent themes from open-ended questions from this group was a necessity to
monitor the effectiveness of MPAs, enforce no-take areas, and clarify goals and
objectives across sites. This group is also concerned with a lack of funding for
MPAs and sees a clear need for more communication, education and outreach to
the public about MPAs. Coalition 3 voiced concerns that MPAs have become
politicized, and there was some skepticism among this group that MPAs are the
best solution to address the problem (Figure 10). This group agreed that more
research is needed to make a case for MPAs and that it will continue to be
difficult to move forward in the absence of a legislative mandate.
Mean responses to questions about knowledge and attitudes toward
Puget Sound MPAs for this group indicated agreement with the State of
78

 

Washington’s definition of MPAs and some awareness of MPAs and their
history. Mean responses show neither agreement nor disagreement that MPAs
are effective in their current state, and only slight agreement that they should
share goals and objectives. This finding is further validated by qualitative data,
which shows an interest in clarifying goals and objectives, but not necessarily
trying to have consistent goals across all sites. Coalition 3 agrees that MPAs
could be an effective tool to conserve and manage marine resources in the Puget
Sound, but there is not strong agreement that the best way to this end is through
a no-take network of marine reserves.
Concerning problems with existing MPAs in Puget Sound, mean
responses for coalition 3 hovered on or near neutral with regard to placement of
current MPAs, whether Puget Sound MPAs are too small or too few, and in
response to the question of whether or not fishing and gear restrictions were too
lenient. There was some agreement from this group that Puget Sound MPAs are
not regularly monitored, and that many MPA sites in Puget Sound fail to include
the types of habitat necessary for species protection. However, coalition 3
neither agrees nor disagrees that we do not know enough about species and
habitat to identify the best location for MPAs.
In response to questions about solutions for Puget Sound MPAs,
coalition 3 agrees that coordinating and clarifying establishment criteria, and
creating a coordinated network of MPAs would contribute to the success of
MPAs. There is some agreement that this can be achieved by designating
authority to a group of representatives from managing entities, rather than one
79

 

agency or the Legislature. Among other contributors to the success of MPAs
agreed upon by coalition 3 are consistent terminology, monitoring plans, and
goals and objectives. Coalition 3 also agrees that habitat mapping and species
diversity and abundance studies and reports are necessary for the success of
MPAs so that sites can be prioritized.

“If there's a particular management objective that would be served by a network
of similar MPAs (e.g., protecting a certain habitat for restoration of particular
species), I could see the value. But I don't think that should be the only approach
for MPAs. MPAs are established by different entities, under different
authorities, for different purposes, each of which might benefit society in
different ways. Trying to fit them all into the same box might actually narrow
the benefits. It might also reduce the number of areas protected, given the
mandates/interests of the various agencies/entities that establish these protected
areas.” –State
“I think the public, stakeholders, and decision-makers need to hear a strong,
science-supported argument why MPAs (especially no-take MPAs) are a needed
approach for managing species and why other practices won't be successful.”
–State
“I agree that goals should be similar and shared. Currently MPAs are developed
for political rather than ecosystem purposes.” –Tribal
“Justification that an MPA is the most appropriate solution to a problem.” –
Tribal
“Lack of a legislative mandate and funding to govern/manage and coordinate
MPAs”. –State
“Clarification as to how species mapping will occur. No data does not
necessarily mean absence of a species. Mapping species diversity and
calculating cumulative effects on species-specific habitat criteria must done in a
thorough and scientific way, and made public.” –Tribal

80

 

“We presently have many programs, studies and regulations to help ESA species
and the addition of new MPAs should utilize existing data. However, before
more MPAs are developed, we should look at those already designated, to
determine if they actually provide any long-term benefit to the environment
beyond that provided by existing regulations.” –Fishing
“There needs to be a clear legislative mandate and associated funding for MPAs
(or an MPA network) in order to establish an authoritative management body
(either one entity or group).” –State
Figure 10: Selection of responses from Coalition 3 respondents by stakeholder
group

81

 

Chapter 4: Conclusions
The state of Washington has been engaged in MPA planning for several
years, with limited change to existing systems. The 2009 MPA Work Group
report suggested (1) improving efficiency through a coordinated strategy to
create an ecologically meaningful network of MPAs and (2) evaluation of
existing sites to determine if they are providing sufficient ecological benefit and
being managed efficiently given current agency resources (Van Cleave et al.,
2009). In the fall of 2012, marine managers and technical experts from federal,
state and local agencies, tribal governments, and The Nature Conservancy
gathered to consider ecosystem protections afforded under current MPAs;
discuss ecosystem threats, conservation concerns and other goals that an
integrated network of MPAs may address; and identify the information needs
and next steps for improving marine protection in the Puget Sound (PSP,
2012a). This thesis contributes to this work by addressing an important gap in
the literature with regard to stakeholder preferences as they pertain to MPAs in
the Puget Sound. It presents the application of a public policy framework that
may help to move MPA planning efforts forward, and contributes to the growing
body of work on MPAs in the state of Washington.
Based on surveys and informal interviews, this thesis presents and
analyzes beliefs and perceptions of marine resource managers and key
stakeholders regarding MPAs in Puget Sound, weaknesses of existing MPAs,
and potential solutions to address these challenges. The survey design was
informed by the ACF, a public policy framework, which predicts that core
82

 

policy beliefs of stakeholders influence their interactions with other
stakeholders, and that these interactions will occur predominantly with other
actors of similar core policy beliefs (Weible & Sabatier, 2005). I found that,
across all survey participants, 62.5% of respondents agreed that there were not
enough MPAs in Puget Sound, and only 7.2% felt as though the number of
MPAs in the Sound was sufficient. Significant differences were found between
fishing and conservation groups with respect to the leniency of fishing and gear
restrictions and the number of MPAs in Puget Sound.
The MPA Work Group noted that the coordination of objectives,
establishment criteria, management and monitoring practices, and terminology is
one of the first steps in creating a network of MPAs (Van Cleave et al. 2009).
The results of the survey reinforce this belief, with agreement among 89.1% of
respondents that coordinating and clarifying establishment criteria will help
MPAs be more effective, agreement among 71.4% that goals and objectives
should be consistent across management agencies, and 82.2% agreeing that a
consistent monitoring plan is crucial to the success of MPAs in the Puget Sound.
A full 92.9% of respondents felt that habitat mapping and species abundance
and diversity studies and reports were necessary for prioritization of MPA sites.
A key to successful conservation planning is to understand where
extractive human uses like fishing occur, along with understanding the
ecological characteristics of a particular area in terms of both habitat and
populations of organisms. In the absence of perfect information on habitat and
species assemblages, which is the case in Puget Sound, a sound strategy in
83

