Policy pivot in Puget Sound: Lessons learned from marine protected areas and tribally-led estuarine restoration

A 2018 paper in the journal Ocean and Coastal Management examines and compares planning approaches used to develop marine protected areas and estuary restoration projects in Puget Sound. It finds that management policies can benefit from increasingly collaborative planning with a focus on multiple benefits such as flood control, salmon recovery, recreation and resilience to climate change. 

A map of Marine Protected Areas within Puget Sound. Image courtesy of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
A map of Marine Protected Areas within Puget Sound. Image courtesy of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Abstract

Environmental change amplifies the challenge of protecting and restoring Puget Sound. As rising pressures from population growth, development, unsustainable resource use, climate impacts and other factors alter this urbanizing basin, efforts to recover salmon and ecosystem health and to enhance climate resilience face unprecedented social complexities and intensifying competition for space. A multi-method study of citizen and practitioner perspectives on protection and restoration suggests that capacity to manage under these conditions can be improved through strengthening an approach that has already become central in restoration practice: multiple-benefit planning. In this research, we examine and compare planning approaches used to develop marine protected areas (MPA) and estuary restoration (ER) projects in Puget Sound. Surveying non-tribal public attitudes toward these projects, we found limited knowledge concerning existing MPAs but support for wider use of such protections. We find that initiatives pursuing conservation, protection, restoration and resilience can gain advantage from (a) broadly inclusive and collaborative planning; (b) recognition of tribal treaty rights, management authorities, and leadership; (c) careful consideration and mitigation of project impacts on affected people (e.g. especially tribal and non-tribal fisheries for MPAs; farm interests and landowners for restoration projects). We note that “no-take” MPA designation has stalled, while ER efforts are overcoming sharp objections and controversies by crafting projects to deliver multiple social-ecological benefits: improved flood control and drainage, salmon recovery, recreational enjoyment, and resilience to climate change. Comparable strategies have not yet evolved in designation of “no-take” MPAs in Puget Sound. We offer conclusions and recommendations for accelerating conservation and resilience initiatives to keep pace with a changing environment. A key human dimensions research-based recommendation is that increasing environmental pressures intensify the need to strengthen collaborative and sustained planning and implementation processes.

Citation

Christie, P., Fluharty, D., Kennard, H., Pollnac, R., Warren, B., & Williams, T. (2018). Policy pivot in Puget Sound: Lessons learned from marine protected areas and tribally-led estuarine restoration. Ocean & Coastal Management163, 72-81.

Download the full article

About the Author: 
Patrick Christie (a), David Fluharty (b), Haley Kennard (c), Richard Pollnac (d), Brad Warren (e), Terry Williams (f): (a) School of Marine and Environmental Affairs and Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, Box 355685, Seattle, WA 98105, USA; (b) School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Box 355685, Seattle, WA 98105, USA; (c) Marc Hershman Marine Policy Fellow at the Makah Tribe, WA Sea Grant, 3716 Brooklyn Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98105, USA; (d) Department of Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island, Coastal Institute, 1 Greenhouse Road, Suite 205, Kingston, RI 02881-2020, USA; (e) National Fisheries Conservation Center, PO Box 39615, Seattle, WA 98103, USA; (f) Commissioner of Treaty Rights, Natural Resources Department, Tulalip Tribes, 6406 Marine Dr., Tulalip, WA 98271, USA.