 

marine planning is to take a precautionary approach by protecting a variety of
representative habitats (Crowder & Norse, 2008). Approaching MPA planning
through the broader lens of ecosystem-based MSP (Foley et al., 2010) may
provide a guiding framework to do this. Ecosystem-based MSP achieves these
objectives through an integrated planning framework that informs the spatial
distribution of activities in the marine environment to support current and future
uses and to maintain ecosystem services for future generations in a strategic way
that supports ecological, economic and social objectives (Douvere, 2008).
Embedding MPAs into a broader ocean and coastal planning context further
boosts their resiliency by planning for the confounding uses outside of MPA
boundaries. Deliberate and transparent site selection based on known ecological
attributes and considerations for societal impacts (such as usual and accustomed
fishing grounds) may help garner support for new or more restrictive protected
areas.
Many of those surveyed responded to open-ended questions about the
kinds of problems facing MPAs in Puget Sound, citing concerns about lack of
enforcement in monitoring, especially in no-take areas. One respondent added
that the question is not whether or not MPAs are being monitored, but rather if
they are being monitored for the right things. While it is critical to ensure that
MPAs have clear goals and objectives and thus monitoring practices, in the early
phases of implementation, we can look to Oregon’s newly established network
of MPAs for guidance. One of the short-term goals of the state of Oregon’s
network of marine reserves was evaluating the effectiveness of marine reserves
84

 

as a management tool, while long-term goals included conservation of
biodiversity and habitats, providing a framework for scientific research, and
avoiding significant social and economic impacts (PSP, 2012a). The
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has already
implemented a similar process into its marine reserves program by building
adaptive management into its 10-year review process of management plans.
Adaptive management is a systematic method for continually improving
the management of protected areas by learning from results of past management
actions. Utilizing adaptive management, DNR will integrate changes in
scientific knowledge concerning the site, conditions of habitats and species, and
existing uses of state-owned aquatic lands. New knowledge gained through
these activities will also aid DNR in determining if management of these areas is
sufficient to meet the goals and objectives of the reserve. If not, they will be
modified, monitored, and evaluated during the subsequent review process. New
information will be included in updated management plans (DNR, 2013). These
adaptive approaches may help to bridge the divide of uncertainty amongst
stakeholder groups with respect to planning and implementing a network of
MPAs in Puget Sound.
A cluster analysis identified three distinct groups based on responses to
quantitative and qualitative data points. Table 4 identifies significant differences
among coalitions in response to 17 out of 21 questions. In the first section,
which explored knowledge and attitudes toward Puget Sound MPAs, there were
significant differences among coalitions concerning the efficacy and potential of
85

 

MPAs as a management tool, and the benefit of shared goals and objectives
across sites. While 2 out of 3 coalitions agree that a network of no-take MPAs
can and should be implemented, there were also significant differences across
coalitions in response to this question, indicating varying levels of support. This
first section represents policy core beliefs in the policy subsystem. Policy-core
beliefs are resistant to change, but are more likely to shift over time in response
to new information and experiences than deep-core beliefs (Weible, Sabatier &
McQueen, 2009).
Problems with MPAs in Puget Sound fall under the third tier of the ACF
framework as secondary beliefs, while possible solutions are a hybrid of policycore beliefs and secondary beliefs. Secondary beliefs are the most limited in
scope, are often empirically based, and are the most likely to change in light of
new data, experience, or a change in strategic frameworks (Jenkins-Smith &
Sabatier, 1994). There were significant differences among stakeholder groups
for all but one of the available problem statements. This may be due to the
complex management structure of MPAs in the Puget Sound, as qualitative
responses indicated confusion about sites and regulations. A clearer strategy for
communicating problems associated with MPAs in Puget Sound would be
helpful, not only for public support, but for making a case for a network of
MPAs in the Sound.
Analysis of coalition response to proposed solutions for MPAs in Puget
Sound identified topics of divergence across coalitions. The proposed solutions
that did not have agreement from all three coalitions related to the coordination
86

 

and clarification of establishment criteria, the creation of a network, whether
management authority should sit with one agency or representatives from many
agencies, the need for improved monitoring practices, and the need for species
abundance and diversity studies prior to selecting new sites. While survey
results overall support coordinating and clarifying establishment criteria and the
creation of a network, these divergent viewpoints among coalitions are a
reminder of the key differences among coalitions, which may be contributing to
Washington’s slow progress toward a network of MPAs. Just as an argument
must be made for the efficacy of MPAs, the same must be done for networks as
well.
One of the emergent criticisms of the current administrative framework
for MPAs in Washington is the confusion created by a lack of overarching goals
and objectives across sites. However, some respondents countered this criticism,
demonstrating concern that trying to put MPAs into a one-size-fits-all
framework might narrow the benefit due to the fact that currently, MPAs are
established by different agencies for different reasons. Utilizing MPAs as a tool
within an EBM or ICM framework addresses this concern by planning for
conflicting uses. Additionally, an ecological and administrative network of
protected areas governed by representatives from many authorities would likely
bridge agency interests through a collaborative management process.
Qualitative analysis identified concerns around political (rather than
scientific) decision making in MPA placement, indicating that reserve sites have
been procured opportunistically, rather than to meet specific conservation
87

 

objectives. This perspective demonstrates a lack of trust in MPA planning and
management that could hinder future progress. The MPA Work Group identified
a need for clear conservation concerns as a first step before determining a
management response, which is consistent with the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission’s MPA policy statement (Van Cleave et al., 2009). We may look to
California for inspiration in separating scientific information from non-scientific
ones, to make a clearer case for MPAs.
In their analysis of the role of science in California MPA network
planning, Saarman and others (2013) note that there are three crucial elements to
bringing the best available science to environmental decision-making. First, the
politicization of science can be avoided by distinguishing scientific issues from
non-scientific ones (Fernandez et al., 2009; NRC, 2004; Sullivan et al. 2006).
Second, they recommend creating a transparent and participatory process to
identify the best-available information to inform decision making. Finally, they
advocate effectively communicating uncertainty and its consequences for
management decisions (NRC, 2004; Sullivan et al., 2006). In California’s MPA
planning process, isolating scientific questions from policy or budgeting issues,
allowed the science team to make the best recommendations regarding MPA
design principles and ecological issues, without concerning themselves with a
contentious political environment.
It is clear from the results of this study that there is much work to be
done by MPA managers to make a case for a network of MPAs in Puget Sound.
While evidence suggests that single-species management is no longer sufficient
88

 

to support biological integrity in marine and coastal ecosystems, there is not
consistent support among stakeholder groups that MPAs are the best option for
Puget Sound. MPAs are one of many tools in the suite of management practices,
and may be more effective when integrated into a broader planning context,
such as ICM or EBM, than if used on their own.
Among the outcomes of the Puget Sound Partnership Workshop in 2012
was a consensus that the Puget Sound Partnership should continue the
conversation by leading a collaborative process to (1) assess the need for and
ability of an MPA network to meet Puget Sound conservation priorities; (2)
agree to definitions of an MPA network, as well as a scientific basis for such a
network that includes socio-ecological factors; and (3) assure that this
collaborative and exploratory process includes all MPA managers – both tribal
and non-tribal. The group outlined a multi-staged process of next steps, the first
of which includes conducting a needs assessment and matching MPA need to
conservation priorities (PSP, 2012a).
Within the ACF, there are two paths to policy change in a subsystem.
The first path is external subsystem events, which are defined as shifts in the
policy core attributes of the subsystem. These may include changes in
socioeconomic conditions, public opinion, governing coalitions, and other
subsystems (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999). In the context of this thesis, other
subsystems may refer to embedding MPAs within the context of EBM or ICM
to offer greater protection from pressures outside the boundaries of an MPA.

89

 

Such external events can induce change in a subsystem by shifting and
growing resources, tipping the power dynamic of coalitions, and shifting beliefs.
The second path to policy change within the ACF is policy-oriented learning.
Policy-oriented learning is defined as “relatively enduring alternations of
thought or behavioral intentions that result from experience and/or new
information and that are concerned with the attainment or revision of policy
objectives” (Sabatier & Jenkins- Smith, 1999, p. 123). Results from this analysis
are consistent with current efforts underway to improve coordination and
consistency among MPAs and MPA managers to obtain establishment criteria,
coordinated objectives, consistent terminology, and a clear plan for future
management and monitoring of the MPAs. Action on any of these factors may
influence policy change within the subsystem, clearing a path for progress in
MPA planning and management in the Puget Sound.

90

 

References
Agardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M. P., Day, J., Dayton, P. K., Kenchington,
R., ... & Peau, L. (2003). Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and
ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 13: 353-367.
Airamé, S., J.E. Dugan, K.D. Lafferty, H.M. Leslie, D.A. McArdle & R.R.
Warner (2003). Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: a
case study from the California Channel Islands. Supplement: The
Science of Marine Reserves. Ecological Applications, 13: S170 – S184.
Alcala, A. C., & Russ, G. R. (1990). A direct test of the effects of protective
management on abundance and yield of tropical marine resources.
Journal du Conseil: ICES Journal of Marine Science, 47: 40-47.
Alcala, A.C. (1988). Effects of marine reserves on coral fish abundances and
yield of Philippine coral reefs. Ambio, 17: 194 – 199.
Aldenderfer, M.S.& Blashfield, R.K. (1984). Cluster Analysis. Sage University
Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Allison, G. W., Lubchenco, J., & Carr, M. H. (1998). Marine reserves are
necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation. Ecological
applications, 8: S79-S92.
Arcese, Peter & Sinclair, A.R.E. (1997). The Role of Protected Areas as
Ecological Baselines. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 61: 587-602.
Armstrong, J. W., Staude, C. P., Thom, R. M., & Chew, K. K. (1976). Habitats
and relative abundances of the intertidal macrofauna at five Puget Sound
beaches in the Seattle area. Syesis, 9: 277-290.
Ashe, E., Noren, D.P. & Williams, R. (2010). Animal behavior and marine
protected areas: incorporating behavioral data into the selection of
marine protected areas for an endangered killer whale population.
Animal Conservation, 13: 196 – 203.
Bergen, L. K., & Carr, M. H. (2003). Establishing Marine Reserves How Can
Science Best Inform Policy? Environment: Science and Policy for
Sustainable Development, 45: 8-19.

91

 

Bernstein, B., Iudicello, S., & Stringer, C. (2004). Lessons learned from recent
marine protected area designations in the United States. Report for The
National Marine Protected Area Center (NOAA). National Fisheries
Conservation Center, Ojai, California, USA.
Bohnsack, J. A. (1998). Application of marine reserves to reef fisheries
management. Australian Journal of Ecology, 23: 298-304.
Bohnsack, J. A. (2003). Shifting baselines, marine reserves, and Leopold's biotic
ethic. Gulf and Caribbean Research, 14: 1-7.
Brown, J. H., & Lomolino, M. V. (2000). Concluding remarks: historical
perspective and the future of island biogeography theory. Global
Ecology and Biogeography, 9: 87-92.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/. Accessed
May 2, 2013.
Canning, D. J., & Shipman, H. (1995). The cumulative effects of shoreline
erosion control and associated land clearing practices, Puget Sound,
Washington. Coastal Erosion Management Studies, 10.
Castilla, J. C., & Bustamante, R. H. (1989). Human exclusion from rocky
intertidal of Las Cruces, Central Chile: Effects on Durvillaea
antarctica(Phaeophyta, Durvilleales). Marine ecology progress series.
Oldendorf, 50: 203-214.
Castilla, J.C. (1999). Coastal marine communities: trends and perspectives from
human exclusion experiments. Ecology and Evolution, 14: 280 – 283.
Christie, P., McCay, B. J., Miller, M. L., Lowe, C., White, A. T., Stoffle, R., ...
& Eisma, R. L. (2003). Toward developing a complete understanding: A
social science research agenda for marine protected areas. Fisheries, 28:
22-25.
Cicin-Sain, B., & Belfiore, S. (2005). Linking marine protected areas to
integrated coastal and ocean management: a review of theory and
practice. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48: 847-868.
Cicin-Sain, B. & Knecht, R. (1998). Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management:
Concepts and Practices. Island Press: Washington, D.C., USA.
Cohen, F.G. (1986). Treaties on trial: the continuing controversy over Northwest
Indian fishing rights. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.
92

 

Convention on Biological Diversity (2010). Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
2011- 2020. Accessed from http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop10/official/cop-10-27-add1-en.pdf February 28, 2913.
Crowder, L., & Norse, E. (2008). Essential ecological insights for marine
ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning. Marine
Policy, 32: 772-778.
Dayton, P. K., Sala, E., Tegner, M. J., & Thrush, S. (2000). Marine reserves:
parks, baselines, and fishery enhancement. Bulletin of Marine Science,
66(3), 617-634.
De Santo, E. M. (2013). Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: How the
push for quantity over quality undermines sustainability and social
justice. Journal of Environmental Management (in press).
Douvere, F. (2008). The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing
ecosystem-based sea use management. Marine Policy, 32: 762-771.
Drake J.S., E.A. Berntson, J.M. Cope, R.G. Gustafson, E.E. Holmes, P.S. Levin,
N. Tolimieri, R.S. Waples, S.M. Sog- ard, & G.D. Williams. (2010).
Status review of five rockfish species in Puget Sound, Washington:
bocaccio (Sebastes pau- cispinis), canary rockfish (S. pinniger),
yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus), greenstriped rockfish (S. elongatus),
and redstripe rockfish (S. proriger). U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-108, 234
Edgar, G. J., Bustamante, R. H., Farina, J. M., Calvopina, M., Martinez, C., &
Toral-Granda, M. V. (2004). Bias in evaluating the effects of marine
protected areas: the importance of baseline data for the Galapagos
Marine Reserve. Environmental Conservation, 31: 212-218.
Evans, K. E., & Klinger, T. (2008). Obstacles to Bottom‐Up Implementation of
Marine Ecosystem Management. Conservation Biology, 22: 1135-1143.
Fernandes, L., Day, J., Kerrigan, B., Breen, D., De'ath, G., Mapstone, B., ... &
Kenchington, R. (2009). A process to design a network of marine notake areas: Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 52: 439-447.
Foley, M. M., Halpern, B. S., Micheli, F., Armsby, M. H., Caldwell, M. R.,
Crain, C. M., ... & Steneck, R. S. (2010). Guiding ecological principles
for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 34: 955-966.
93

 

Gaines, S. D., White, C., Carr, M. H., & Palumbi, S. R. (2010). Designing
marine reserve networks for both conservation and fisheries
management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107:
18286-18293.
Gaydos, J. K. & Brown, N.A. (2011). Species of Concern within the Salish Sea:
Changes from 2002 to 2011. Proceedings of the 2011 Salish Sea
Ecosystem Conference, October 25-27, 2011, Vancouver, BC.
Gell, F.R. & C.M. Roberts (2003). Benefits beyond boundaries: The fishery
effects of marine reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18: 448 –
455.
Geoghegan, T., & Renard, Y. (2002). Beyond community involvement: lessons
from the insular Caribbean. Parks, 12: 16-27.
Gleason, M., Merrifield, M. S., Cook, C., Davenport, A. L., & Shaw, R. (2006).
Assessing gaps in marine conservation in California. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 4: 249-258.
Gleason, M., Fox, E., Ashcraft, S., Vasques, J., Whiteman, E., Serpa, P.,
Saarman, E., Caldwell, M., Frimodig, A., Miller-Henson, M., Kirlin, J.,
Ota, B., Pope, E., Weber, M., & Weisman, K. (2013). Designing a
network of marine protected areas in California: Achievements, costs,
lessons learned and challenges ahead. Ocean & Coastal Management:
74: 90-101.
Gleason, M., McCreary, S., Miller-Henson, M., Ugoretz, J., Fox, E., Merrifield,
M., ... & Hoffman, K. (2010). Science-based and stakeholder-driven
marine protected area network planning: A successful case study from
north central California. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53: 52-68.
Halpern, B.S. (2003). The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does
size matter? Supplement: The Science of Marine Reserves. Ecological
Applications, 13: S117 – S137.
Halpern, B. S., Lester, S. E., & Kellner, J. B. (2010). Spillover from marine
reserves and the replenishment of fished stocks. Environmental
Conservation, 36: 268-276.
Halpern, B. S., Lester, S. E., & McLeod, K. L. (2010). Placing marine protected
areas onto the ecosystem-based management seascape. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 107: 18312-18317.

94

 

Halpern, B. S., McLeod, K. L., Rosenberg, A. A., & Crowder, L. B. (2008).
Managing for cumulative impacts in ecosystem-based management
through ocean zoning. Ocean & Coastal Management, 51: 203-211.
Halpern, B. S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K. A., Kappel, C. V., Micheli, F.,
D'Agrosa, C., ... & Watson, R. (2008). A global map of human impact on
marine ecosystems. Science, 319: 948-952.
Hard, C.H., Hoelting, K.R., Christie, P. & Pollnac, R.B. (2012). Collaboration,
Legitimacy, and Awareness in Puget Sound MPAs. Coastal
Management, 40: 312-326.
Harrison, H. B., Williamson, D. H., Evans, R. D., Almany, G. R., Thorrold, S.
R., Russ, G. R., ... & Jones, G. P. (2012). Larval export from marine
reserves and the recruitment benefit for fish and fisheries. Current
Biology, 22: 1023-1028.
Hayter, A. J. (1984). A proof of the conjecture that the Tukey-Kramer multiple
comparisons procedure is conservative. The Annals of Statistics, 12: 6175.
Hoelting, K. R., Hard, C. H., Christie, P., & Pollnac, R. B. (2012). Factors
affecting support for Puget Sound Marine Protected Areas. Fisheries
Research, 144: 48-59.
Hooker, S.K. & Gerber, L.R. (2004). Marine reserves as a tool for ecosystembased management: the potential importance of megafauna. BioScience,
54: 27 – 39.
Hooker, S.K.,Whitehead, H. & Gowans, S. (1999). Marine protected area design
and the spatial and temporal distribution of cetaceans in a submarine
canyon. Conservation Biology, 13: 592 – 602.
Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1994). Evaluating the advocacy
coalition framework. Journal of Public Policy, 14, 175-175.
Keller G. & Kenchington, R. (1992). Guidelines for establishing marine
protected areas: a marine conservation and development report. World
Conservation Union (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland.
Kintigh, K. W. & Ammerman, A. J. (1982). Heuristic approaches to spatial
analysis in archaeology. American Antiquity, 47: 31-63.

95

 

Kirlin, J., Cadwell, M. Gleason, M., Weber, M., Ugoretz, J., Fox, E., & MillerHensen, M. (2013). California's Marine Life Protection Act Initiative:
Supporting implementation of legislation establishing a statewide
network of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 74:
3-13.
Lauck, T., Clark, C. W., Mangel, M., & Munro, G. R. (1998). Implementing the
precautionary principle in fisheries management through marine
reserves. Ecological Applications, 8: 72-78.
Lester, S. E., Halpern, B. S., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B.
I., Gaines, S. D., ... & Warner, R. R. (2009). Biological effects within notake marine reserves: a global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress
Series, 384: 33-46.
Lester, S. E., McLeod, K. L., Tallis, H., Ruckelshaus, M., Halpern, B. S., Levin,
P. S., ... & Parrish, J. K. (2010). Science in support of ecosystem-based
management for the US West Coast and beyond. Biological
Conservation, 143: 576-587.
Lipsky, R. S. & Ryan, C.M. (2012). Nearshore Restoration in Puget Sound:
Understanding Stakeholder Values and Potential Coalitions, Coastal
Management, 39: 577-597.
Lourie, S. A., & Vincent, A. J. (2004). Using Biogeography to Help Set
Priorities in Marine Conservation. Conservation Biology, 18: 1004-1020.
MacArthur, R & Wilson, E. O. (1967). The theory of island biogeography.
Princeton, NJ.
McClanahan, T. R., Marnane, M.J, Cinner, J.E. & Kiene, W.E. (2006). A
comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to
coral-reef management. Current Biology 16:1408–1413.
McCloskey, M. (1999). Problems with using collaboration to shape
environmental public policy. Valparaiso University Law Review, 34:
423-434.
McLeod, K. L., Lubchenco, J., Palumbi, S. R., & Rosenberg, A. A. (2005).
Scientific consensus statement on marine ecosystem-based management.
Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea.
Murray, M.R. (1998). The status of marine protected areas in the Puget Sound.
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Environmental Report Series. 8: 103-104.
96

 

Murray, S. N., Ambrose, R. F., Bohnsack, J. A., Botsford, L. W., Carr, M. H.,
Davis, G. E., ... & Yoklavich, M. M. (1999). No-take reserve networks:
sustaining fishery populations and marine ecosystems. Fisheries, 24: 1125.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Accessed from
http://nerrs.noaa.gov/Reserve.aspx?ResID=PDB March 5, 2013.
National Marine Fisheries Service (2008). Recovery Plan for Southern Resident
Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northwest Region, Seattle, WA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] (2011). Olympic
Coast National Marine Sanctuary: Final Management Plan and
Environmental Assessment. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] (2013). Accessed
from http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/ June 2, 3013.
National Research Council (2001). Marine protected areas: tools for sustaining
ocean ecosystems. Committee on the Evaluation, Design, Monitoring
Marine Reserves, & Protected Areas in the United States. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council (2004). Improving the Use of the "Best Scientific
Information Available" Standard in Fisheries Management . Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
Nisqually River Council (2010).Nisqually Watershed Stewardship Plan.
Accessed from http://nisquallyriver.org/who-we-are/the-nisqually-rivermanagement-plan/ June 2, 2013.
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (2003). Tribal Policy Statement:
Marine Protected Areas, Marine Reserves, Marine Sanctuaries and
Fishery Conservation Zones. Accessed from
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00038/wdfw00038.pdf October 30,
2012.

97

 

Palsson, W. (2001a). Marine refuges offer haven for Puget Sound fish. Fish &
Wildlife Science. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Accessed from
http://www.eopugetsound.org/sites/default/files/files/WDFW_MarineRef
ugesOfferHavenforPugetSoundFish.pdf March 2, 2013.
Palsson, W. (2001b). The development of criteria for establishing and
monitoring no-take refuges for rockfishes and other rocky habitat fishes
in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Research 2001. Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority: Olympia, WA, USA.
Palsson, W. Tsou, T. S., Bargmann, G. G., Buckley, R. M., West, J. E., Mills,
M. L., Cheng, Y. W., & Pacunski, R. E. (2009). The biology and
assessment of rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Fish Management.
Pauly, D. (1995). Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 10: 430.
Pauly, D., & Christensen, V. (1995). Primary production required to sustain
global fisheries. Nature, 374: 255-257.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., & Torres, F. (1998).
Fishing down marine food webs. Science, 279: 860-863.
Pauly, D., & Palomares, M. L. (2005). Fishing down marine food web: it is far
more pervasive than we thought. Bulletin of Marine Science, 76: 197212.
Pauly, D. & Watson, R. A. (2003). Counting the last fish. Scientific American,
289: 42-47.
Pauly, D., Watson, R., & Alder, J. (2005). Global trends in world fisheries:
impacts on marine ecosystems and food security. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360: 5-12.
Plan Development Team (1990). The potential of marine fisheries reserves for
reef fish recruitment management in the U.S. Southern Atlantic. NOAA
Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFC-261, 40p.
Pollnac, R., Christie, P., Cinner, J. E., Dalton, T., Daw, T. M., Forrester, G. E.,
... & McClanahan, T. R. (2010). Marine reserves as linked social–
ecological systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
107: 18262-18265.
98

 

Primack, R. B. (2010). Essentials of conservation biology (5th Ed.). Sunderland,
MA: Sinauer Associates.
PSP [Puget Sound Partnership] (2008). Puget Sound Action Agenda: Protecting
and restoring the Puget Sound ecosystem by 2020.
PSP [Puget Sound Partnership] (2012a). Marine Protection Workshop Summary.
Accessed from
http://www.mypugetsound.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=do
c_view&gid=1803&Itemid=172 January 10, 2013.
PSP [Puget Sound Partnership] (2012b). The 2012/2013 Action Agenda for
Puget Sound.
Roberts, C. M. (1995). Rapid build‐up of fish biomass in a Caribbean marine
reserve. Conservation Biology, 9: 815-826.
Roberts, C. M. (1997). Connectivity and management of Caribbean coral reefs.
Science, 278:1454-1457.
Roberts, C. M. (2000). Selecting marine reserve locations: optimality versus
opportunism. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66: 581-592.
Roberts, C.M., Andelman, S., Branch, G., Bustamante, R.H., Castilla, J.C. J.
Dugan, B.S…. & Warner, R.R. (2003b). Ecological criteria for
evaluating candidate sites for marine reserves. Supplement: The Science
of Marine Reserves. Ecological Applications, 13: S199 – S214.
Roberts, C. M., Bohnsack, J. A., Gell, F., Hawkins, J. P., & Goodridge, R.
(2001). Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science, 294:
1920-1923.
Roberts, C.M., Branch, G., Bustamante, R., Castilla, J.C., Dugan, S, Halpern,
B.S., …. & Warner, R. (2003a). Application of ecological criteria in
selecting marine reserves and developing reserve networks. Supplement:
The Science of Marine Reserves Ecological Applications, 13: S215 –
S228.
Roberts, C. M., Halpern, B., Palumbi, S. R., & Warner, R. R. (2001). Designing
marine reserve networks why small, isolated protected areas are not
enough. Conservation in Practice, 2: 10-17.
Roberts, C., & Hawkins, J. P. (2000). Fully-protected marine reserves: a guide
(Vol. 1250). Washington, DC: WWF Endangered seas campaign.
99

 

Roberts, C., Hawkins, J. & Gell, F. (2005). The role of marine reserves in
achieving sustainable fisheries. Philosophical Transactions: Biological
Sciences, 360: 123 – 132.
Rosenberg, A. A., & McLeod, K. L. (2005). Implementing ecosystem-based
approaches to management for the conservation of ecosystem services:
Politics and socio-economics of ecosystem-based management of marine
resources. Marine ecology. Progress series, 300: 271-274.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing
data. US: Sage Publications.
Russ, G. R. (2002). Yet another review of marine reserves as reef fishery
management tools. Coral reef fishes: dynamics and diversity in a
complex ecosystem. Academic Press, New York, p. 421-444.
Russ, G. R., & Alcala, A. C. (2011). Enhanced biodiversity beyond marine
reserve boundaries: The cup spillith over. Ecological Applications, 21:
241-250.
Saarman, E., Gleason, M., Ugoretz, J., Airamé, S., Carr, M., Fox, E., Frimodig,
A., Mason, T., & Vasques, J. (2013) The role of science in supporting
marine protected area network planning and design in California. Ocean
and Coastal Management, 74: 45-56.
Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and
the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy sciences, 21: 129-168.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition
framework: An assessment. In Sabatier, P. (Ed.), Theories of the Policy
Process. Westview Press, Boulder.
Sabatier, P. & Weible, C. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework:
Innovations and Classifications. In Theories of the Policy Process. 2nd
ed. Ed. P. Sabatier, 155-189. Boulder, CO: Westveiw Press.
Simberloff, D., & Abele, L. G. (1982). Refuge design and island biogeographic
theory: effects of fragmentation. American Naturalist, 120: 41-50.
Smith, J.L., Bailey, A., White, J. & Udelhoven, J. (2012). Marine protected
areas in Washington – a gap analysis to characterize protection. The
Nature Conservancy. Seattle, WA.
Soule, M. E., & Simberloff, D. (1986). What do genetics and ecology tell us
about the design of nature reserves? Biological conservation, 35: 19-40.
100

 

Spalding, M.D., Meliane, I., Milam, A., Fitzgerald, C., & Hale, L.Z. (2012).
Aichi Target 11: Reshaping the global agenda for MPAs. Policy brief for
The Nature Conservancy.
Sponaugle, S.,Walter, K.D., Grorund-Colvert, K. & Paddack, M.J. (2012).
Influence of marien reserves on reef fish recruitment in the upper Florida
Keys. Coral Reefs: 31: 641-652. DOI: 10.1007/s00338-012-0915-y
State of Washington, Substitute Senate Bill 6231, effective June 12, 2008.
Accessed from http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/200708/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/6231-S.FBR.pdf October 15, 2012.
Thom, R. M. (1980). Seasonality in low intertidal benthic marine algal
communities in central Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Botanica
Marina, 23: 7-12.
Thorsteinson, L., Hirsch, D., Helweg, D., Dhanju, A., Barmenski, J., & Ferrero,
R. (2011). Proceedings of a Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
Workshop for the Western United States. U. S. Geological Survey.
Treaty of Medicine Creek (1854). Retrieved from
http://stories.washingtonhistory.org/treatytrail/treaties/pdf/medicinecreek-treaty.pdf April 17, 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] (2013). Health of the Salish Sea
Ecosystem Report. Accessed from http://www2.epa.gov/salish-sea May
30, 2013.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2007). Washington Islands National Wildlife
Refuges: Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental
Assessment. Port Angeles, Washington.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed from
http://www.fws.gov/refuges/about/mission.html March 23, 2013.
United Nations Environment Program [UNEP] (2011). Taking steps toward
marine ecosystem-based management: an introductory guide.
United States of America v. State of Washington. 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D.
Washington 1974).
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, USA.
101

 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Recreational Shellfishing
Statewide Harvest Rules. Accessed from
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/shellfish/statewide_rules.html March 5,
2013.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (2013). Washington Natural
Areas Program. Accessed from
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/NaturalAreas/Pages/am
p_na.aspx#protection March 23, 2013.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (2011). Nisqually Reach
Environmental, Scientific and Educational Aquatic Reserve Management
Plan. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Aquatic
Resources Division, Olympia, WA.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (2013). Accessed from
http://www.dnr.wa.gov February 28, 2013.
Washington State Parks (2013). http://www.parks.wa.gov/plans/, Accessed July
3, 2013
Weible, C.M. & Sabatier, P.A. (2005). Comparing Policy Networks: Marine
Protected Areas in California. The Policy Studies Journal, 33: 181-202.
Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & Lubell, M. (2004). A Comparison of a
Collaborative and Top‐Down Approach to the Use of Science in Policy:
Establishing Marine Protected Areas in California. Policy Studies
Journal, 32: 187-207.
Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations:
Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies
Journal, 37: 121-140.
White House (2010) Executive Order 13547. Accessed from
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/Re
q-EO13547watersteward.pdf October 15, 2012.
Whitesell, E. A., Schroeder, F.W. & Hardison, P. (2007). Protecting
Washington’s Marine Environments: Tribal Perspectives. SeaDoc
Society.

102

 

Williams, G. D., Levin, P. S., & Palsson, W. A. (2010). Rockfish in Puget
Sound: an ecological history of exploitation. Marine Policy, 34: 10101020.
Williams, R., D. Lusseau, & P.S. Hammond (2006). Estimating relative
energetic costs of human disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca).
Biological Conservation, 133: 301 – 311.
Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S….
& Watson, R. (2006). Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem
services. Science, 314: 787-790.

103

 

Appendix A
Inventory of MPAs in Washington (Adapted from Van Cleave et al., 2009)
Managing
Agency
Owner/
Sponsor
Clallam
County
*

City of
Edmonds
WDNR

Reserve Name

Size (acres)

Shoreline
(feet)

Year
Est.

Protection
Level

Harvest
Restriction

Tongue Point Marine
Life Sanctuary/Salt
Creek Recreation
Area

24.71

9,181

1989

UML

ResAll

Edmonds Underwater
Park (Brackett’s
Landing)

46.90

2,185

1970

NTL

ProAll

Olympic Coast
National Marine
Sanctuary

309,112.72

1,310,915

1994

UML

NoRstr

Olympic National
Park
San Juan Island
National Historical
Park

0.00

333,301

1909

NIL

ResAll

1,752

36,976

1961

NIL

ResAll

Carkeek Park
Discovery Park
Emma Schmitz
Memorial Marine
Park
Golden Gardens
Marine Preserve Park
Lincoln Park Marine
Preserve
Richey Viewpoint
Marine Preserve

24.65
40.98
6.34

1,883
2,950
717

2005
2005
2005

ZNL
ZNL
ZNL

ResAll
ResAll
ResAll

13.87

1,431

2005

ZNL

ResAll

10.16

2,466

1922

ZNL

ResAll

11.58

1,686

2005

ZNL

ResAll

Middle Waterway
Olympic View
Resource Area

1.85
10.90

200
857

1997
1997

UML
UML

NoRstr
NoRstr

179,030

1907

NAL

ResAll

74.546

1915

ZML

ResAll

NOAA

NPS
*
WDNR*
City of
Seattle
WDFW*
WDFW*
WDFW*
WDFW*
WDFW*
WDFW*
City of
Tacoma
WDNR*
WADNR*
USWFS
*
!*

Copalis National
Wildlife Refuge
Dungeness National
Wildlife Refuge

1,004.04

104

 

Managing
Agency
Owner/
Sponsor
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Reserve Name

Flattery Rocks
National Wildlife
Refuge
Grays Harbor
National Wildlife
Refuge
Nisqually National
Wildlife Refuge
Protection Island
National Wildlife
Refuge
Quillayute Needles
National Wildlife
Refuge
San Juan Islands
National Wildlife
Refuge
Willapa National
Wildlife Refuge

Size (acres)

527.15

Shoreline
(feet)

Year
Est.

Protection
Level

Harvest
Restriction

84,465

1907

NAL

ResAll

26,500

1990

NIL

ProAll

58,161

1974

XML

ResAll

25,284

1982

NAL

ResAll

357,996

1907

NAL

ResAll

78,092

1960

NAL

ResAll

331,012

1936

ZML

ResAll

UW
FHL*

San Juan
County/Cypress
Island Marine
Biological Preserve

292,413.87

2,251,339

1923

UML

ResAll

Padilla Bay National
Estuarine Research
Reserve

12,074.87

150,926

1980

UML

NoRstr

Admiralty Head
Marine Preserve
Argyle Lagoon
Marine Preserve
Brackett’s Landing
Shoreline Sanctuary
Conservation Area
City of Des Moines
Park Conservation
Area
Colvos Passage
Marine Preserve
False Bay San Juan
Islands Marine
Preserve
Friday Harbor San
Juan Islands Marine
Preserve
Keystone Harbor
Conservation Area
McNeil Island
Wildlife Area

88.40

0

2002

UML

ResAll

13

3,252

1990

UML

46.90

2,185

1970

NTL

ProRec/
ResCom
ProAll

9.20

1,077

1998

NTL

ProAll

3.30

502

2000

UML

Res/Rec

94.70

14,560

1990

UML

ResAll

427.20

13,861

1990

UML

ResAll

11.40

673

2002

NTL

ProAll

0.00

56,341

1984

NAL

ProAll

WDOE

WDFW

UW
City of
Edmonds
City of Des
Moines
*
*
UW/FHL
UW/FHL

105

 

Managing
Agency
Owner/
Sponsor
*

WPRC
UW*
City of Des
Moines

Metro/Taco
ma

!
TNC/UW

*
WDNR
TNC*

*
*
*
*

Reserve Name

Size (acres)

Shoreline
(feet)

Year
Est.

Protection
Level

Harvest
Restriction

Octopus Hole
Conservation Area
Orchard Rocks
Conservation Area
Saltar’s Point Beach
Conservation Area
Saltwater Underwater
Park
Shaw Island San Juan
Islands Marine
Preserve
South 239th Street
Park Conservation
Area
Sund Rock
Conservation Area
Titlow Beach Marine
Preserve
Tolvia Shoal Closed
Area
Waketickeh Creek
Conservation Area
Yellow and Low
Islands Marine
Preserve
Zee’s Reef Marine
Preserve
Zella M. Schultz
Seabird Sanctuary

32.60

2,400

1998

NTL

ProAll

103.70

20

1998

NTL

ProAll

4.50

921

2000

NTL

ProAll

9.84

300

2009

UML

ResRec

432.50

17,177

1990

UML

ResAll

0.20

16

1998

NTL

ProAll

71.20

2,866

1994

NTL

ProAll

41.70

2,838

1994

UML

ResAll

162.50

2005

UML

ResAll

146.30

2000

NTL

ProAll

1990

UML

ResAll

2002

UML

ResAll

0.00

5,083

1975

NAL

ProAll

Bone River Natural
Area Preserve
Cherry Point Aquatic
Reserve
Cypress Island
Aquatic Reserve
Dabob Bay Natural
Area Preserve
Elk River Natural
Resource
Conservation Area
Fidalgo Bay Aquatic
Reserve
Gunpowder Island
Natural Area
Preserve
Kennedy Creek
Natural Area
Preserve
Maury Island Aquatic
Reserve

7.32

3.170

1987

NAL

ProAll

3,092.10

20,959

2000

UML

ResAll

5,982.96

101,592

2007

UML

ResAll

0.00

15,158

1987

NAL

ProAll

150.79

106.784

1986

UML

ResAll

694.62

14.189

2008

UML

ResAll

1981

NIL

ResAll

187.20

4,266

55.95

0.00
37.87

9.867

1990

NAL

ProAll

5,531.04

11,921

2000

UML

NoRstr

106

 

Managing
Agency
Owner/
Sponsor
*

*
*
*
*

Reserve Name

Size (acres)

Shoreline
(feet)

Year
Est.

Protection
Level

Harvest
Restriction

Niawiakum River
Natural Area
Preserve
Nisqually Reach
Aquatic Reserve
North Bay Natural
Area Preserve
Skookum Inlet
Natural Area
Preserve
Whitcomb Flats
Natural Area
Preserve
Woodard Bay
Natural Resources
Conservation Area

0.00

56,126

1987

NAL

ProAll

14,826

205,656

2011

UML

ResAll

409.87

7,742

1988

NAL

ProAll

57.18

3,524

1986

NAL

ProAll

NIL

ResAll

44.63

30,357

1987

UML

ResRec

Bay View State Park
Belfair State Park
Blake Island State
Park/ Underwater
Park
Blind Island Marine
State Park
Bottle Beach State
Park
Burrows Island State
Park
Cama Beach State
Park
Camano Island State
Park
Cape Disappointment
State Park
Clark Island State
Park
Cone Island State
Park
Cutts Island State
Park
Damon State Park
Dash Point State Park
Deception Pass State
Park/ Underwater
Park
Doe Island State Park
Dosewallips State
Park
Fay-Bainbridge State
Park
Fort Casey State Park

37.18
40.11
131.26

1,285
3,780
16,570

1924
1952
1974

UML
UML
UML

ResAll
ResAll
ResAll

1

1,280

1971

UML

ResAll

5.90

6,844

2008

UML

ResAll

0.51

11,939

1979

UML

ResAll

26.96

4,796

2008

UML

ResAll

46.69

6,700

1958

UML

ResAll

139.78

42,860

1938

UML

ResAll

3.47

11,292

1964

UML

ResAll

10.84

2,500

1973

UML

ResAll

2

2,100

1969

UML

ResAll

28.30
56.89
163.32

6,400
3,251
78.714

2002
1962
1925

UML
UML
UML

ResAll
ResAll
ResAll

2.45
229.47

2,050
5,500

1967
1954

UML
UML

ResAll
ResAll

10.39

1,420

1944

UML

ResAll

26.70

15,635

1980

NTL

ResAll

WPRC
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

107

 

Managing
Agency
Owner/
Sponsor
!*
!*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
USFWS*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Reserve Name

Size (acres)

Shoreline
(feet)

Year
Est.

Protection
Level

Harvest
Restriction

Fort Ebey State Park
Fort Flagler State
Park
Fort Ward State Park
Fort Worden State
Park
Griffiths Priday State
Park
Haley Property
Hope Island State
Park (Mason County)
Hope Island State
Park (Skagit County)
Huckleberry Island
State Park
Iceberg Island State
Park
Illahee State Park
James Island State
Park
Jarrell Cove State
Park
Joseph Whidbey
State Park
Kitsap Memorial
State Park
Kopachuck State
Park/ Underwater
Park
Larrabee State Park
Lilliwaup State Park
Manchester State
Park
Matia Island State
Park
McMicken State Park
Moran State Park
Mud Bay Tidelands
Mystery Bay State
Park
Old Fort Townsend
State Park
Olga State Park
Penrose Point State
Park
Pleasant Harbor State
Park
Possession Point
State Park
Potlatch State Park

17.07
121.48

7,400
19,100

1981
1955

UML
UML

ResAll
ResAll

13.40
21.73

4,300
11,020

1969
1965

UML
NTL

ResAll
ResAll

0

5,507

1952

NAL

ResAll

32.99
25.36

1,980
8,541

1978
1990

UML
UML

ResAll
ResAll

37.21

13,675

1925

UML

ResAll

10.00

2,900

1991

UML

ResAll

0.00

1,380

1976

UML

ResAll

10.05
15.45

1,785
12,335

1934
1964

UML
UML

ResAll
ResAll

6.41

3,506

1969

UML

ResAll

66.01

3,100

1982

UML

ResAll

4.44

1,797

1949

UML

ResAll

528.98

5,600

1972

UML

ResAll

14.61
20.70
20.65

8,100
4,122
3,400

1915
1961
1970

UML
UML
UML

ResAll
ResAll
ResAll

150.00

20,709

1959

ZNL

ResAll

12.70
8.12
73.37
6.65

3,361
13,840
11,360
685

1974
1921
1967
1972

UML
UML
UML
UML

ResAll
ResAll
ResAll
ResAll

20.04

8,810

1958

UML

ResAll

1.41
82.11

60
9,280

1962
1953

UML
UML

ResAll
ResAll

0.12

100

1955

UML

ResAll

19.47

2,500

2001

UML

ResAll

86.09

9,570

1960

UML

ResAll

108

 

Managing
Agency
Owner/
Sponsor
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Reserve Name

Size (acres)

Shoreline
(feet)

Year
Est.

Protection
Level

Harvest
Restriction

Right Smart Cove
State Park
Saddlebag Island
State Park
Saltwater State Park
Scenic Beach State
Park
Seashore
Conservation Area
Sequim Bay State
Park
Skull Island State
Park
South Whidbey State
Park
Spencer Spit State
Park
Stretch Point State
Park
Stuart Island State
Park
Sucia Island State
Park
Toandos Penninsula
Tidelands State Park
Tolmie State Park/
Underwater Park
Triton Cove State
Park
Twanoh State Park
Wolfe Property State
Park

0.71

200

1978

UML

ResAll

4.71

6,250

1974

UML

ResAll

0.00
6.95

1,445
1,487

1929
1963

NTL
UML

ResAll
ResAll

5,856.25

284,178

1967

UML

ResAll

16.34

4,909

1936

UML

ResAll

0.00

1,654

1960

ZNL

ResAll

21.03

4,500

1963

UML

ResAll

78.70

7,840

1967

UML

ResAll

5.37

610

1967

UML

ResAll

15.29

4,790

1952

UML

ResAll

229.15

77,700

1952

ZNL

ResAll

62.49

10,418

1967

UML

ResAll

25.02

1,800

1962

UML

ResAll

3.54

555

1990

UML

ResAll

9.73
124.83

3,167
16,092

1923
1967

UML
UML

ResAll
ResAll

* Indicates upland component associated with this MPA
! indicates seasonal protection

109

 

Inventory Key (Adapted from Van Cleave et al., 2009)
Column
Managing
Agency
Owner/Sponsor
Acreage
Shoreline
Protection Level
NAL
NIL
NTL
UML
ZML
ZNL
Harvest
Restrictions
NoRstr
ProAll
ProCom
ProRec
ResAll
ResCom
ResRec

Description
Agency involved in administering the area – typically
adopting laws, rules, or ordinances to create and manage
MPAs.
Agency or organization responsible for day to day
management of site, may also conduct monitoring or
develop a management plan.
Size of MPA including intertidal and subtidal areas.
Number of feet of shoreline included within MPA boundary
at ordinary high tide.
Measure of harvest restrictions within MPA.
No Access MPAs prohibit all human access to prevent
potential ecological disturbance.
No Impact MPAs allow human access, but prohibit all
activities that could harm resources or disrupt ecological or
.cultural services.
No-take MPAs allow human access but prohibit extraction
or significant destruction of natural or cultural resources.
Uniform multiple use MPAs offer a consistent level of
protection and allowable activities including certain
extractive uses.
Zoned multiple use MPAs allow some extractive activities
but use marine zoning to avoid use conflict and adverse
impacts.
Zoned multiple use with no-take areas are ZML MPAs that
contain at least one established zone where all resource
extraction is prohibited.
Any limitation on commercial or recreational harvest.
No restrictions to harvest
All harvest prohibited
Commercial harvest prohibited
Recreational harvest prohibited
All harvest restricted
Commercial harvest restricted
Recreational harvest restricted

110

 

Appendix B: Survey
Introduction
The purpose of this survey is to understand the perceptions of resource
managers and stakeholders regarding marine protected areas in the Puget
Sound.
The term MPA will be used throughout this survey in reference to Marine
Protected Areas, Aquatic Reserves, Marine Reserves, Marine Biological
Reserves, Conservation Areas, Natural Area Preserves, National Wildlife
Refuges, Marine Sanctuaries, Historical Parks, Marine Biological Preserves,
Research Reserves, Marine Preserves, Resource Areas, Wildlife Areas, Closed
Areas, Saltwater Underwater Parks and State Parks where marine or estuarine
resources are protected within that area.
Part I: Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Puget Sound MPAs
Washington State law defines a marine protected area as: A geographical
marine or estuarine area designated by a state, federal, tribal or local
government in order to provide long-term protection for part or all of the
resources within that area. (Substitute Senate Bill 6231, effective June 12,
2008)
1. Does this definition fit the goals and objectives of MPAs in the Puget
Sound?
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

2. I am aware of Puget Sound MPAs and their history:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

3. I believe that MPAs in the Puget Sound are effective in their current
state:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

4. Puget Sound MPAs should share common goals and objectives:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

5. Utilized properly, MPAs could be an effective tool to conserve and
manage marine resources in the Puget Sound:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
111


 

6. I believe that a network of no-take MPAs can and should be implemented
in Washington State:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Part II: Causes of problems with MPAs in the Puget Sound
Research has identified a number of factors important to the efficacy of MPAs.
For the questions below, please indicate the extent of your agreement that the
problem is one that limits the effectiveness of Puget Sound MPAs.
1. Puget Sound MPAs are arbitrarily placed:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

2. There are not enough MPAs in the Puget Sound:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

3. Puget Sound MPAs are too small:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

4. Fishing and gear restrictions in Puget Sound MPAs are too lenient:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

5. Puget Sound MPAs fail to include the types of habitat necessary for
species protection:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

6. We do not know enough about species and habitat in the Puget Sound to
identify the best location for MPAs:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

7. Puget Sound MPAs are not regularly monitored:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

8. Are there other problems with MPAs in the Puget Sound not addressed
here?
112

 

Part III: Potential Solutions for MPAs in the Puget Sound
1. Coordinating and clarifying establishment criteria will help MPAs in the
Puget Sound be more effective:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

2. Creating a coordinated network of MPAs in the Puget Sound is necessary
to improving the efficacy of protected areas:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

3. Designating authority to one agency or the legislature is part of the
solution to creating a successful network of MPAs:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

4. Designating authority to a group of representatives from many
management entities is part of the solution to creating a successful network
of MPAs:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

5. Finding common terminology for MPAs in the Puget Sound is important
to their success:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

6. Goals and objectives for MPAs should be consistent across managing
entities:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

7. A consistent monitoring plan across MPAs is crucial to their success:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

8. Habitat mapping and species diversity and abundance studies and
reports are necessary for the success of MPAs so that sites can be
prioritized:
Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

9. Are there solutions not addressed here you’d like to add?

113